Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
As if the tea party movement needed to get any more ridiculous, a teabagger from Redding, California named Merry Hyatt wants to make the singing of Christmas carols mandatory in public schools. Seriously.
Merry Hyatt has found allies in her quest to put an initiative on the ballot next year requiring public schools to play Christmas carols.Hyatt, who moved to Redding four months ago, said she joined the Redding Tea Party Patriots and recruited several members to help her collect the 433,971 signatures needed by March 29.
She'll no doubt find fertile ground for planting such an idiotic idea. Wait till you see the brilliant arguments being made in favor of the idea:
"Bottom line is Christmas is about Christmas," said Erin Ryan, president of the Redding Tea Party Patriots. "That's why we have it. It's not about winter solstice or Kwanzaa. It's like, 'wow you guys, it's called Christmas for a reason.' "Ryan said Hyatt's initiative falls under the umbrella of causes the group supports, which concern limited government, following the constitution and fiscal responsibility.
Um. How, exactly, does having the government make singing Christmas carols mandatory in schools make the government more limited?
Hyatt, a substitute teacher who moved to Redding from Riverside, said her motivation for the initiative was to help restore children's moral compasses by inviting Jesus to school Christmas parties."He's the prince of peace; he's the only one who can get these kids to stop being so violent," she said in November.
Riiight. Which explains why the United States, which is far more Christian than any other Western industrialized nation -- by a huge margin -- is also by far the most violent of those nations. But thank you for ducking in to the punch of the Lemon test's purpose prong.
Hyatt said she believes it is Americans' First Amendment right to worship."It's our right to have freedom to worship," she said. "That's why we came to this country. They came to be Christians and they're trying to take that away. They're out of line; we're not."
Of course the first amendment protects your right to worship. But that has precisely nothing to do with what's taught in school. There's a word for those who can't understand the distinction: Idiots.
It's not the government's job to provide you a place to worship. It's certainly not the government's job to force non-Christians to take part in your worship activities - that's forbidden by that same first amendment you seem to like so much when it suits your purposes.
Politics
Comments
Why not have everyone sing Christmas carols? Now everyone...
Jingle bells, jingle bells
batman smells, and robin laid an egg
the bat-mobile lost a wheel and the joker got a way, yeah...
I assuming that that's what she meant. Because if she meant that Paul McCartney's "Wonderful Christmastime", she should be dragged into the street and shot. Normally, I would not advocate violence, but in this case it would be for the public good. Forcing kids to sing and parents to listen to that song would lead to a pandemic of suicides. The population in some areas would be reduced by half, with the remain half of the population suffering from balance issues stemming from self-inflicted ear injuries. She must be stopped.
Posted by: holytape | December 10, 2009 9:48 AM
In a related bit of foolishness, my cousin linked to a Facebook poll about Obama lighting a Holiday tree instead of a Christmas tree, complete with misspelled outrage. Even a direct link to the whitehouse.gov video was not enough to shut him up.
Posted by: BobApril | December 10, 2009 9:55 AM
Ugh, I hear tons of wingnuts crying about the "war on Christmas", yet I never hear anyone actually crying about Christmas in the first place. There's a group of people in my office who will hear the word "Christmas", and then start bitching about how some vague, made-up Other is trying to stop them from saying it, yet no one has ever actually said that they shouldn't say it. They're hyper-defensive for no reason at all.
Posted by: catgirl | December 10, 2009 9:55 AM
She's a complete moron. Everyone knows that Christmas is about buying stuff, like books and violent video games with violence, that I'll get around to reading and playing in June, when my thesis is finished.
Posted by: History Punk | December 10, 2009 9:57 AM
Ya, my favorite "carols" as a kid were Frosty the Snowman and It's Beginning to Look Alot Like Christmas... 'cause of the toys that are mentioned... also Up on the Housetop... anything that mentions the true meaning of Christmas... SANTA!
ok, technically those are "christmas songs" not "carols", but how many people out there know the difference between the two? And I'd like someone to explain to me the moral imperitives in carols like "the holly and the ivy" (verse one is just nuts... the holly and the ivy/when they are first full grown/of all the trees that are in the wood/the holly bears the crown//the rising of the sun/and the running of the deer/the playing of the merry organ/sweet singing in the choir)
Posted by: kate | December 10, 2009 10:00 AM
Time to haul this one out again--
From the Cape of Good Hope to the Newfoundland islands,
The sands of Iran to the Panama isthmus;
From Outback Australia to Inverness Highlands
It’s time to take arms in the War Against Christmas!
My weapons are mistletoe, Christmas trees, holly,
A yule-log, and caroling out in the snow;
Sleigh-rides and snowball-fights, eggnog and Jolly
Old Santa Claus, laughing his loud “Ho! Ho! Ho!”
We’ll make them forget all the Truth of the season—
The sacrifice planned by a god up above—
And have them believing some bastardized reason
Like giving, or kindness, or caring or love!
I’ll cruelly and callously help out a stranger
Who’s down on his luck or has suffered some loss,
I won’t even speak of the babe in the manger
Whom God sent to Earth to get nailed to a cross;
When the winds of December conspire to freeze us
I’ll help collect sweaters and coats for the poor,
Neglecting to make any mention of Jesus,
Whose torture is really what Christmas is for.
My hatred of Christmas will focus my labors
On weaving an atheist fabric of lies—
For instance, I’m giving to all of my neighbors
Gift baskets, cookies, and fruitcakes and pies!
I’ll say “Merry Christmas!” I’ll say “Season’s Greetings!”
I’ll say “Happy Holidays—Joyous Noel!”
Intending of course, that with each of these meetings
The Truth About Christmas can just go to hell.
The truth is that Christmas is not about presents
It’s no time for songs, It’s not time to be nice
It’s not time for feasting on turkeys or pheasants—
It’s sin, and redemption by blood sacrifice.
No time to be jolly; no time to be merry
It’s time to be solemn, and grim, and devout!
The heathens might find it depressing or scary
But that is what Christmas is truly about.
Yes, Jesus is really the ultimate reason
And Christmas is really redemption and sin;
The war against Christmas is early this season—
For God’s sake, let’s hope that the atheists win!
http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2008/11/war-on-christmas-comes-early.html
Posted by: Cuttlefish | December 10, 2009 10:17 AM
Jingle bells, Batman smells,
Robin laid an egg.
Blows his nose in Cheerios
And eats it every day!
Posted by: Martin | December 10, 2009 10:21 AM
Kate,
Purely out of boredom and my own falible memory I'll try to answer your point about the holly and the ivy.
1) Carols are not meant to have moral imperatives, they are meant to celebrate a time of year. There apparently used to be Easter and midsummer carols as well and dances to go with them.
2)The holly and the ivy is rumoured to be so weird because it refers to medieval myths that are not widely known these days.
Posted by: Matty | December 10, 2009 10:22 AM
It limits the government to promoting her ideals. Right now it's only limited to promoting those in the constitution, which is obviously far too broad.
Posted by: Abby Normal | December 10, 2009 10:34 AM
But you only have one Christmas carol, 'Joy to the World'. The kids are going to get very bored very quickly.
During the two Christmases that spent in the United States the endless loop in shopping malls, in fact virtually everywhere, destroyed more brain cells than regular amounts of Caol Isla, that I use to try and forget the experience, ever will
Posted by: JohnM55 | December 10, 2009 10:34 AM
matty- holly and ivy probably go back to a more pagan yule festival where evergreen plants were a focal part of the celebrations (easter also has pagan roots as well)
Posted by: symball | December 10, 2009 10:38 AM
Really? Her name is "Merry?" Does she just want Christmas carols sung because they mention her name all the time and she wants to feel important?
Posted by: Jeff | December 10, 2009 10:39 AM
So the "true meaning of Christmas" is actually about... Batman? I didn't know that...
As for me I'm all in favor of the mandatory singing of "O Tannenbaum", "White Christmas", and of course "Merry Xmas everybody" by Slade.
Posted by: Christophe Thill | December 10, 2009 10:40 AM
Does anyone remember back in the 80s when Letterman (on Late Night on NBC) did a "quiz" on traditional Thanksgiving rituals?
For the a, b, c, choices for the most traditional Thanksgiving song, "Over the River and Through the Woods" was choice (a), some other old family favorite was (b)...
...and then (c) was "All the Young Dudes" by Mott the Hoople. Awesome.
Posted by: cm | December 10, 2009 10:55 AM
Coincidently I brought a Christmas CD to work today. I wonder how Merry and Erin would feel about some of my holiday carols, like:
Walking ‘round in Women’s Underwear
Hey! You! Get Off Of My House
Rasta The Snowmon
And who can forget that instant classic, There’s a Santa Who Looks A Lot Like Elvis
Posted by: Abby Normal | December 10, 2009 10:56 AM
"But thank you for ducking in to the punch of the Lemon test's purpose prong."
Ducking into it? Ed, I think she ran across the ring, did one of those WWF-style "use the ropes as a spring to propel me" moves, and ran into Lemon at full speed.
But while we're on the subject of mandatory praise of other people's deities of choice: I think Zooey Deschanel is beautiful enough to call a goddess. Would you all mind signing my petition to compel all federal, state and local employees to begin their work days with a prayer to Zooey?
Thank you kindly, and may Zooey have mercy on your soul.
Posted by: Barry21 | December 10, 2009 11:14 AM
Are we not forgetting Scrooge. He wasn't mean, he was just a paragon or puritan virtue, and like the very same unlikable religious gimps that founded this country, he thought christmas was an unholy corruption of gods message. So lets wish them all a puritan christmas, they started the war.
Or start calling it Mithrasmas. That could be fun. :)
Posted by: Marcus | December 10, 2009 11:15 AM
Does he know that the group he's referring to in "That's why we came to this country. They came to be Christians and they're trying to take that away" were against Christmas celebrations?
"How, exactly, does having the government make singing Christmas carols mandatory in schools make the government more limited?"
It's "limited" in the sense that limited government should be limited to promoting his point of view. Obviously.
holytape "Because if she meant that Paul McCartney's "Wonderful Christmastime", she should be dragged into the street and shot."
Even if it's sung by Venture Brothers' Henchmen 21 & 24?
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 10, 2009 11:17 AM
Yes, Mithrasmas is perfect. The sooner the truth is realized that Jesus never existed, the better.
Posted by: Freethinker | December 10, 2009 11:22 AM
Ryan said Hyatt's initiative falls under the umbrella of causes the group supports, which concern limited government, following the constitution and fiscal responsibility.
It sure does.
1. It removes the responisibility of the government to "educate" kids for the period of time they spend singing. Classes such as "World History" or "Government" will be removed from the school's responsibility, thus leaving more for the parents to teach.
2. "Following the Constitution" in this context refers to a game tea partiers play where one person picks up a copy of the Constitution and runs around the room with it. Everyone else chases them until it's caught and burned in effigy. It's quite a popular party game.
3. The school needs not buy expensive textbooks anymore, as those classes will be replaced by "Caroling", which uses a $3 songbook and a Hymnal graciously donated by the Gideons.
Posted by: Odie | December 10, 2009 11:31 AM
I hear you, catgirl. I've always felt the "war on Christmas" is a defensive smokescreen for the war of culture dominance.
Anglo Christians feel that their culture is entitled to dominate this country. Everyone else is fine, as long as they stay quietly in their ghettos and their closets, have their own cable channels (that don't come with the basic package), and don't challenge the Anglo Christians for the "top spot."
Ever since other groups have begun asserting themselves for cultural and social recognition equal to that of the Anglo Christians, they've played the victim card. They feel the threat to their cultural "top spot" is very real and holiday time is when it's the most clearly defined. The people in your office may not be able to pin down the Vague Other, but they're threatened and defensive anyway.
Clearly, Christians aren't so great at sharing! :)
Posted by: DonZilla | December 10, 2009 11:36 AM
Let's call 'em P-FATWA: People for a Theocratic White America.
Posted by: Katharine | December 10, 2009 11:38 AM
Odie "2. "Following the Constitution" in this context refers to a game tea partiers play where one person picks up a copy of the Constitution and runs around the room with it. Everyone else chases them until it's caught and burned in effigy. It's quite a popular party game."
I should note that it's a harder game than it sounds, as you get detention if the Second Amendment gets burned.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 10, 2009 11:41 AM
I suspect that the list of "limited government, following the Constitution, and fiscal responsibility" isn't meant to be exhaustive. Pushing their own religion on everyone else is probably on the full list.
Freethought, there's no good evidence that Mithras was born on December 25. Sol Invictus clearly was born on Dec 25, but there's no evidence that this birthday was actually celebrated until fairly late (certainly no evidence for such a celebration until after the time of Jesus). Saturnalia is a better comparison which was celebrated the week leading up to the 25th and was unambiguously around before Christianity.
