BookTalk.org

Stahrwe
The answer is simple, many people on BT are saying untrue and baseless things about my family.

Who said what about your family?

Stahrwe
Those people are not willing to discuss those things rationally and reasonably and have taken extreme positions which are unsupportable.

This sounds more like you than anyone else here… in fact everyone who challenges the assertions made by you and the church nearly always supports their case with data… You on the other hand won’t even watch the videos you are trying to discredit… and your arguments consist of fallacies and unsupported attacks on peoples credibility more often than facts.

stahrwe
People certainly have a right to doubt and to question, but to reject the Bible, claim Jesus never existed, and charge nothing but evil and vileness to Christianity; that is a call to us to stand up to that.

Actually, we like you have the right to believe what we will… if that means that because of a lack of evidence we reject the Bible and the claims made within (Including the historic claim of the church for Jesus) than that is our right… and is a conclusion made on an intellectual level based off of the available evidence and knowledge of history, people and communication… you do not have to agree but attacking our position and blatantly derailing our discussions is immoral at the very least.

stahrwe
As long as people like Sam Harris are allowed to make outrageous statements about Christainity should we not have the right to answer those charges in the forums where they are heralded? As I write this there is an ongoing discussion of one of SH's books taking place on BT. A discussion I have been told not to participate in. Now, it is objected to that I participate here.

And I am the one who has been called a hypocrit?

You are a hypocrite; you do not see us disrupting your church service because we disagree with the creationist content… do you?

And make no mistake you do disrupt these conversations, you do not bring anything contrastive to the table in the vast majority of the topics that you post on... heck you will not even watch the video series of this very thread… yet you feel the need to comment on it (rather ignorantly I might add) in what appears to be an attempt to derail any constructive dialog.


Furthermore, you break the rules about preaching and quoting the whole of previous posts with apparently no respect for your fellow BT members, or the owner, who has warned you about such nonsense… furthermore you do not seem capable of learning, you keep regurgitating the same old, tired claims even when they have been refuted beyond all reason… you will not accept the intellectual/academic professional standards of evidence which everyone here but you subscribes to… showing us all that give and take discourse with you is impossible… you want us to accept your side of things but dismiss our information out of hand… even though our information is intellectually sound… unlike yours.

In short everyone here gives (at least) a little in their positions… except you… who apparently has the “ultimate truth”

Yes you are a hypocrite.

Later

tat tvam asi wrote:If no one ever quoted Stahrwe's posts and ignored him when he quotes the rest of us posting to one another and tries to butt into our posts, the troll will eventually die of starvation. I've seen a few trolls die like that at the Joseph Campbell foundation.

Good idea, I have resisted the temptation to address any more of the nonsense. He will think that means I have run out of arguments -- so be it. After all, to use Richard Dawkins' effective analogy, we wouldn't bother debating someone who insists they have a relationship with Thor, would we?

It's one thing to debate a reasonable theist, but a young earth creationist who thinks the Bible is infallible, all the while posting pages of crap from other sites? Worse than a total waste of time.

tat tvam asi wrote:
If no one ever quoted Stahrwe's posts and ignored him when he quotes the rest of us posting to one another and tries to butt into our posts, the troll will eventually die of starvation. I've seen a few trolls die like that at the Joseph Campbell foundation.

Good idea, I have resisted the temptation to address any more of the nonsense. He will think that means I have run out of arguments -- so be it. After all, to use Richard Dawkins' effective analogy, we wouldn't bother debating someone who insists they have a relationship with Thor, would we?

It's one thing to debate a reasonable theist, but a young earth creationist who thinks the Bible is infallible, all the whole posting pages of crap from other sites? Worse than a total waste of time.

Ok, I am on board… no more posts to stahrwe… I am done.

The bit about someone believing they have a personal relationship with Thor really drives it home. That really is the same utter nonsense we're facing here. That's the whole mythicist position in a nut shell - there's no reason to treat the Sumerian, Egyptian, Babylonian, Hindu, and Greek Gods and Godmen one way and give special pleading to the biblical myths. Especially considering how blatantly flimsy these gospel myths are in particular. The supernaturalism grew and evolved with time. The evidence shows as much. The editions to the texts completely give it away. And I really do think that there will come a day when people believing they have personal relationship with Jesus will become akin to those who would believe the same of Thor, or Zeus, or Horus, etc. This is a very pivotal time in history in my opinion. The evidence such as what we've seen in this video series (those who actually watched) should only gain in popularity.

