To: Solon who wrote (16491 ) 3/3/2004 6:55:53 PM From: briskit Read Replies (1) | Respond to This will again be brief with company here. It isn't particularly significant to me that there are many beliefs, including atheism, materialism, etc., around the world, and that various beliefs attract adherents because they are the cultural or sub-cultural majority or a reaction against it. To this point we have been discussing whether myth, or literature with mythological elements, can also be considered to have a historicity, a significant basis in having happened. Or, if we do not have records in a history book, we must dismiss any event as impossible. I wonder how much we would have to eliminate on that basis? I have not derided other beliefs (except JMannuel's claim to priority). The world religions and cultural religious expressions are a different and vast subject than what I thought we were talking about. I don't think there is much cheese at the end of that tunnel either. But on these matters I do not see how we can agree on even the presuppositions necessary for a dialog. Should god appear, say as George Burns in "O, God," he would be quickly explained away as impossible and irrational, unscientific, not surprisingly as he was in the movie. That rules out any of the "historical religions," which we could rule out other ways if we wanted. They didn't immediately distinguish themselves from their neighbors in certain bloody rituals. A true religious encounter with a god would have addressed that immediately, etc. How insulting that a god might presume to ask us to make a sacrifice (animals, or "obedience" to anything but ourselves for that matter. But let's not get into all that, really. It was just part of the example.) Explanations abound for everything, and every belief has its advocates. If one allows for possibilities of a human-god interface, any discussion must be supported by scientific data, or very nearly I suppose. Apparently there is no way to distinguish between any literature on the topic of god that exhibits mythological aspects (unless it is Eastern, perhaps, which is more in vogue.) Distinctions between mythological literatures are subjective and self-serving. There is really no point to the discussion because there was no historical Jesus, but only a "borrowed, or stolen, composite" about which nothing can be known except fabrications that fools contrived to advance themselves. I appreciate faith in rationality and do not begrudge you any of it, if it seems I do. Congrats on the long walk. Quite an accomplishment.