Incidentally, the scholarly consensus is that it is more likely than not that Jesus did exist although most would agree that the evidence for such existence is not terribly strong.
Just because various extreme religious groups construct their own urban legends and ahistoric claims doesn't mean that more rational people should do likewise.
Posted by: Joshua Zelinsky | December 10, 2009 11:41 AM
♪ deck the halls with gasoline
fa la la la la, &c
strike a match and watch it gleam
fa la la, and so on
see the schoolhouse burn to ashes
fa la la la la, ... ♫
and yeah, The Holly and the Ivy most likely makes no sense because it's been bowdlerized to not sound as obviously pagan as it probably started out. i've heard some neo-pagan remakes of it that, while i still don't quite grok the symbology they use, at least make more sense than the commonly played version.
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | December 10, 2009 11:44 AM
Just remember, folks, the real reason tea-baggers celebrate X-mas: to commemorate the one case in all of recorded history in which abstinence didn't work! They keep saying it's 100% effective, but every year they trot out this story about the virgin Mary....
Ask them to explain this apparent contradiction sometime -- the results are sure to amuse.
Rt
Posted by: Roadtripper | December 10, 2009 11:44 AM
I wonder if Ms. Hyatt obtained a partial name change to align herself more fully with the spirit of the season.
And awesome comment, Donzilla (#21).
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 10, 2009 11:49 AM
Does this mope realize that most carols are fairly secular in nature, and lack references to God or Christ?
If so, is she going to call for bans on "Jingle Bells" or "Winter Wonderland" sung in public schools because they are obvious liberal plots that don't pay homage to our lord and savior?
Note: And by "lord and savior" I mean Vishnu.
Posted by: CHV | December 10, 2009 11:51 AM
inviting Jesus to school Christmas parties.
Alright! I can totally get behind this idea. Free wine for the school kids!
Posted by: joz | December 10, 2009 11:51 AM
History Punk:
How right you are. www.standforchristmas.com
Posted by: Mandrake | December 10, 2009 11:58 AM
Just to throw in another delightful Christmas tune:
"The Night Santa Went Crazy" by Weird Al Yankovic
Posted by: Monimonika | December 10, 2009 12:09 PM
Abby Normal @15: Rasta the Snowmon! What is this CD and where can I get it?
One my personal Christmas favorites is Spinal Tap's "Christmas With the Devil."
Posted by: Mandrake | December 10, 2009 12:10 PM
I'm a big fan of "White Christmas"...also "The Christmas Song", "Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer", "Holly Jolly Christmas", "I'll Be Home for Christmas", "Silver Bells", "It's the Most Wonderful Time of the Year", and "Let It Snow!".
All of those songs have something in common, by the way. Any guess as to who wrote 'em?
Posted by: greymav | December 10, 2009 12:38 PM
OK, just to celebrate the season properly, next up on my MP3 player is Jethro Tull's Christmas album, followed by the Arrogant Worms' "Christmas Turkey". And we should teach them to all the kiddies.
And DonZilla @21: What you said.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | December 10, 2009 12:39 PM
"He's the prince of peace; he's the only one who can get these kids to stop being so violent,"
So the answer is to use the violence of the state to force Jesus into kids hearts. Then they won't be violent (and never get into government).
Posted by: Juice | December 10, 2009 12:40 PM
Has anyone seen What would Jesus Buy?
Posted by: Naughtius Maximus | December 10, 2009 12:45 PM
This woman (and her ilk) are on a collision course with pragmatism: the more "Christmas" becomes part of the secular world, the more secular it becomes. The brilliant Cuttlefish at #6 has it exactly right (and in verse, too.) Jesus doesn't matter to the spirit of Christmas.
What, do they think non-Christians will sing about Jesus and convert? No; the babe in the manger only takes on the same characteristics as the man in the red suit or the snowman with the magic hat. It's a story you don't have to believe, or even care about. There are others.
If they really wanted to "keep the Christ in Christmas" they'd be trying to take 'Christmas' away from non-Christians. Christmas for everyone has no religious meaning. It's almost as though they think the word itself has the magic power to invoke worship. Yeah, it really helped Estre the ancient goddess of spring.
Posted by: Sastra | December 10, 2009 12:54 PM
More people who fail at logic. I have a new ballot measure to propose, one that requires that every high school in the US be required to teach at least 4 semesters of logic, reasoning, and critical thinking, so we can reduce the number of idiots like Merry Hyatt, and remove their audience.
Posted by: Madrocketscientist | December 10, 2009 12:56 PM
At least the vast majority of the comments on the original site are totally against the idea, even the ones from self-described conservatives. There's some hope in that, but honestly, how can anyone trusted in front of kids under any circumstances (even as a substitute teacher) be so obtuse?
Posted by: MS | December 10, 2009 1:02 PM
They could always force the kids to sing "Father Christmas" by the Kinks. Now there's some fine Christmas music. Or maybe Billy Idol's "Yellin' at the Xmas Tree," about his father coming home drunk every Christmas Eve. Good Christmas listening!
Posted by: Orac | December 10, 2009 1:03 PM
OK greymav, I can't resist! I can't remember their exact names without researching, but I'm guessing some nice Jewish boys wrote ALL of those :)
Posted by: DonZilla | December 10, 2009 1:05 PM
Mandrake @32
I ripped it over a decade ago from a Christmas album my boss at the time had. As I recall it was part of a box set consisting of 3 CD’s. The first two contained typical traditional Christmas songs I don't really remember. The third CD was Cracked Christmas, or Bah Humbug, or something like that. It had lots of excellent not-so-traditional songs.
I’m afraid that’s all I remember and so far my web searches haven’t turned anything up. Though I'm pretty sure it's not the Jim Corbett version.
Here are some of the notable lyrics, near as I can make them out. Perhaps you'll have better luck than I did tracking them down.
Rasta da Snowmon was a man made of snow
Now he’s just a puddle of H2O
The music caught his ear he began to dance and sway
But the music got too hot and he began to melt away
Posted by: Abby Normal | December 10, 2009 1:06 PM
What's wrong with requiring school kids to sing this?
(Walt Kelly, you are still sorely missed!)
Deck us all with Boston Charlie,
Walla Walla, Wash., an' Kalamazoo!
Nora's freezin' on the trolley,
Swaller dollar cauliflower alley-garoo!
...
Posted by: Mal Adapted | December 10, 2009 1:08 PM
How is the "scholarly consensus" in any way meaningful if it's not grounded in evidence? If one said "the scientific consensus is that global warming is happening, although most [scientists] would agree that the evidence for such is not terribly strong" they would be laughed off the stage. It's not any sort of meaningful rational finding at that point, it's just an assumed premise.
Saying Jesus is a legend is in no way a method of "construct[ing]...urban legends and ahistoric claims" when the ones agreeing that he likely existed are doing so in the almost complete lack of evidence outside a collection of mythology. Their assuming a premise in the lack of evidence is no more a "historic" claim than the claim that Jesus did not actually exist. If you did not intend to apply the portion I quoted to the existence of Jesus, you can ignore this second paragraph.
Posted by: Paul | December 10, 2009 1:08 PM
to the tune of Joy to the World...
Don't chew the world
the world's not gum
It's dirt
It's dis-gus-ting!
It wo-ont blo-ow bubbles
It's mo-ost-le-ey ru-ubble
Try Wrigley's for chewing
Try Wrigley's for chewing
Try Wri-i-i-gley's for chewing
thankewevurymuch
Posted by: bybelknap, FCD | December 10, 2009 1:31 PM
Hey Mandrake #32 and AbbyNormal #42
The songs are from Bob River's Twisted Tunes (And specifically from his Twisted Christmas albums. there are several, and they are very good. Bob has a local radio morning show here in Seattle.
The URL for his site is BobRivers.com (It includes a Twisted Xmas Radio player (Yes, Xmas!) so you can listen online right now)
Posted by: Giles | December 10, 2009 1:32 PM
I was always partial to the Kinks.
Father Christmas, give us some money
Don't mess around with those silly toys
We'll beat you up if you don't hand it over
We want your bread so don't make us annoyed
Give all the toys...to the little rich boys...
And maybe after all the kids sing that one, they can learn the words to "Lola." Heh.
Posted by: eric | December 10, 2009 1:38 PM
I grew up in Quebec, Canada in the 1960s and 70s and attended the Protestant schools, which were the public schools for all non-Catholics. We sang Protestant hymns every morning, along with "Oh, Canada!" or "God Save the Queen!" even though about 40% of the kids were Jewish and about 20% were Hindu, Buddhist, Moslem and other assorted types. If it was supposed to make me into an Anglican or Presbyterian it failed dismally. I do recall, though, that we looked forward to the Christmas carols as a change from the dismal hymns we sang the rest of the year.
Therefore, I support Ms Hyatt's proposal on the grounds that the surest way to guarantee that the next generation grows up as atheists or agnostics is to force them to sing religious songs in school.
Posted by: JusticeLeague | December 10, 2009 1:38 PM
They came to be Christians and they're trying to take that away.
Really? Then it's a good thing Oliver Cromwell changed his mind about emigrating to Massachusetts, so that his government of Saints got to abolish Christmas celebrations in England instead of America.
Just sayin'.
Posted by: chris y | December 10, 2009 1:41 PM
Basically it means that the Christian historians bitched so much about the question that the remaining historians figured "fuck it."
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 10, 2009 1:58 PM
I second JusticeLeague's motion, with the amendment that Christian carols be made mandatory at shopping malls instead of schools. The Christian carols are a LOT less disgusting, and a LOT more uplifting, than all of the secular modern carols that do nothing but try to enforce fake generic "good cheer" on everyone.
If it rids us of such execrable soul-deadening crap as "It's the Most Wonderful Time of the Year" (sez who -- it's WINTER ferfucksake), "Holly Jolly Christmas," "Jingle Bell Rock," and the absolute worst, "Baby's First Christmas," I'm all for it. As JL said, the loss to religious freedom would be relatively minor.
And while we're at it, can we just round up the ad-men who are trying to convince us that diamonds are the perfect Christmas gift, and make them dig their own graves before we shoot them?
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 10, 2009 2:07 PM
I wanted to make my point without assuming bad faith from the "consensus", but yes, that's basically how I view the issue.
Posted by: Paul | December 10, 2009 2:13 PM
Giles and Abby Normal: Thanks for the info. I've got to check out those songs.
DonZilla@41: Irving Berlin, a nice Jewish boy, wrote "White Christmas."
Posted by: Mandrake | December 10, 2009 2:18 PM
@ greymav
[i]All of those songs have something in common, by the way. Any guess as to who wrote 'em?[/i]
White Christmas - Irving Berlin
Rudolph, Holly Jolly - Johnny Marks
Christmas Song - Mel Torme
Let it Snow - Sammy Cahn
Silver Bells - Two guys I've never heard of.
Most Wonderful Time - Two other guys I've never heard of.
I'll be Home - Three other guys I've never heard of.
What do they have in common?
Posted by: Salmo | December 10, 2009 2:20 PM
Of course, the holiday celebrates the birth of a nice Jewish boy. Yet none of the Christmas carols include the words "bris" or "mohel." What's up with that?
Posted by: Mandrake | December 10, 2009 2:20 PM
Oh, Jews! He realized as he clicked "post".
Posted by: salmo | December 10, 2009 2:22 PM
1. I wonder what the Christianists will say when they discover that "Deck the Halls" talks about donning our "gay apparel..."
2. Screw this Mithrasmas/Solmas crap. Let's call it Buffettmas! (Jimmy Buffet was born on December 25, 1946)
Posted by: Jeff | December 10, 2009 2:29 PM
Bet 'Feliz Navidad' isn't on her list of carols because, as everyone knows, Jesus only speaks English.
Posted by: Rob Jase | December 10, 2009 2:31 PM
"Buffetmas?" That's silly. It's "Christmasaturnakwanzakayulestice." THAT'S the Reason for the Season.
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 10, 2009 2:36 PM
Crap, my spellchecker isn't up on holiday names. It's "Christmasaturnakwanzannakayulestice." THAT'S the Reason for the Season.
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 10, 2009 2:38 PM
And you will know they are Christians by their total lack of tolerance for anything that isn't white, straight, male, or Christian.
Posted by: Katharine | December 10, 2009 2:43 PM
No, Raging Bee, the axial tilt is the reason for the season.