I brought it here to BT because of the high level intellectual heavy weights that frequent these forums. Despite Stahrwe BT is a powerhouse in terms of comprehension and I'm glad that Robert turned me and the others from the FTN onto it. Stahrwe isn't strong enough to ruin the good thing you all have going. That's why I've quoted him as "Stahrweak". That about summarizes the arguments he brings. In the case of this thread he's been about the worst representation for the bible that I could imagine. These stupid apologies turn the youth away from the faith. That's what these liar's for the lord fail to understand. They hurt the faith far more than preserve and support it. Imagine some youths reading through this thread after having watched the video series first. What would Stahrwe look like to them? A powerhouse who represents the truth, the light, the strength, or some bumbling idiot blind as hell trying to act as a guide? The youth can see this for what it is. And it's hurting the fundamentalists cause. I was one of those youths whose eyes were opened by observing what happens to our apologists in debate and interogation. They are not wise, not strong, not powerful, and therfore not supported by any all powerful, all knowing, ever present God. It's the very opposite...

Frank 013 wrote:

Stahrwe
The answer is simple, many people on BT are saying untrue and baseless things about my family.

Who said what about your family?

Stahrwe
Those people are not willing to discuss those things rationally and reasonably and have taken extreme positions which are unsupportable.

This sounds more like you than anyone else here… in fact everyone who challenges the assertions made by you and the church nearly always supports their case with data… You on the other hand won’t even watch the videos you are trying to discredit… and your arguments consist of fallacies and unsupported attacks on peoples credibility more often than facts.

What data, what information? Lies and misinformation about Mithraism and Marcion? I don't even see much if any support for the gnostic position promoted by this discussion. We can't discuss the videos because there it no text provided to base the discussion on. On the other hand, I have provided references showing that the ideas about Marcion and Mithra promoted by Murdock et al, is false. You suggest I have not provided data, how many more citations would you like. I understand why Tat and RT expend effort defending Murdock but I don't understand why you do. Her position is so far from mainstream that supporters risk being ignored.

stahrwe
People certainly have a right to doubt and to question, but to reject the Bible, claim Jesus never existed, and charge nothing but evil and vileness to Christianity; that is a call to us to stand up to that.

Frank013 wrote:Actually, we like you have the right to believe what we will… if that means that because of a lack of evidence we reject the Bible and the claims made within (Including the historic claim of the church for Jesus) than that is our right… and is a conclusion made on an intellectual level based off of the available evidence and knowledge of history, people and communication… you do not have to agree but attacking our position and blatantly derailing our discussions is immoral at the very least.

Who is 'our'?
What a charmingly myopic chauvinistic attitude, awesome.

stahrwe
As long as people like Sam Harris are allowed to make outrageous statements about Christainity should we not have the right to answer those charges in the forums where they are heralded? As I write this there is an ongoing discussion of one of SH's books taking place on BT. A discussion I have been told not to participate in. Now, it is objected to that I participate here.

And I am the one who has been called a hypocrit?

frank013 wrote:You are a hypocrite; you do not see us disrupting your church service because we disagree with the creationist content… do you?

Many of you have expressed an opinion that you hate Christianity, long for the time when the world will be rid of it, and have expressed a desire to help that day come. In my view, that is reason enough to stand up ane point out your errors, and since when is doing so, in a discussion disruptive?

By the way, come on to church and disrupt if you wish. You would be welcome to stand up and say your piece.

frank013 wrote:And make no mistake you do disrupt these conversations, you do not bring anything contrastive to the table in the vast majority of the topics that you post on... heck you will not even watch the video series of this very thread… yet you feel the need to comment on it (rather ignorantly I might add) in what appears to be an attempt to derail any constructive dialog.