Posted by: Katharine | December 10, 2009 2:45 PM
Giles @46
The other songs are Bob Rivers, though Women's Underwear isn't on the Twisted Christmas album. Rasta the Snowman is from another, yet unidentified, source. The CD I'm playing is one I put together and contains a mix of several artist. Bob Rivers just had the best song titles I guess, which is why 3/4 of the ones I listed were his.
Others songs I'm listning to today include:
* It's Beginning To Look a Lot Like Syphilis -The Four Skins
* My First Christmas As A Woman -The Vandals (One of my all time favorite Christmas songs)
* Five Pound Box of Money -Pearl Bailey
* Coming Out on Christmas Day -London Gay Choir (tune of "Hark the Herald Angels Sing")
* Green Chri$tma$ -Stan Freberg
* It's So Chic to Be Pregnant at Christmas -Nancy White
* Silent Night -Some guy clucking like a chicken
Think we can get them added to the curriculum?
Posted by: Abby Normal | December 10, 2009 2:51 PM
I spent a large part of my childhood in Japan, where they celebrate Christmas in a very... interesting way. Last year, I found a great collab music video done by expats living in Japan about "Christmas in Japan". Methinks that the video would blow up these Teabaggers' brains. Enjoy:
http://umlud.blogspot.com/2008/12/christmas-in-japan.html
Posted by: Umlud | December 10, 2009 2:59 PM
Facepalm!
Posted by: James Sweet | December 10, 2009 3:04 PM
A local rock station used to play Alice's Restaurant every Thanksgiving morning.
So why did everybody leave out Tom Lehrer?
And I second the Axial Tilt comment.
Posted by: BaldApe | December 10, 2009 3:17 PM
As Will Ferrell has pointed out, Jesus is a great party guest. Dude always brings his own Diet Slice.
Posted by: Awesome McCool | December 10, 2009 3:35 PM
If you want to hear "Merry Christmas" why not go to a church instead of a public school or store?
Posted by: Brent | December 10, 2009 4:14 PM
I'm a bit partial to Kevin Bloody Wilson at christmas
Santa Claus you c... where's me fu.... bike
Santa got stoned at christmas
Ho Ho Fucking Ho
Posted by: wobert | December 10, 2009 4:36 PM
"And you will know they are Christians by their total lack of tolerance for anything that isn't white, straight, male, or Christian." - Katharine
They tolerate females, Katharine. They just don't like them very much and HATE that they get to own property, vote, and talk.
Also, I think you should change it to white, straight, male, AND Christian. I hit three out of the four (mostly) but they've never shown me a whole lot of tolerance.
Posted by: Captain Mike | December 10, 2009 4:37 PM
Well, Christmas was invented by Christians by hijacking another religious holiday (the pagan celebration of the Winter Solstice, I believe, though I could be wrong) in order to try to promote Christianity to the followers of that religion. Therefore, this logically means we should be inventing other holidays to celebrate on December 25th in order to promote other religions apart from Christianity. I'm guessing that's not what Erin Ryan actually meant, though.
Posted by: Zmidponk | December 10, 2009 4:42 PM
Oy vey, she doesn't even think how the kids would feel about Christmas, being forced to sing carols already.
Just rest ye, Merry Hyatt, don't you carry on this way
About those many carols that are sung near Christmas day.
To make them mandatory would most surely wash away
The feelings of comfort and joy that they provide;
The feelings of joy that they provide.
Posted by: Chris Winter | December 10, 2009 5:05 PM
It isn't really Christmas for Merry Hyatt unless Jewish children across America are compelled to sing Silent Night.
Posted by: Dr X | December 10, 2009 5:11 PM
Fortunately there *are* Christians, even some fairly conservative Christians, who have more sense than to buy into the "War on Christmas" nonsense. I saw a post this morning about an anti-"War on Christmas" e-mail that seems to be circulating on some Christian-oriented mailing lists.
Take a look here:
http://community.livejournal.com/dark_christian/1154499.html
Posted by: Chris | December 10, 2009 5:14 PM
It's not about winter solstice
Actually, that's exactly what it's about. Morons.
Posted by: Uncephalized | December 10, 2009 5:39 PM
This isn't about religion, it's about cultural dominance, as was said earlier. Many of the people making the biggest fuss over this aren't actually more than nominally Christian. I don't run in evangelical circles, but the very liberal mainline Protestants I know worry about Christmas (which is not that many), worry about how to make it less commercial, less about consuming things, and less of a spectacle. They aren't concerned with making it more public and more secular, but more private and more religious.
Posted by: katydid13 | December 10, 2009 5:40 PM
"Christmas time is here, by golly,
Disapproval would be folly,
Deck the halls with hunks of holly,
Fill the cup and don't say "when."
Kill the turkeys, ducks and chickens,
Mix the punch, drag out the Dickens,
Even though the prospect sickens,
Brother, here we go again.
On christmas day you can't get sore,
Your fellow man you must adore,
There's time to rob him all the more
The other three hundred and sixty-four.
Relations, sparing no expense'll
Send some useless old utensil,
Or a matching pen and pencil.
"Just the thing I need! How nice!"
It doesn't matter how sincere it
Is, nor how heartfelt the spirit,
Sentiment will not endear it,
What's important is the price.
Hark the herald Tribune sings,
Advertising wondrous things.
God rest ye merry, merchants,
May you make the yuletide pay.
Angels we have heard on high
Tell us to go out and buy!
So let the raucous sleigh bells jingle,
Hail our dear old friend Kris Kringle,
Driving his reindeer across the sky.
Don't stand underneath when they fly by."
With respects to Tom Lehrer
Posted by: Sabazinus | December 10, 2009 6:16 PM
'"He's the prince of peace; he's the only one who can get these kids to stop being so violent," she said in November.'
oh, but wait-- "I came to bring a sword, not peace!"
It always gets me how these people will cite one of two contradictory biblical passages, depending on what the issue is. Normally assholes like this will cite the "I came not to bring peace..." passage. They don't really go for all that peace and turning the other cheek kinda stuff...
Posted by: We Are The 801 | December 10, 2009 6:44 PM
Uncephalized:
"It's not about winter solstice
Actually, that's exactly what it's about. Morons."
Then why do we have it in summer?
We had compulsory carols at the school i went to, and now my reaction to carollers is that they should be stripped naked, covered in tinsel and chased down the street by people wielding bats.
Posted by: Alex | December 10, 2009 6:51 PM
If you've got the baseball bats, I'm already stripped and tinsel'd. It's a Christmas Tradition™.
God rest ye merry, gentlemen,/Let nothing you dismay,/Remember Christ our Savior/Was born on Christmas day...
...
C'mon! I'm not going to chase myself. Where's your Christmas spirit?
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 10, 2009 7:25 PM
Just how crazy are liberals? This crazy:
population control key to climate control
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-12/10/content_9151129.htm
Fuck socialism / marxism / communism/ environmentalism. May this evil burn eternally in the fires of hell as Satan shove massive rods up its ass.
Also fuck the communist bastards in China too. I guess you can only expect as much from a Godless society though.
I told you people that global warming and this fascist healthcare bullcrap was nothing more than a power grab and population control. Somehow saying I told you so never felt so good.
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [b] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it.
Genesis 1:26-28
Now if China could read the WORD instead of murdering it inhabitants ...
Posted by: King of Civil Disobedience | December 10, 2009 7:30 PM
King of Civil Disobedience"Fuck...environmentalism"
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 10, 2009 7:38 PM
Anyone who claims Jesus did not exist is a pretentious, deluded moron. The NT, Josephus (see the Arabic version, which lacks the obvious Christian glosses of the Greek), and Tacitus are sufficient to establish his existence, not to mention the other early references.
Posted by: Milesius | December 10, 2009 8:01 PM
I didn't spot the original stupidity. Not only did Jesus exist but all the epigraphical evidence we have for the particulars of Roman Mithraism postdates Christianity. (Mithras is very different from Indo-Iranian Mitra, so do even think of trying to save your stupidity by appealing to the latter.)
Posted by: Milesius | December 10, 2009 8:11 PM
Well, at least Milesius sounds at least marginally more literate than that Mindless Tiny Peon of Uncivil Idiocy moron.
Also, Milesius, nobody cares about the NT or Josephus, being as one of them was the Bible and the other wasn't exactly an impartial source. Tacitus, being an independent person, might have marginally more cachet, but one has to be careful about how one interprets ancient sources, because people back in those days were a little dumb.
Posted by: Katharine | December 10, 2009 8:20 PM
Milesius, where's your sources on the differences between the Mithras and Mitra cults?
Posted by: Katharine | December 10, 2009 8:22 PM
In addition, there are other problems with the Tacitus manuscripts that lead me to think that he may have been referring to someone else - perhaps some randomly picked member of the cult.
Posted by: Katharine | December 10, 2009 8:26 PM
Merry Christmas.
How hard was that?
There is a war on christmas, but in the end, we will win the war. In the end Jesus returns and casts the unbelievers out and the rest of us go to paradise. See, we do win in the end. Your efforts are futile and pathetic. Just like Sodom, you will fall and burn.
Merry Christmas.
Posted by: Polutry@wet.com | December 10, 2009 8:29 PM
Polutry@wet.com "In the end Jesus returns and casts the unbelievers out and the rest of us go to paradise."
That seems a bit harsh. Wasteful, too. Why take two groups from one place and put them in two different places, when they both started out in a nice place (that ends up vacant)?
"Your efforts are futile and pathetic."
Golly. That's harsh and, frankly, your whole statement paints you in a terribly poor light. Our efforts to ensure that the Popular Majority's civil rights don't come at the expense of everybody else's civil rights are "futile and pathetic"? Just how much of an asshole are you?
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 10, 2009 8:36 PM
That is a profoundly stupid claim but one I'd associate with an undergrad who has "just enough of learning to misquote."
People still are dumb, as PZ Myers' large online following attests.
I am aware of a Mithras cult but not a "Mitra cult." Mitra was an important Indo-Iranian deity but I am not aware of a separate cult dedicated to him. He later became the Mazdean (i.e., Zoroastrian) equivalent of an archangel, Mithra. Mithras came still later, and the only things he shares in common with Indo-Iranian Mitra and Mazdean Mithra are the name and an association with sunlight.
As for my sources, there are too many to list but here is one
Posted by: Milesius | December 10, 2009 8:43 PM
After just googling it and settling on whatever bull**** popped up you are, no doubt, an expert.
Posted by: Milesius | December 10, 2009 8:45 PM
I hate to agre with Milesius for a change, but there is considerable evidence for the existence of Jesus -- if you do not automatically reject the evidence of the NT. James and Galations were almost certainly written within 20 years of the crucifixion (James could be a late forgery, but since it does not really address doctrine -- why?). Other then the Resurrection, neither discusses miracles. Neither is first-person narrative of course, but they represent evidence at a reasonably early date. Tacitus' mention of Claudius expulsion of Jews from Rome because of "Christus" also provides a handy marker a mere 12 years after the Resurrection (probably 36 bce).
Posted by: kehrsam | December 10, 2009 9:15 PM
1st Thessalonians is dated even earlier than Galatians (although both were written in the 50s)
You are thinking of Suetonius, who provides another reference. Also, you mean C.E., of course, not B.C.E. and 36 is the very last year it could have occurred since that was the last year Pilate served as governor.
Posted by: Milesius | December 10, 2009 9:26 PM
Hey idiots! When referring to Biblical things, try to get the dates right! You are fre to use your illegitimate fake dating method with your own science but when you step into OUR realm, you are to use the real dates - BC and AD! There is no BCE and CE when discussing Biblical events. Leave your secular dates BCE and CE) to your science and leave the real dates(BC & AD) to biblical / conservative historical things .
Conservatives do not take history seriously if you have a politcal motive for it. Use BC and AD. Drop the stupid secularized dating theods!
Posted by: Rumpleforeskin | December 10, 2009 9:34 PM
...yup, Rumpleforeskin's a Poe.
Posted by: Katharine | December 10, 2009 9:38 PM
@95
"...yup, Rumpleforeskin's a Poe."
How can you tell? :-)
Posted by: Spaceman Spiff | December 10, 2009 10:04 PM
Authentic biblical scholars don't have much debate regarding authorship (Paul) or when Galatians and Thessalonians were written, so doubt about Jesus' existence regarding these books doesn't come merely from their date, though that is still problematic given neither is contemporaneous. The challenge is we have no copies of either book that date back close to their origin. Therefore we're at the mercy of copyists/editors for many years. I believe our earliest copy of Galatians is about 150 years after the Paul first wrote it; I don't remember the earliest copy of 1 Thessalonians but it too was long after its origin.
In addition, neither camp involved in copying over the years were particularly wedded to any sort of fealty to the original script. We've validated this fact by comparing copies of what we have. One should also be wary about having confidence in either book regarding the nearly complete lack of stories in either regarding Jesus' life on earth, and when stories do appear, they seem to be jarringly inserted into the narrative, suggesting these additions may have been added decades later to harmonize their accounts with books published subsequent to their origin, such as the gospels or other books claimed to be written by other apostles. Ideas and arguments claimed to be stated by Jesus in the Gospels are mostly absent in either book, suggesting Paul was not privy to the physical life of Jesus (though apparent inserts seem to rebut this). Instead Paul made his own arguments on issues for which Jesus also is attributed to covering.
I spent three decades searching for a historical Jesus and came up with a mere hope he actually existed and some distinguished thoughts in the first layer of Quelle arguing that maybe a truly unique person contributed to at least some of the NT narratives. So inferences yes, but empirical evidence, absolutely not.
Today we can also consider how religious ideologues grossly mutate well-documented and easily validated American history to tell their current story, and then consider that standards were worse at the start of the first millenium. Passion and scholarship are not honest bedmates. I mean my goodness, conservatives revise Reagan's legacy (and I say this as proud Reaganite who took the time to study why he was successful, reasons mostly completely separate from the myth conservatives have supplanted history with regarding him).
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 10, 2009 10:09 PM
There is considerable evidence for the existence of Tom Sawyer--if you do not automatically reject the evidence of Mark Twain.
Harry Potter, whatever.
Posted by: Anon | December 10, 2009 10:15 PM
Mandrake @55 - I think we may have hit on a new holiday that combines Jewish and Christian beliefs! Merry Brismas, everyone. Held 8 days after Christmas, everyone can join into the jolly ceremony of Flinching and Screaming.
(Do I know you, btw?)
Posted by: ginger | December 10, 2009 10:44 PM
We wish you a Hare Krishna,
We wish you a Hare Krishna,
We wish you a Hare Krishna,
And a Happy Guru!
Posted by: T.U.M. | December 10, 2009 10:47 PM
"Anyone who claims Jesus did not exist is a pretentious, deluded moron."
So, Mucilage, you've finally come around to the side of reason? Oh, wait, did you mean some pretentious, deluded moron OTHER than yourself?
Posted by: democommie | December 10, 2009 11:15 PM
The vast majority of variation in the manuscripts is minor; your assertion is false.
You are full of ****.
That is a reflection of your ineptitude. A sure sign that you are a pretentous, know-nothing bull****er is your reference to "the first layer of Quelle." Q is supposed to be a hypothetical source constructed from shared material in Matthew and Luke that is absent in Mark. Anyone, like you or Burton Mack, who starts making grandiose claims about it as if it were sitting on the desk in front of you is transparently full of ****.
Posted by: Milesius | December 10, 2009 11:21 PM
Your inability to get laid is, no doubt, frustrating but I suggest venting your spleen on someone who is not going to ignore you 90+% of the time you address him.
Posted by: Milesius | December 10, 2009 11:28 PM
There are many on the left (and a few on the right) who have trouble differentiating between conservatives and libertarians. In case any of those people are reading this, Ms Hayett has helpfully provided a salient example of the difference.
Conservatives may talk a good fight when it comes to limiting government, but as soon as it comes to their prejudices they're as regulation-happy as the most activist of pinko-commies.
Posted by: James K | December 11, 2009 12:03 AM
King of Civil Disobedience @81:
Setting aside the obvious stupidity of equating environmental protection and communism, for now.
You would prefer having no birth control in a nation of 1.3 billion people? Those people would need food and a place to live. China has a lot of weapons, and a huge military force. If you think we have problems now with China ...
Posted by: wheatdogg | December 11, 2009 1:48 AM
@ Milesius
Forget Josephus. Josephus' mention of JC was a Christian interpolation. No serious scholar can argue otherwise.
Tacitus made a passing claim about the beliefs of Christians. His sources are not available to us, so we have no way of knowing whether or not he based this claim on anything other than those very beliefs.
The question isn't so much whether or not Jesus existed but rather to what extent this man's life correlated with subsequent claims made about him. As to that, the evidence is stacked in favour of the sceptics.
PS I see by the barrage of pejorative language that you are of the Robert Turkel (AKA JP Holding) Insecure Bully School of Apologetics. Need a hug?
Posted by: Joe | December 11, 2009 3:11 AM
Hey, who invited the Borg to this thread?
Posted by: Gretchen | December 11, 2009 4:09 AM
Commenter @ 102 stated:
This commenter actual contradicts the first part of his statement with his second.
Here's one example from the Gospel of Mark which I've copied from its Wikipedia entry (merely for convenience, this empirical finding is not controversial with authentic historians like Ehrman who is one of its sources):
I stand by all the assertions I made in my earlier comment.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 11, 2009 7:25 AM
ginger at 99: I love "Merry Brismas"! Now, I'm going to have to waste the rest of the day writing "Twas the Night Before Brismas".
(I don't know if you know me, ginger. Why do you think you might?)
Posted by: Mandrake | December 11, 2009 7:57 AM
If Jesus existed, where is his long form birth certificate?
Posted by: JusticeLeague | December 11, 2009 8:43 AM
Theodor W. Adorno, Else Frenkel-Brunswik, Daniel Levinson, and Nevitt Sanford, along with Bob Altemeyer, have a pretty good psychological analysis of authoritarians - of both sides of the political spectrum (and teabaggers clearly are authoritarians).
A telling study is this one: http://www.asap-spssi.org/pdf/asap43.pdf
Posted by: Katharine | December 11, 2009 8:45 AM
Milimoron:
Damn, I forgot to ask; where are the examples of your "scholarly" writing? You keep saying you're smart and published. The smart part? You've done an excellent job of disproving that without any help. C'mon, show us the paper trail!
Posted by: democommie | December 11, 2009 8:56 AM
I gotta ask, what part of "Peace on Earth and mercy mild/God and sinners reconciled" do the "war on Christmas" crowd not understand? (Hint: those lines come from a CHRISTMAS carol. The one that says "Glory to the newborn King.")
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 11, 2009 8:59 AM
Joe,
Yes they can argue otherwise to such a blanket statement. The consensus is that references to the resurrection were added by misguided early Christians. There is no scholarly consensus that the underlying casual reference to a rabbi named Jesus was added to Josephus' history.
Posted by: heddle | December 11, 2009 9:15 AM
Well, I see two examples here of just how thin-skinned and petty some Christians can be the minute they're exposed to ideas outside of their doctrinal lockbox. Notice how Milesius tries to sound scholarly and educated, and then quickly lapses back to "You are full of ****" and "Your inability to gat laid..." and then runs away, as soon as the argument stops going his way.
Look, guys, there are plenty of people who can fully appreciate, and live, the teachings of Jesus, without having to attack or discredit everyone who doesn't think esactly like them. If you actually cared about, and understood, the teachings of your God, you wouldn't need to "take back" something no one is trying to (or even can) take away from you, or wail about some eternal merciless punishment during a season of mercy and reconciliation.
Happy Christmasaturnakwanzannukayulestice! (Would the Muslims be pissed off if I threw Eid in there somewhere?)
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 11, 2009 9:29 AM
"Yes they can argue otherwise to such a blanket statement. The consensus is that references to the resurrection were added by misguided early Christians. There is no scholarly consensus that the underlying casual reference to a rabbi named Jesus was added to Josephus' history."
A consensus based on suspension of disbelief.
Posted by: demooxmmie | December 11, 2009 9:33 AM
Looks like Il Palazzo has shifted ACROSS' attention across the Pacific. If a hyper-energetic Japanese girl by the name of Excel is sighted in Redding in cahoots with Ms. Hyatt
then it's definitely some subtle plot to take over the city.
(anime reference for those not in the know.)
Posted by: Kurt | December 11, 2009 9:46 AM
I think it's funny how Milesius combats the refutations of what he says by merely calling people stupid and saying they don't get laid.
Posted by: Katharine | December 11, 2009 9:56 AM
"Looks like Il Palazzo has shifted ACROSS' attention across the Pacific. If a hyper-energetic Japanese girl by the name of Excel is sighted in Redding in cahoots with Ms. Hyatt
then it's definitely some subtle plot to take over the city.
(anime reference for those not in the know.)"
BAAAAHHHHHH GO AWAY WEEABOO
(sorry, that was obligatory. Though I hate Japanese animation, I've seen your comments on here and you are clearly not a turd.)
Posted by: Katharine | December 11, 2009 9:58 AM
@ 114 Heddle
Granted. The consensus, based on very convincing grounds, is that the Testimonium Flavianum is an interpolation. The second brief mention is more difficult to discount because it is so innocuous. If it is authentic it remains truly unsatisfactory as evidence of anything other than a certain groups beliefs, especially given the sheer amount of mythology that had, by that time grown up around the Christ Cult.
There are records of numerous pretended Messiahs and other rabble rousers during that era, so really the question isn't whether or not there was a man called Yeshua who was thought by some to be the Messiah but rather to what extent the surrounding mythology is an historically accurate reflection of actual deeds and events.
Posted by: Joe | December 11, 2009 10:04 AM
To many people, including myself, whether Jesus existed, was a literary character, or was a figment of someone's imagination is irrelevant. If he did exist, I think "The Life of Brian" provides a pretty plausible account of what happened (apart from the wise men ending up in the wrong manger).
Posted by: Mandrake | December 11, 2009 10:14 AM
Dear pretentious moron,
Serious scholars argue that it has an authentic nucleus that more closely resembles the Arabic version. Read Alice Whealey's book. (Or, more appropriately, have it read to you.)
Tacitus refers to Jesus and his execution under Pilate; there is no way that someone who obviously disdained Christians is going to simply take their word for it.
Posted by: Milesius | December 11, 2009 12:03 PM
Well, I don't get laid these days. I'm too busy, too broke and have too many unhappy friends who are in bad relationships--because they let their johnsons do their thinking--to spend time wooing women my own age or thereabouts. I also have far too little in the way of guile to trap the young ones! Stupid? nah, just lazy about spending a lot of time chasing after answers to the Gish galloping of assholes like Milquetoast.
Posted by: democommie | December 11, 2009 12:07 PM
Crank,
You suggested, like the Mormons, that the manuscripts cannot be trusted because they have been so thoroughly doctored over the years. I responded that, to the contrary, the vast majority of manuscript variations are minor. You now refer to the interpolated ending of Mark, of which I was already aware. Are you unable to parse the phrase "vast majority?"
Posted by: Milesius | December 11, 2009 12:12 PM
I suggest going to one of your neuroscience profs and asking for an MRI to try to determine why your brain is selectively processing posts. (I assume you have more than the Reptilian Complex, which is the only thing poor democommie has at his disposal.)
Posted by: Milesius | December 11, 2009 12:19 PM
That's my take on it. I wouldn't even get involved in the discussion in the first place if it wasn't so infuriating that atheists will concern troll other atheists who have the gall to say that following the available evidence, they do not accept the proposition "Jesus existed". There is insufficient evidence to enshrine that statement as a historic fact. The fact that a consensus of biblical scholars is willing to accept the premise "Jesus existed" because they are capable of suspension of disbelief does not lend credence to the statement.
The fact that people want to use the NT as evidence for Jesus's existence is laughable. This is the same New Testament that has Matthew describe a zombie uprising from the church when Jesus is crucified. Funny how that didn't make it into the movie, the darkness spreading over the land was sufficient to make the centurion state "Truly this man was the Son of God". I guess even the Christians realize their histories are wildly made up, but as long as they keep out the more outlandish parts people will find them "plausible enough" to be believable (and if it's plausible, why not take another step and assume it's historical fact?).
Posted by: Paul | December 11, 2009 12:38 PM
@57
--2. Screw this Mithrasmas/Solmas crap. Let's call it Buffettmas! (Jimmy Buffet was born on December 25, 1946)--
But can we still use Christmas in the Caribbean as the song?
:)
Posted by: the bug guy | December 11, 2009 12:47 PM
That would be a horse laugh, dim bulb. Do you also discount the existence of Vespasian because Josephus attributed a miracle to him? Or the Greco-Persian Wars because Herodotus mentioned a giant hoplite?
You have as much credibility and intelligence as the next guy wearing a tinfoil hat.
Posted by: Milesius | December 11, 2009 12:52 PM
That is not the majority concensus view, you brainless douche.
But keep up with the apologetics, sport. You'll get there.
Posted by: Joe | December 11, 2009 12:52 PM
Yes it is, you stupid pos.
Posted by: Milesius | December 11, 2009 12:54 PM
I responded that, to the contrary, the vast majority of manuscript variations are minor.