I don't know what to say to this. I have hundreds of pages where I have proposed contrasting information about creationism, epistemology, TEoG, Genesis, Exodus. I take exception to your statement and, in fact, most of my arguments are met not with contrasting argument but with, "is not," repeated over and over. This discussion is a good example. I posted two articles challenging the views expressed here about Marcion and the movie Zeitgeist. The response was not a discussion but another, 'is not,'

frank013 wrote:Furthermore, you break the rules about preaching and quoting the whole of previous posts with apparently no respect for your fellow BT members, or the owner, who has warned you about such nonsense… furthermore you do not seem capable of learning, you keep regurgitating the same old, tired claims even when they have been refuted beyond all reason… you will not accept the intellectual/academic professional standards of evidence which everyone here but you subscribes to… showing us all that give and take discourse with you is impossible… you want us to accept your side of things but dismiss our information out of hand… even though our information is intellectually sound… unlike yours.

You mean reproducing this post in its entirety? Fact is, I don't know how to respond other than point by point which requies the reproduction. And, once again, my claims have not bee refuted, in fact I have been told several times that it is up to me to produce evidence. When I produce evidence it is immediately deemed not acceptable evidence. That is not refutation it is EVASION especially when no explanation of what acceptable evidence would be is proffered though such a definition is requested.

frank013 wrote:In short everyone here gives (at least) a little in their positions… except you… who apparently has the “ultimate truth”

Yes you are a hypocrite.

Later

I never said I wasn't a hypocrite. I merely accused you of being one. I don't understand what about my participation in BT would qualify me for that appelation while in your case it is claiming to be a free thinker when you are not.

Dexter wrote:

tat tvam asi wrote:If no one ever quoted Stahrwe's posts and ignored him when he quotes the rest of us posting to one another and tries to butt into our posts, the troll will eventually die of starvation. I've seen a few trolls die like that at the Joseph Campbell foundation.

Good idea, I have resisted the temptation to address any more of the nonsense. He will think that means I have run out of arguments -- so be it. After all, to use Richard Dawkins' effective analogy, we wouldn't bother debating someone who insists they have a relationship with Thor, would we?

It's one thing to debate a reasonable theist, but a young earth creationist who thinks the Bible is infallible, all the while posting pages of crap from other sites? Worse than a total waste of time.

How many hospitals were founded in honor of Thor,
How many charities?
How many orphanages?
How many univerisities?
How many Churches?
How many Contatas?
How many great works of art?
How many alcoholics lives turned around?
How many Gospels?
...

tat tvam asi wrote:The bit about someone believing they have a personal relationship with Thor really drives it home. That really is the same utter nonsense we're facing here. That's the whole mythicist position in a nut shell - there's no reason to treat the Sumerian, Egyptian, Babylonian, Hindu, and Greek Gods and Godmen one way and give special pleading to the biblical myths. Especially considering how blatantly flimsy these gospel myths are in particular. The supernaturalism grew and evolved with time. The evidence shows as much. The editions to the texts completely give it away. And I really do think that there will come a day when people believing they have personal relationship with Jesus will become akin to those who would believe the same of Thor, or Zeus, or Horus, etc. This is a very pivotal time in history in my opinion. The evidence such as what we've seen in this video series (those who actually watched) should only gain in popularity.

I brought it here to BT because of the high level intellectual heavy weights that frequent these forums. Despite Stahrwe BT is a powerhouse in terms of comprehension and I'm glad that Robert turned me and the others from the FTN onto it. Stahrwe isn't strong enough to ruin the good thing you all have going. That's why I've quoted him as "Stahrweak". That about summarizes the arguments he brings. In the case of this thread he's been about the worst representation for the bible that I could imagine. These stupid apologies turn the youth away from the faith. That's what these liar's for the lord fail to understand. They hurt the faith far more than preserve and support it. Imagine some youths reading through this thread after having watched the video series first. What would Stahrwe look like to them? A powerhouse who represents the truth, the light, the strength, or some bumbling idiot blind as hell trying to act as a guide? The youth can see this for what it is. And it's hurting the fundamentalists cause. I was one of those youths whose eyes were opened by observing what happens to our apologists in debate and interogation. They are not wise, not strong, not powerful, and therfore not supported by any all powerful, all knowing, ever present God. It's the very opposite...

The Thor thing is weak as shown above. The intellectual heavy weight is a dream as shown by the restriction on participation on book discussion to only those people who won't point out obvious errors in books. The fact that TEoG ignored THE foundational event in Jewish history, an event that provided a different, and contradictory explanation to the premise of the book, and that the author of the book punted the question when asked, IMHO shows the .... well, nevermind.