First, that assertion has been disproven using actual citations. Second, if you're willing to assert that a particular book is the "inerrant word of God," then ALL internal inconsistencies are "major," because they raise legitimate doubts about your claim of "inerrancy."
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 11, 2009 1:00 PM
Raging Idiot,
No, it has not. Heath provided one citation. One example is not a majority. So sorry. As I wrote previously, you simply lack the native intelligence to engage me.
Posted by: Milesius | December 11, 2009 1:02 PM
If Josephus was the only available source (or a primary source from which all other sources derive) to confirm the existence of Vespasian, then yes I would. My position would be the same as that of Jesus. It's plausible that an actual person existed to mold the archetype, but plausibility does not make historic fact.
Posted by: Paul | December 11, 2009 1:06 PM
Why are people still talking to Milesius? Seriously! This guy is hopeless.
Posted by: James Sweet | December 11, 2009 1:06 PM
Do you also discount the existence of Vespasian because Josephus attributed a miracle to him? Or the Greco-Persian Wars because Herodotus mentioned a giant hoplite?
Your analogies fail because both Vespasian and the Greco-Persian wars are supported by MULTIPLE sources, not just one book that calls itself the Inerrant Word of a supernatural being whose existence has yet to be verified.
You have as much credibility and intelligence as the next guy wearing a tinfoil hat.
The only tinfoil hat I see here is yours; and after sandwiching a bogus analogy between two gratuitous insults, your credibility is zero, tops.
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 11, 2009 1:08 PM
SIWOTI syndrome is powerful. I was ignoring him, but made that last post as it was a point I wanted to make for the audience. I'm done now.
Posted by: Paul | December 11, 2009 1:08 PM
Ugh, in 134 Josephus should be Herodotus. That should be obvious, but I wanted to make sure it was clear.
Posted by: Paul | December 11, 2009 1:11 PM
Heath provided one citation.
Heath is not the only person ever to weigh in on this subject; and this is not the only blog where it's been discussed by grownups more intelligent and honest than Milesius. Also, as I said before (and you ignored), it only takes ONE error to blow "inerrancy" to Hell.
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 11, 2009 1:11 PM
I'm a sufferer of SIWOTItis myself, but Milesius is just tedious. His statements are too coherent to deliver that comic absurdity, but far too stupid and stubborn to have any thought-provoking value.
Also, I just can't stand the "You're just not smart enough to understand what I'm saying" argument. Ugh.
Posted by: James Sweet | December 11, 2009 1:24 PM
Only a raging moron would rely on blogs for his/her/its information (on a scholarly subject, especially). I make recourse to these marvelous things called books and journal articles. You should have someone read one to you sometime. (In your case you might want to start with Dr. Seuss.)
Who said anything about inerrancy?
Posted by: Milesius | December 11, 2009 1:25 PM
Now this is a fine example of what Katharine the clueless undergrad accused me of doing. I actually respond to the pretentious morons here, in addition to insulting and summarily dismissing them.
Posted by: Milesius | December 11, 2009 1:30 PM
Incidentally, Raging Moron, where are the other citations posted to this thread? Implicit in your exceedingly stupid rejoinder is the claim that my statement has been refuted by multiple citations in this thread. Where are they?
Posted by: Milesius | December 11, 2009 1:41 PM
Dear vituperative boomslang
This is mere assertion. If Tacitus had no access to the relevant records (odds are he did not, look it up) he may well have taken their word for it. Either way, who cares? That a Jew called Joshua was executed in Israel for pissing off the Romans is extremely likely. It's a long way from confirming that he truly is the a magical sky god who had to kill himself to appease himself for sins that I inherited from an ancestor who lived in magic garden and ... ah fuckit.
Merry Christmas everybody!
Posted by: Joe | December 11, 2009 1:41 PM
No, it is a psychological reality. If one is a reasonably careful historian, as Tacitus was, then he would certainly investigate the claims of a group he despised instead of taking their word for it. If he could not corroborate their claims, then he would include a caveat such as "his superstitious followers allege that..."
Posted by: Milesius | December 11, 2009 1:48 PM
No, it is a psychological reality.
With Milesius, is there any other kind?
Posted by: Raging bee | December 11, 2009 1:57 PM
Why? It's not a superstitious claim. Roman procurators ordered thousands of execitions and Joshua was an exceedingly common Jewish name. He had little reason to doubt that aspect of their claims.
Posted by: Joe | December 11, 2009 2:10 PM
Missylesius:
Where is the WRITING you promised to share with us a while back? You had everybody waiting to read your words of inspired genius and you just walked away. Goodness, one would think that you might be a fucking liar. Well, I mean if they didn't think that already.
Posted by: democommie | December 11, 2009 2:14 PM
I posted a post that might help you crazy kids sort out your Tacitus feud, but I made the mistake of filling it with tasty links, so it's in moderation.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 11, 2009 2:18 PM
Milesius #144:
Or maybe, when he was told a story of Jesus being crucified, he simply accepted it because it meshed with his experience of how the Roman Empire handled its affairs.
Posted by: Zmidponk | December 11, 2009 2:21 PM
My favorite part of the WAR ON CHRISTMAS claims is that it's THE GOVERNMENT'S fault that mass market entities say "Hahano, it's the Holidays, not Christmas"...
Posted by: Rutee | December 11, 2009 2:28 PM
RB,
It takes only one error in the original autographs, which of course are not extant, to destroy inerrancy. There is a common misconception that inerrancy means that we can trust our bibles to be 100% accurate. We can’t. We (Protestants anyway) can not even be sure the table of contents is correct. Does Jude belong in the canon? Who knows for sure—the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura means that only scripture is binding to the conscience—but it doesn’t say what is scripture--hence Luther questioning the canonicity of James. The inerrancy of scripture is not a doctrine that gives us utter faith in the reliability of our translations—it is a doctrine about the character of God, that he inspired the original authors to write without error.
I think what you really mean is that demonstrated errors tax the faith we have in the reliability of extant manuscripts and translations.
The Marcan Appendix mentioned by Michael Heath is, in my opinion, not at all important given that it is recognized by nearly everyone as a late addition. It was detected as a error—it’s a feature not a bug.
I agree with Milesius on this point. The earliest known manuscripts used to produce the modern translations show little variation one from another.
As for the historicity of Jesus—I find the argument bizarre or perhaps pointless. If you could prove or even make a compelling case that he didn't live it would be devastating to Christianity—but you can't even make a plausibility argument that he did not live. All you can say is that you don't find any of the alleged historic references relevant. You can claim that the evidence that he did live is weak--but that's not the same thing. But in the final analysis who cares? The bottom line is that is has no bearing on anyone’s faith. There is no evidence at all suggesting he did not live, and so the belief in a historic Jesus is in the noise compared to a belief that Jesus is the Son of God.
Posted by: heddle | December 11, 2009 2:44 PM
Ah, once again, with heddle and his new BFF, we witness the christian game of being asked to prove a negative.
Posted by: democommie | December 11, 2009 2:57 PM
heddle "It takes only one error in the original autographs, which of course are not extant, to destroy inerrancy."
Ah. Huh. So, the originals that nobody has are perfect.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 11, 2009 2:57 PM
Oh dear god, the unholy combination of heddle and Milesius. I can't take it!
Posted by: James Sweet | December 11, 2009 3:40 PM
Dare I ask what the doctrine is based on, if not the scriptures we cannot identify whose original autographs we do not have?
How can you talk about things like that and not think about arguments between Sci-Fi geeks about whether the Starship Enterprise could take on an Imperial Star Destroyer?
Posted by: DaveL | December 11, 2009 3:56 PM
It could not, by the way...
Posted by: Josh | December 11, 2009 4:01 PM
Hey, at least those Enterprise-vs-Imperial-Star-Destroyer debates can be settled by actually watching TV shows and movies. And the original scripts for those TV shows and movies are still extant, as are the original official writers' guides (I used to have one). That's more than heddle has to go on.
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 11, 2009 4:09 PM
That's one hell of a qualification. "We only translated the ones that say the same thing, other versions may not agree but we didn't use them in making our translations and thus they have no relevance."
Agree. I don't really care. But if someone claims Jesus as historical fact, like any historical fact I'm interested in sources. And theirs are rubbish, unless you buy into the Holy Book.
There's no evidence that there is not an ineffable, invisible purple dragon in my garage, either. That's not a meaningful statement.
Posted by: Paul | December 11, 2009 4:22 PM
Paul "There's no evidence that there is not an ineffable, invisible purple dragon in my garage, either."
You had to go and ruin that. The invisible purple dragon in your garage is such an important special revelation for Mankind that you, like Jesus, shouldn't bother to write it down. Wait for others to do it and make sure that you're dead first. Until then, work verbally only. Sheesh, you're a shitty prophet. I'm barely even willing to drop everything and abandon my friends and family to follow you around, you're so poor at it.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 11, 2009 4:33 PM
I was always under the impression that the sects that believed in biblical inerrancy thought of only the King James version as being inerrant, not other translations, and not even the source material it was translated from.
The story I had heard was that the translators made a point of praying over any disagreements, and it was this process that makes the KJV supposedly inerrant. Am I mistaken* about this?
Posted by: Captain Mike | December 11, 2009 4:40 PM
Captain Mike,
I have heard of similar sects; it's not unknown for some to insist KJV is infallible.
Heddle's statement is made from the context of Calvinism. He subscribes to the The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (it's easily found with a search engine), if you want to understand where his perspective here comes from. There are obviously sects that have certain beliefs of infallibility that differ from the one heddle espouses, so read his statement with that in mind.
Posted by: Paul | December 11, 2009 4:47 PM
Thanks Paul. The kind of biblical inerrancy I outlined above is actually the only one I had ever heard of.
Posted by: Captain Mike | December 11, 2009 4:53 PM
Erm, every instance of infallible should read inerrant...not sure where that came from.
Posted by: Paul | December 11, 2009 4:54 PM
I'm sorry, you appear to have misread. I didn't ask you to prove anything. In particular I did not ask you to prove that Jesus never lived. You are mistaking me for someone else.
Paul,
Are you on 'luudes? I am talking about the oldest Greek manuscripts. There are not old Greek manuscripts that have been discarded because they don't agree with others. Just making stuff up is no way to argue. Go read up on the codices used for the modern translations (as opposed to the KJV, which used more recent manuscripts.) Either you know very little, or what you do know you appear to have learned from Dan Brown.
Sure it is--because the only possible interesting scenario is if someone can prove Jesus never lived--or at least make a strong case--for example by uncovering documents suggesting that he was invented for political purposes. Compelling evidence that he lived would mean nothing--unbelievers would simply agree that there was such a man but certainly he was just a man. (Most believe that anyway, I suspect--that is in my experience most unbelievers concede that there probably was a Jesus-man.)
Put differently, if a couple billion people on the planet believed that a purple dragon lived in your garage then it would be very meaningful throw open the doors of your garage an show that it was false.
That is simply not true. They may not constitute proof by any means, but the Tacitus reference, for example, is not rubbish. It can not be trivially dismissed, except in a purely anti-intellectual exercise.
Modusoperandi
Well that is what the doctrine states, for example here. You can of course criticize the doctrine but criticize it accurately--it does not mean that the bible I hold in my hand is inerrant. In particular an error in my ESV does not disprove the doctrine of infallibility of scripture, which is as near as I can tell unfalsifiable. Unlike the belief that our current translations are reliable. That can be put to the test. And sometimes translations are found lacking. In this season the most famous is probably the KJV of Luke 2:14
This is an error resulting from a single spurious Greek letter in the (newer) manuscripts used by the KJV translators. The older manuscripts (used by the newer translations) render it correctly as:
Posted by: heddle | December 11, 2009 5:01 PM
heddle "Well that is what the doctrine states, for example here."
Yes, that's what I said.
"You can of course criticize the doctrine but criticize it accurately..."
I thought I did!
"In particular an error in my ESV does not disprove the doctrine of infallibility of scripture, which is as near as I can tell unfalsifiable."
That's the problem. It's saying that there's a man behind the curtain, but nobody can look behind the curtain because it's not there. It's a proclamation of absolute certainty buttressed entirely by a lack of evidence...oh...now I get it..."Statement of faith".
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 11, 2009 5:16 PM
In general, the literalists fall into the camp that they absolutely know and assert as such in their rhetoric that the original manuscripts are the inerrant word of God. This covers most evangelicals and fundies in terms of numbers (not neccessarily denominations). Given the earliest NT manuscripts we have are hundred+ years after their original development it's difficult and often impossible to ascertain what fantastical claims are in the original manuscripts and the sources of those claims.
For example, one might find a 2nd century church leader referencing a passage now found in Matthew without attribution. Given we don't have a manuscript of Matthew dating back to the time of this church leader's statement or what source this church leader was using to make this assertion, we don't even know if the then-extant copy of Matthew at that time had such a passage or whether it was incorporated at a later date. Yet we often find apologists joyously assert that they have 'proof' that the text of Matthew made such a claim decades after Jesus' supposed life on earth - as if such an assertion also means the referenced miraculous event actually happened.
Those that worship the KJV tend to be subs-sects of Baptists. They have to be aggresively anti-intellectual and pro-ignorance given the development of the KJV was wildly defective even for its time and even hundreds of years earlier relative to competing translations. In fact the lesson we learn is its often more important to consider the source of the codex rather than its date in terms of its faithfulness to the original. I find what the KJV-worshippers practice on their children is a form of child abuse. With few exceptions, their kids are denied a proper education and therefore have their career opportunities severely limited. They disproporationately populate our community's fast food workers while our public high school and Catholic school do a wonderful of job of preparing their students for any university or career opportunity they're willing to work to achieve, including Ivy League schools.
When the student merely looks at the NT from a rational perspective rather than an empirical perspective, it seems completely irrational that Jesus could have been resurrected. Here is one example of an observation that on its own doesn't cause the story to be irrational, but does buttress such a claim (I have several others). Jesus does not really distinguish himself until he's raised from the dead (yes, there are claims for others rising from the dead as well, and yes there are claims of miracles, but that's true of many other figures from the time and previous as well). However and in spite of extant version of Galatians' claims that hundreds supposedly saw him post-resurrection knowing he'd been crucified, died, and resurrected, there's very little narrative associated with this risen Jesus just when you think people would really start paying attention to him and writing down what he said. Yet instead we find most of the narrative takes place in the three years prior to this supposed crucifixion rather than the 40 or so days he was appearing on earth post-resurrection.
Given the NT fails any empirical test validating a supernatural Jesus and also fails a whole host of rational tests like my example above, I find it far more interesting to study the psychology of adults who would claim certain knowledge of the NT's claims on intellectual grounds.
I understand kids who are raised in this faith buying it though I never bought it in spite of ardent attempts to make me believe. And I understand the emotional attachment to keeping the faith given the security one feels by having an unexamined insurance policy coupled to a collective of supportive people within one's faith community. But I do not understand the lengths of defective thinking of those attempting to defend their faith intellectually with an empirical or rational argument when none exist.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 11, 2009 5:21 PM
Modusoperandi ,
It is only a problem if you (or a Christian) misunderstands the doctrine to mean a claim that their bible is without error. If instead it is understood to be a doctrine that attests to the loving character of God, then "God breathed the scripture for the benefit of man" is no better or worse than the doctrine "God is holy" or "God is sovereign." They are simply statements about the God Christians claim to believe in and, in my opinion anyway, are (dependent) presuppositions.
Posted by: heddle | December 11, 2009 5:25 PM
Let's see if the irrational skepticism of these tinfoil-hat bedecked, pretentious morons extends to:
Socrates--Socrates did not write down anything himself. We only know of him through his followers. Accounts of his life include at least one miraculous element, i.e. the Delphic Oracle proclaiming that he was destined to be the wisest man in the world.
Siddhārtha Gautama (Buddha)--did not write down anything himself. We only know of him through his followers. Accounts of his life include many miracles, e.g., flying.
Posted by: Milesius | December 11, 2009 5:30 PM
Based on what I have currently read, I do not have a position on his existence. I have not seen sufficient positive evidence to say he existed, and would gladly listen to an informed argument from people on either side of the issue of his actual existence. Reading Plato, Socrates did strike me as rather Mary-Sueish, for what it's worth. I would not be surprised if it was established conclusively that he did exist, nor if he did not.
As for Buddha, I consider the story a myth. There may or may not have been a person with that name.
I wasn't going to reply to Milesius anymore, but I did in this case because I was hoping someone would mention Socrates. I very much enjoyed reading what "Socrates" said, and am a huge fan of the Socratic method. But see how one can hold a rational conversation on a cherished without spewing invectives and treating others as if they are too stupid to understand.
Posted by: Paul | December 11, 2009 5:53 PM
You need to understand the Doctrine of Original Sin. You see, when Adam and Eve disobeyed and ate the forbidden fruit, they were tainted by sin and for the first time became ashamed of their nakedness. Jesus, by his death and resurrection, redeemed man from the taint of sin.
The removal of the capacity to feel shame, however, had to wait for the invention of the theology degree.
Posted by: DaveL | December 11, 2009 5:59 PM
I have long wondered if Socrates did in fact exist. I haven't actually spent any time researching it, but it has been something I've questioned in passing.
Posted by: Josh | December 11, 2009 6:01 PM
That's very...honest, heddle. Tell me, do you presuppose that archaeology is wrong when it indicates that there was no Exodus of Jews from Egypt? The Chicago Statement explicitly says the Bible is inerrant when it comes to historical matters. I just want to know how completely you partition the scientific side of your mind.
Posted by: Paul | December 11, 2009 6:04 PM
That line was simply beautiful.
Posted by: Josh | December 11, 2009 6:06 PM
I always like Jingle Bells as performed by barking dogs.
Posted by: John Norris | December 11, 2009 6:37 PM
I'm going to second that. Delightfully evil!
Posted by: Leni | December 11, 2009 8:03 PM
I jumped down to post this, but did anyone mention the "HP Lovecraft Historical Society (http://www.cthulhulives.org/store/store.lasso?1=product&2=4) - that goes to their solstice CD, but they have a new one I just saw (it must be mine!), although their Cthulhu Ski Mask looks cool as well. Hmm, drive to work with that on my head....
Lot's of good carols for kids to sing (like "Away in a Madhouse" "Mi-Go We Have Heard on High," "I Saw Mommy Kissing Yog Sothoth" and "It's Beginning to Look a Lot Like Fish-Men")
Posted by: Badger3k | December 11, 2009 9:24 PM
Badger3k - that is awesome. AWESOME.
(Mandrake - if you knew me you would know why you knew me. Which is a complicated way to say - you would recognize my handle, and I recognized yours as being the same one a friend of mine occasionally uses.)
Uh, sorry, Ed, I'll let this go back to being about, uh, whateverthehell this is about. (Milesius sounds a lot like a guy posting over at White Coat Underground under a different name, and a lot like a guy who used to post all the time at Aetiology under about 12 different names.)
Posted by: ginger | December 12, 2009 8:46 AM
Katherine -
Tacitus, being an independent person, might have marginally more cachet, but one has to be careful about how one interprets ancient sources, because people back in those days were a little dumb.
I really hope you weren't being serious. Because if you were, that is the most colossally ignorant thing said on this thread. There are a great many reasons to be careful about how one interprets ancient sources. People back then being a little dumb is not one of them.
Posted by: DuWayne | December 12, 2009 10:07 AM
And besides, even if that were true, people today are a little dumb. It's hubris to think otherwise. Hubris!
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 12, 2009 10:16 AM
Yes DuWayne, the sum of human knowledge hasn't changed in the last 2-3 thousand years at all. [eye-roll] - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | December 12, 2009 10:24 AM
I'm not really sure I understand where you are going with that DJ. I am not implying anything about the sum of human knowledge. All I am pointing out is that it is fucking ignorant to denigrate the intelligence of people who lived a couple thousand years ago. While there are some hypothesis that imply humans are getting progressively more intelligent, there is little evidence that would support them and at least as much that would imply it is not very likely.
Were people back then ignorant of a great deal? Absolutely. That has absolutely nothing to do with their intelligence. In the context of what they actually knew of the world, there is no reason to believe they were somehow stupid.
Posted by: DuWayne | December 12, 2009 11:22 AM
DuWayne - What I am implying, is exactly what you are inferring.
That is, that 'dumber' can mean a lower level of general intelligence (which as you point out, correctly in my merge opinion, is not likely to have been less 2500 years ago), as opposed to general level of knowledge which is likely to have been lesser then than it may be now.
I suspect that the latter was what Katherine was thinking about, although only she can confirm this suspicion. - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | December 12, 2009 12:03 PM
Re DuWayne
Indeed, there were some pretty smart people around back then, especially the ancient Greeks like Archimedes, Euclid, Pythagoras, etc. In fact, Archimedes came very close to discovering the integral calculus almost 2000 years before Newton and Liebniz.
Posted by: SLC | December 12, 2009 12:10 PM
I think she was probably just being tongue in cheek and you're taking it a little too literally, DuWayne.
Posted by: Leni | December 12, 2009 12:12 PM
Just for the record, Tacitus in no way conclusively or even compellingly corroborates the historiography of Christ.
The earliest copy of his c. 116 C.E. document is 11th century. There is some debate about whether his references to Christians (or Chrestians, another issue) is a later insert. I find that debate irrelevant to the historiography question given all the passage does if it was Tacitus writing is help confirm the existence of Christians with their attendant crucifixion story by 116 C.E. claiming it as a physical event (there is some evidence that either the original crucifixion story or an early parallel story had a Christ being crucified on a non-earthly plane).
However, we can already independently and confidently confirm the existence of Christians by at least the late-40s/50s C.E. so Tacitus doesn't help to confirm the existence of Christians by 116 C.E. We don't know what they believed then, but we knew they existed as a movement. Furthermore the passage attributed to Tacitus referencing Pontius Pilate crucifying Jesus only confirms that story's existence by 116 C.E., not that Pilate actually crucified a man named Jesus or who became Jesus Christ. Tacitus provides no evidence of validating the story's authenticity or validating it from the Roman perspective, just that the story existed at least within Christian circles.
The point is we have no contemporeanous evidence of the existence of Jesus, the stories about him weren't created for decades after his supposed existence, and we have no way of knowing what those original stories actually entailed regarding his actual history of life on earth given the earliest manuscripts aren't in our possession and later ones don't start appearing for a hundred or hundreds of years after his supposed existence, during a period where we can be reasonably certain harmonization edits occurred.
There are also interesting (but also not compelling or convincing) stories of a Christ defined as a divine non-earthly entity that supposedly interacted with humans at that time, like Paul's Damascus Road story) and that this story preceded the story of a Jesus Christ living on earth among us, where the two competing stories get harmonized with the Markan gospel and Paul's Epistles by the Gospels of Matthew, Luke, the book of Acts, and subsequent copyists/editors.
People who argue Jesus lived extend the evidence far beyond what it can support. I think it's reasonable to believe he did exist, but we certainly can't be anywhere near confident it's true. People who believe he was divine have absolutely zero evidence to stand on, and it's a totally irrational position to take given not only the complete lack of evidence for his existing and being divine, but that all empirical evidence ever validated that's even remotely related to this claim falsifies such an event. Not only do we not have extraordinary evidence of a divine Jesus Christ as we would expect to support such a claim, we have extraordinary evidence no divine Christ ever existed or even could exist.
Faith yes. Evidence or reason - not even close.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 12, 2009 1:00 PM
So sorry Heath, but your pretense of knowledge gained by last minute googling will not avail you here. The claim that it is an interpolation is crackpot, tinfoil hat nonsense. Moreover, a reasonably careful historian, as Tacitus was, would not take the word of a group he despised about the circumstances surrounding the death of their leader, especially when the death itself had cosmic significance for his followers and fueled what he perceived as superstition.
Posted by: Milesius | December 12, 2009 3:10 PM
Milesius is beginning to sound like the originator of an epically long thread on the JREF forums entitled "Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth." (link)
"We know what Tacitus wrote is true because he despised Christians" is right up there with "We know the writers of the New Testament told the truth because they included embarrassing details about themselves".
Posted by: Adrian W. | December 12, 2009 3:31 PM
That argument, whatever its merits, is not the same as mine re: Tacitus.
Speaking of Randi, I appreciate his work over the years in exposing various frauds but he seems to be slipping into senility with his recent cooing over Dawkins and his uncritical acceptance of an amateur's book that argues there was no Nazareth in Jesus' day. (A book which was sacked by real scholars.)
Posted by: Milesius | December 12, 2009 3:42 PM
Milesius #186:
I am no historian, but even I know that Tacitus only referred to this story of Jesus' execution in passing whilst writing about the Great Fire of Rome, specifically the part where it was blamed on Christians. You may assert that Tacitus would have done a careful investigation into whether this actually occurred, but, as I have already pointed out, it is equally possible that he simply accepted a story about a guy being crucified, as it meshed with his experience of the Roman Empire at the time. Without any evidence of such an investigation, your assertion is just that - an assertion, nothing more. Many historians also think that Tacitus had no great love for Nero, who was Emperor at the time of the Great Fire, so, whilst he held Christians in disdain, it may very well have suited his purposes to accept the story of Jesus' crucifiction in order to bolster the idea of the Christians being oppressed scapegoats, rather than a dangerous and heretical cult who could very well have been responsible for the fire, as Nero wanted to portray them.