I would like to restate and add to two main arguments that I have made earlier in this thread.

1. Christianity has a hidden cosmic sub-text that provides a high level of explanatory power for the documents and the history. The idea of Jesus Christ as the avatar of the Age of Pisces has a simple empirical foundation in the observation that the spring equinox precessed from the constellation of Aries into the constellation of Pisces at the time of Christ. Astrology was very widespread in the ancient Roman world, and provides the empirical and symbolic basis for the Christian Gnostic idea of the Aeon, or age, that pervades the New Testament. This empirical vision of Ages of the Zodiac has an elegant, simple, systematic and parsimonious match to the vision of Jesus Christ as the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end. We do not need to buy into any astrological claims to see that this is the most persuasive scientific explanation of why the Bible writers thought as they did. If we start from this empirical cosmic framework we can start to see how an original Docetic faith in Christ as cosmic redeemer was corrupted into literal history by the church. Docetism, the ancient heresy that Jesus is just a spirit, was systematically eliminated from view and from history by the power of the church, but provides a compelling explanation of the hidden cosmic foundations of Christian faith. Once the church had climbed to the top of the Docetic ladder they kicked it away as it no longer served their purpose.

2. Fraudulent revision of history is rife. I have referred to the classic novel Don Quixote by Cervantes and his mocking claim that the fictional romances of medieval chivalry, where knights in shining armour save damsels in distress, are just as true as holy scripture. The fictional method that was so wildly popular in the Middle Ages contained as a major element the claim that its stories were historically true, and had often been found in some dusty cupboard by the writer. This method did not come from nowhere, but builds upon the foundation of 'holy scripture', and the observation that the success of the Bible rested on its purported authenticity. If you admit you are making it up no one will listen, except as entertainment like science fiction. As Orwell says, 'who controls the present controls the past; who controls the past controls the future." The claim that fictional texts are historically accurate is an immensely powerful means of exercising social control. The decisive innovation in the New Testament was the realisation that a purely mythic or Docetic account of a saving Christ lacked popular traction as a basis for a new mass religion. By including as part of the myth that the story was historically factual, the church suddenly found a political power that an accurate account would have lacked. This is why Saint Paul's epistles, if read as the founding texts, are basically compatible with a Docetic spiritual reading of Christ, but readers of Paul, buying into the cosmic vision of Colossians 1:16 ("For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth") saw that this cosmic Christ was impotent until he was historized. As a result they elaborated the entirely fictional accounts of Jesus Christ that we have in the Gospels.

These points illustrate the complexity of understanding and discussing this material. You could say that my account here is entirely atheistic, as it seeks to explain Christian origins in purely natural terms. However, that is too simplistic. I feel that many atheists have a big chip on their shoulder about Christian faith, an anger about themselves and others being deceived, leading to the popular atheist agenda of saying that Christianity is entirely wrong and baseless. I prefer to argue that the Bible allows us to see "through a glass darkly", dimly groping towards an actual cosmic vision that has been forgotten and suppressed but in truth sits at the foundation and origin of Christian faith as the ultimate source of its power and truth.

Yeah Robert, it does appear that a symbolic gnostic oriented teaching was given historical trappings over time which resulted in the pauline epistles, Marcions gospel, and then the Gospels all showing up into the historical record during the second century. The cosmic symbols are there and the Gnostics used cosmic symbolism based on old teachings from the Babylonians, Greeks, Egyptians, and Vedic Yugas. John for instance, appears to be an Alexandrian creation aimed at bringing Gnostics into the orthodoxy. And it appears into history during the second century. That's Stahrwe's great evangelical roots. The roots are grounded in lies and corruption. And so how surprising was it in the Joe Coffey thread when I took out the bible and challenged Stahrwe's boastful evangelical claims, all of which boiled down to taking the bible out of context to promote a lie. The whole evangelical movement amounts to nothing short of a corrupt agenda from the very beginning. A tough pill to swallow for boastful evangelicals no doubt...

Just to remind us where we are at, Tat posted this start to the thread:

"Here's an excellent video series outlining the problem of first century Gospel dating. I'm posting the 25 part series and it's well worth watching for those interested in understanding the ins and outs of why first century dating is based on wishful thinking at best:"

The very first response to this was from Stahrwe and this is what he said:
"More trash?"

Who is bullying who here?