In addition, some historians actually question the authenticity of that passage for a variety of reasons - one of which being that Tacitus says that Jesus was crucified under the 'procurator' Pontius Pilate, when, in fact, Pilate was a prefect, at the time, and Tacitus would know what the difference was, having risen up through the magisterial ranks himself. Even if the passage is genuine, that error pokes a large hole in your idea of Tacitus being such a careful historian that he makes absolutely sure that every detail is 100% correct.
Posted by: Zmidponk | December 12, 2009 3:50 PM
So sorry Heath, but your pretense of knowledge gained by last minute googling will not avail you here. The claim that it is an interpolation is crackpot, tinfoil hat nonsense.
Milesius, I've disagreed with Heath many times here, but trying to trash him like this, AFTER he's given a fairly well-put-together essay that's at least coherent, once again blows no one's credibility but your own. Insulting people may win points in Christian-apologist circles, and in redneck bars, but it doesn't work in real grownup debate.
Moreover, a reasonably careful historian, as Tacitus was, would not take the word of a group he despised about the circumstances surrounding the death of their leader...
He would indeed take their word if either: a) he had no better sources available; b) he wanted to keep his reporting balanced by using all available sources, whether or not he considered all of them completely true; and/or c) he considered one side's exaggerations or hagiography to be a relevant and important part of the history he was trying to report.
Would historians writing about Elvis cover all the post-mortem Elvis-sighting reports because he thought they were true? No, he'd cover them because they were a good indicator of how a lot of people felt about Elvis.
Really, boy, you're out of your depth here. Once you've proven yourself an ignorant prat, gratuitous insults don't make that proof go away.
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 12, 2009 4:25 PM
So Tacitus used the then current term instead of the correct term of a previous era. That oversight and a dime would not get you a gumball from a gumball machine. Also, I wrote that Tacitus was a reasonably careful historian, not that he was infallible.
Furthermore, the tinfoil hat "historians" who argue that the passage was forged have yet to explain why someone would forge such a passage in an era when no one questioned the historicity of Jesus Christ. The brain dead mythicist position is a product of the modern era.
Posted by: Milesius | December 12, 2009 4:29 PM
From Antiquities of the Jews Book XVIII:
"BUT now Pilate, the procurator of Judea, removed the army from Cesarea to Jerusalem, to take their winter quarters there, in order to abolish the Jewish laws."
Clearly, that must be forged too!
Mythicists are such f'ing morons.
Posted by: Milesius | December 12, 2009 4:42 PM
I would just like to point out, Milesius, that you are unlikely to convince very many people here that you have the least bit of credibility. I tend to believe there probably was a man behind the myth of the messiah, but I have an intense urge to disagree with you on principle. Accusing Michael Heath of acting in bad faith is just fucking ridiculous. While I have my disagreements with him (as I do with pretty much everyone around these parts) he has shown himself a man of utmost integrity.
Being a fucking asshole isn't a big deal - I do the same thing sometimes. Being an asshole who accuses people of dishonesty, with absolutely no evidence that they are is fucking reprehensible. Whatever else you may be, scholar or what, you are a petty little ass with virtually no credibility here. Not because you are wrong - I am not sure you are, but because your accusations groundless and beyond any definition of a reasonable asshole.
DJ -
I suspect that the latter was what Katherine was thinking about, although only she can confirm this suspicion.
In the context of a discussion about something that happened 2,500 years or so ago, about people who were around much closer to the time of the events in question, I have little doubt that we are probably less informed the the intelligencia of the time. I am not arguing for or against the existence of a man behind the messiah myth - though I suspect he existed. But there were records available at teh time, that did not survive to teh present day. The same way that we probably know a lot more about the civil war and the revolutionary wars, than people two thousand years from now probably will, the Romans of 2,300 years ago, probably know more about the time the messiah myth comes out of.
Besides which, there is a distinct difference between dumb, which implies either an inability to speak or a lack of intelligence and just plain ignorant, which implies a lack of knowledge.
Leni -
I suppose she might have been and left clear for that possibility. But the way it read, I just don't see it, which is why I commented.
I get rather suspicious of comments like that, because there is a rather noxious segment of evolutionary psych, that makes some rather bald claims based on virtually no evidence. Not necessarily a bad thing in itself, but they argue from authority and imply that there is a great deal of evidence to back their assertions. That comment is the sort of thing that those folks like to claim...
Posted by: DuWayne | December 12, 2009 5:02 PM
DuWayne:
There is, but people often use them interchangeably. I just would have given her the benefit of the doubt, is all.
Posted by: Leni | December 12, 2009 5:27 PM
I find it interesting when Christians try to argue tooth and nail for the alleged historical existence of Christ, as if being able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that someone fitting his descriptions actually existed somehow bolsters their religious beliefs. Aren't they supposed to have that faith in the first place?
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 12, 2009 5:57 PM
Sadie @ 195:
We know empirically that people's adult religious beliefs are mostly a product of the family and community within which they've been brought up. We're not going to see many blue-blood Episcopalians convert to Islam as one example.
Many religious traditions tie in strongly with the culture, e.g., Greek Orthodoxy, Southern Italian Catholics, WASP liberal Protestantism; which allows some within those faith community space to develop some agnosticism while not losing their cultural community. Others stand separate, the lower churches of American Protestanism (which leads to quite a bit more migration between denominations).
The one major exception to being born into the faith or faith/culture is conversion due to coming from a less technologically advanced culture, like we see with many Africans, aboriginals to more advanced cultures, and under-educated Chinese. None of these factors cause fealty based on any sort of well-informed intellectual basis but instead is an emotional committment strongly tied to the benefits of community that's attendant to membership or being overwhelmed with the abudance of wealth attendant to the advanced culture attempting to convert the primitives.
Given this reality, we can predict and validate a number of Americans brought up in the fundamentalist faith that lacks the cultural benefits will have an aptitude to think critically and therefore renounce their faith with more hostility than we see in those tied closer to the culture. At some point some percentage of these folks will demand more of their faith - they'll seek out a rational and empirical basis to support their faith, or reject it. Given I was raised fundie, I know dozens of these types of people, in fact I'm one of them. Some stay and therefore attempt to argue that their truth is true in spite of its irrationality while others merely leave, like me.
So there's a huge conundrum for these apt thinkers who stick with it: how to come up with a rational argument to defend a faith which also claims certainty of its knowledge based on dogma that claims inerrancy, yet is contradictory, much of which has been falsified, is irrational, lacks evidence, and presents claims totally contradictory to all collected empirical evidence.
Your point about faith is one of those contradictory arguments, i.e., advocacy to submit like a child, celebration of faith as a great attribute rather than reason or even better, empiricism. However there are other passages that advocate thinking and demand fealty to empirical truth. When we employ thinking however we are forced to avoid certain premises to maintain our commitment to 'the truth' as its supposedly divinely revealed.
It's easy to turn that emotional switch on and get these folks all riled up given I know where all the buttons lie (the subject matter that shouldn't be scrutinized too closely); so our resident apologist is providing me with endless entertainment.
I've watched this play out with some close relatives over the decades who are very smart, very fundie, and brought up as YECs in the 50s and 60s. As Science has piled on the evidence, they've been forced to retreat from being YECs to OECs to now being IDCs; all the while arguing the flaws of the scientific method when in fact its their belief systems that have caused them to always be wrong, and always be in continual retreat to the point even they now concede common ancestry given its validation (the merely emotionally committed avoid the evidence to maintain their emotional comfort as YECs). In spite of this continual retreat that provides clear evidence of how fatally flawed their process to seek truth is, they still make the argument their methods are superior and Academia and science's methodologies are an ultimately flawed approach to seeking objective truth. This is in spite of Academia and Science's stellar record in crushing past beliefs even they've abandoned.
One of the many results of my going through this journey is that I've learned and now argue is that faith is not a feature, it is a fatally flawed, fatally defective bug. Because the faithful often falsely though inadvertently conflate faith with hope or energetic committment and confidence to work to achieve an objective, it's important I distinguish faith from these two very positive attributes.
Rick Warren is a prime example of someone who thinks he's been through this process, but in fact clearly has not. That's why he keeps getting his history wrong (atheism is the root cause of authoritarianism and mass killing) or continues to get surprised when he's caught lying and being hypocritical about his position on gays. What he thinks is a reasonable intellectual journey is in fact merely him seeking out facts that provide emotional comfort to continue to hold previously held beliefs. Ray Comfort is another example of a claimed examined life but not.
Christian reconstructionists make the best examples of those clinging to their claims of absolute truth while avoiding the empirical evidence that falsifies their claims. This blogger is my best example of such a person. He's actually so delusional he believes that American liberty rights demand complete submittal like a slave to Christ. Ed has blogged about him before which is how I discovered him. He's one of those guys that promote imprecatory prayers against liberal American politicians (i.e., prays in hopes some of our leaders will die in office).
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 12, 2009 7:51 PM
I do not suffer fools gladly, especially this species of fool, of which Heath is a fine example. You may continue blowing your nails and pretending you are above it all but I know you are full of **** and a poseur.
Posted by: Milesius | December 12, 2009 8:02 PM
Milesuis,
Claiming something and empirically validating a claim are two entirely different propositions. Repeating your claim while continuing to fail to validate your claim doesn't increase the validity of your claim, but it does make the claimer an interesting psychological study.
Good luck finding evidence of our challenges, Milesius. In the meantime, I'll keep my own positions close to what has been empirically and independently validated. I find arguments extending beyond the evidence grow in arrogance, idiocy, and outright delusion in proportion to how far such arguments extend beyond the evidence. Here's an applicable quote
So I'll stick with my uncertainty given the lack of evidence.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 12, 2009 9:24 PM
Milesius does have a point, Michael Heath. You are full of four asterisks.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 12, 2009 9:39 PM
milimeusli:
Dude, where's the example of your peer reviewed scientifical writing that you were spouting off about a while back?
I know that people like Michael Heath, who is your better in any way that's important, feel the need to be polite and courteous. Fortunantely, for me, I think being polite to whankers like you is a major waste of time. Since your entire argument for the existence of JESUS, son of GOD, hinges on vague references in other peoples' work and your own unsupported assertions it won't get you far with most folks here. But, then, being the whanker that you are, you're just happy to be disruptive. What a fucking maroon.
Posted by: democommie | December 12, 2009 9:42 PM
And, I feel compelled to point out, even if we all conceded that Jesus in fact existed, he still wouldn't be the son of God (there is no such thing) and he still wouldn't have come back to life (because that is, of course, impossible). So this is a history debate that, even if it were settled, would still not lend any credence to your religion.
Posted by: Kyorosuke | December 12, 2009 9:47 PM
Ah, but I have validated my claim re: the historicity of Jesus. You are like the young earth partisan who refuses to address decisive criticisms of his claims.
Posted by: Milesius | December 12, 2009 9:47 PM
Umm, milesius? You are totally the fucking poseur and have completely failed to support your assertions in the face of Michael Heath's (who as has been pointed out, is totally your better by far) well reasoned responses. Indeed you have failed so completely, that you have virtually convinced me that there was never a man behind the messiah myth.
Fucking jackass. Go away until you can actually provide a reasonable rebuttal. Till them, you are a complete and utter waste of space...
Posted by: DuWayne | December 12, 2009 9:48 PM
Your personal testimony is noted and discarded.
Like a stopped clock, you appear to be correct every once in a while. The historicity of Jesus per se is not enough to establish the truth claims of Christianity.
Posted by: Milesius | December 12, 2009 9:55 PM
Physician, heal thyself. Among other things, you apparently cannot distinguish between "integrity" and "saying something with which I agree." Michael Heath takes refuge in echo chambers because he would not last a New York minute elsewhere.
Posted by: Milesius | December 12, 2009 10:02 PM
That comment was my first in the thread. Are you such an asshole that you feel compelled to attack someone who has barely interacted with you before? Oh, wait, of course you are.
Anyway, since you agreed with what I said, why don't you provide some physical evidence for God and/or resurrection? We'll wait.
Posted by: Kyorosuke | December 12, 2009 10:11 PM
An observation from the audience: every now and then a commenter comes along who not only embodies everything Michael Heath has painstakingly observed about social conservatives over the course of this blog, but such a commenter inevitably becomes so frustrated in arguing with Heath (and Hanley in some cases) that the thread becomes legendary as a demonstration of the differences between conservative and non-conservative thought processes and discourse. These threads grow more entertaining the longer they're drawn out.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 12, 2009 10:20 PM
Here is a handful of examples from Tacitus' Annals that demonstrate he was skeptical (within reason), did not just "take people's word for it" and added caveats when reporting rumors.
Book II
Then through suitable emissaries who shared his secret, it was rumoured that Agrippa was alive, first in whispered gossip, soon, as is usual with forbidden topics, in vague talk which found its way to the credulous ears of the most ignorant people or of restless and revolutionary schemers.
It was rumoured meanwhile throughout Italy, and was believed at Rome, that Agrippa had been saved by the blessing of Heaven.
But there was one paper in Libo's handwriting, so the prosecutor alleged, with the names of Caesars and of Senators, to which marks were affixed of dreadful or mysterious significance.
Book III
It was indeed widely rumoured that the notorius poisoner Martina, who, as I have related, had been despatched to Rome by Cneius Sentius, had died suddenly at Brundisium; that poison was concealed in a knot of her hair, and that no symptoms of suicide were discovered on her person.
Piso was then put in a litter and attended by a tribune of one of the Praetorian cohorts, who followed him, so it was variously rumoured, to guard his person or to be his executioner.
This was the end of avenging the death of Germanicus, a subject of conflicting rumours not only among the people then living but also in after times. So obscure are the greatest events, as some take for granted any hearsay, whatever its source, others turn truth into falsehood, and both errors find encouragement with posterity.
At Rome meanwhile people said that it was not only the Treveri and Aedui who had revolted, but sixty-four states of Gaul with the Germans in alliance, while Spain too was disaffected; anything in fact was believed, with rumour's usual exaggeration.
Book IV
The same punishment was adjudged to Catus Firmius, a Senator, for having (it was alleged) assailed his sister with a false charge of treason.
Posted by: Milesius | December 12, 2009 10:21 PM
You're damn straight.
A foolish empiricism is the hobgoblin of little minds. Statements concerning the nature and existence of God are not really amenable to empirical science and can only be (formally) argued in the context of mathematical logic.
As for the Resurrection, if it occurred (and I think it did), then Jesus took his body with him. In that event, what kind of physical evidence do you expect, hayseed?
Posted by: Milesius | December 12, 2009 10:27 PM
Among other things, you apparently cannot distinguish between "integrity" and "saying something with which I agree."
My eight year old has better reading comprehension than you do jackass. I have a reasonable level of certainty there was a man behind the myth, as I mentioned two or three times already - including in the comment where I mention Michael's integrity.
Apparently you can't distinguish between someone who thinks you're a fucking asshole and someone who actually disagrees with you. I am only the former. Though you're working awfully hard to convince me I am wrong and Jesus didn't exist.
Posted by: DuWayne | December 12, 2009 10:40 PM
A foolish empiricism is the hobgoblin of little minds. Statements concerning the nature and existence of God are not really amenable to empirical science and can only be (formally) argued in the context of mathematical logic.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!11!!!11!!!1!!!11!!11!11!!1!!!!
Sadie, you are so fucking right about that. This is fucking brilliant fun, a trainwreck of throwing big words at the wall and pretending to know what they mean.
Posted by: DuWayne | December 12, 2009 10:45 PM
Sadie @ 207 - I realize I take bright line stands on what type of attributes defines social conservatives, and you're right we have an illuminative and entertaining example in this thread. It was only after decades of observations that I was pretty much forced to concede that such observations weren't merely a handful but what should be expected if you could only get them to open up. Over the course of the last several years we now have studies that support what many of us have observed.
Having said that, the only reason I don't define populist liberals; either in attractive, repugnant, or a mixture of traits, is simply because I've never been exposed to them. I don't know them, so when their opinions do show up in polls or in the media, I'm often surprised by the results. They don't drive the Democratic party so they don't really make the news much nor have I ever lived in a geographic location where any existed at all. I've pretty much lived in rural red state populist areas, intellectual and liberal bastions, or areas filled with technocrats, plutocrats, and the military.
If you're up on them at all, do you happen to know if they're fueling the frustration on the health insurance reform bill? I've been meaning to ask someone because I'm aware of some on the Left are driving down the poll numbers, I'm wondering if it's this group thinking they're going to get forced into purchasing health insurance that will be cost prohibitive while being forced to deal with companies that will work hard at screwing them.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 12, 2009 11:00 PM
Populist liberals...that's an interesting concept. I tend to view present-day populism as a cynical political ploy grounded in tribalism more than anything borne of genuine philanthropic sentiments, but that's probably because (as you note) it's almost wholly a right-wing phenomenon; liberal populism is nonexistent as a genuine political force here. To me, liberalism is genuinely concerned with everyone's wellbeing (exponentially more so than conservatism, anyway), whereas conservative populism (which I really view as another name for social conservatism) is forced to distinguish itself from political conservatism, which has traditionally been more oligarchical in nature.
So to answer your question regarding the health care debate, I don't see it as a matter of populism so much as a general concern for human welfare. Perhaps populism itself was once informed by such a concern, but it sure isn't anymore.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 12, 2009 11:33 PM
Quoth Mr Analytical - " The historicity of Jesus per se is not enough to establish the truth claims of Christianity."
Christianity claims that there was a man/god hybrid called Jesus who lived in Judea in the first century, that he could do miracles, said various things that people thought were pretty good (although they had already been said before), told everyone that believing in him was the only way to the true god, got crucified* as remission of our sins (that god gave to us recklessly or perhaps culpably), died and was resurrected, correct?
That Jesus existed is the core of the Christian Mythos. Without the central figure (assuming for the moment Jesus DIDN'T exist^) what would be left? A few contradictory sayings, capable of being interpreted pretty much anyway you like (that had been floating around for five hundred years or more), and the necessity of belief in an imaginary person as the only way to the true god. (God wants you to be truthful but believe a lie?)
That doesn't seem much to believe in to me. It's kind of like believing in, and basing your life around, the "Laughter is the Best Medicine" column in the Readers' Digest.
I'd say Christians WANT Jesus to be proved to have existed# so they can justify their heavy investment in their beliefs. (IMHO) - DJ
-------------
* crucifixion was not an uncommon punishment for those in the lower classes who had ideas above their station (such as the suggestion that they were claiming to be 'the king of the Jews'). See outcome of the Second Servile Revolt of 73-71 BCE.
^ without stronger evidence I would call it 'unproven'
# which accounts for various spurious insertion into later copies of contemporaneous texts, faked relics, appearance of Jesus in various doors, cheese toasts, scorch marks on shirts &etc. and manufactured 'archaeological' artifacts
Posted by: DingoJack | December 12, 2009 11:33 PM
Nice horse laugh but the fact of the matter is that certain arguments, such as mathematical arguments, cannot be resolved with empirical science. That certainly does not mean empiricism cannot resolve other arguments but it does mean it cannot resolve them all.
What makes you think I was referring to you agreeing with the posts Heath has made in this thread? Obviously, your admiration for him predates this thread. You wrote that you respect him for his "integrity" and I am saying that I don't buy that. (How has he shown "integrity?" Did he refuse graft in your presence? Did he retract a defamatory column?) Rather, I think he has said things you agree with and you are calling that "integrity." (You don't have to agree with everything he says, in this thread or elsewhere, for that to be the case, if it is the case, and I think it is.)
You are irrational. It is fallacious to base you acceptance or rejection of an argument on the personality of the person advancing it. It would still be the case that x^n + y^n = z^n has no integer solutions for n > 2, (x, y, z != 0) even if Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot argued for it.
Posted by: Milesius | December 13, 2009 12:11 AM
An observation from Milesius:
Sadie Morrison = me too!!
Posted by: Milesius | December 13, 2009 12:23 AM
Sadie Morrison "To me, liberalism is genuinely concerned with everyone's wellbeing (exponentially more so than conservatism, anyway)..."
I phrase it as; the major difference between Left and Right is the Right protects the in-group, while the Left even tries to protect people we don't like. The Right has gone so far off the edge of the end table of common human decency (beside the ficus of benevolence in the hall of compassion) that, as with health reform, they're willing to screw themselves to keep "the other" from getting any. I don't understand the Walmart*1 crowd*2, I don't like Nascar*3 and I have very little idea what the "Blue collar comedy tour" is*4, but I'm not going to fight to screw them over (nor am I going to fight to screw myself over just to stick it to them) and I don't mind that my taxes help them too, as (in addition to roads and blowing shit up) that's what they're for.
It should be noted, again, that I am a foreigner and as a result, you all look kind of nuts to me.
*1 I've been to a Walmart a few times. Upon entering, the first thought that popped into my head was "So, this is where fat people come from." I'm not proud of it (knowing the link between poverty and obesity), but even I, a consistently pointy-headed liberal, have an atavistic component inside my head. I've tried suppressing it with leafy greens, IKEA furniture instructions and Enya, but nothing seems to work.
*2 The idea that people listen to the Right's various faux-populist radio/television idealogues confuses me. That some of people take their shows as factual baffles me. Consider me confaffled. Doubly so when you point out that they're being lied to and, even if you hand them on a silver platter the actual facts by, for example, giving them the real text of FOCA (as with the "Obama's gonna pass FOCA" thing that hit the net awhile ago), they're still outraged about the thing that, somewhere in their head, they (theoretically) now know is incorrect. That's just bizarre. All I can say is, thank Darwin for those secret FEMA camps. Once we get them re-educated, the survivors will thrive as underlings in our Liberal Utopia, slaves to our postmodern philosophies, chai tea and moral relativism.
*3 I've heard it said that the main reason to watch is for the crashes which, frankly, is kind of sick.
*4 I know two things about it: the thought of paying to sit and hear about how if I "X" I just might be a redneck makes me die a little inside, and that "Git 'er done" guy has some jokes that (having watched a couple minutes of his act on TV between flipping channels), much to my surprise, work on more than one level.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 13, 2009 1:40 AM
I'm sorry, that should be "organically-grown, free range leafy greens". Sometimes my drug and orgy addled mind loses its own train of thought.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 13, 2009 1:55 AM
Try drinking about two quarts of water and lying down. It's worked for
memy friend.Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 13, 2009 2:11 AM
In a perfect storm of ignorance, this twit said, "That's why we came to this country. They came to be Christians and they're trying to take that away."
What a stupid, stupid person. The only reason the Puritans left England wasn't so that they could be Christians (since--DUH--England had so many Christians they had a state Christian sect)--they left because they wanted to be drooling moron types of Christians. Sort of like this dimwit.
Posted by: Aquaria | December 13, 2009 3:08 AM
Milesius @ 215:
I don't think any of us know Michael Heath personally, so it may be that he has several dozen children's bodies in his shed. But so could you or I or anyone.
We can only judge him by what we see here. We think, at least most of us do, that he is a person of integrity because he behaves like one. He is normally very gracious, polite, considerate of other's arguments and ideas. I've seen him admit error on more than one occasion. This is my general impression of him whether I agree with him or not. (Often I don't have much of an opinion either way because he tends toward economics and that is not a subject I care much for and don't have strong opinions about.) In any case, we don't have to like him. He earned that by being a decent guy.
Sound mathematical arguments would certainly have the potential to be compelling, if not conclusive. But you have neither sound mathematical arguments nor empirical evidence, so it's a bit of a moot point at this stage.
Posted by: Leni | December 13, 2009 4:09 AM
The Puritans didn't flee England because they were oppressed. They fled England because they were no longer the oppressors. Now, admittedly I don't know much about history and most of what I do know is wrong, but that Cromwell fellow and the like come off as, collectively, douches.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 13, 2009 4:24 AM
Re Modusoperandi
I've been to a Walmart a few times. Upon entering, the first thought that popped into my head was "So, this is where fat people come from.
Not to defend Walmart or its customers but I have seen plenty of fat people shopping at Whole Foods and Balduccis'.
Posted by: SLC | December 13, 2009 8:38 AM
Nice horse laugh but the fact of the matter is that certain arguments, such as mathematical arguments, cannot be resolved with empirical science. That certainly does not mean empiricism cannot resolve other arguments but it does mean it cannot resolve them all.
You are throwing shit at a wall and still have no idea what you are talking about. While mathematical proofs are not empirical, what we attach them to is. Do you honestly believe that went straight from e=mc2, to a functional atomic weapon? Of course we didn't. All that equation did was open up the study of nuclear science. Math is only a small aspect of the study of something.
Besides which, you haven't given us any math to explain the existence of your god anyways. So even if what you said was sensical, you would still just be throwing big words at a wall and hoping no one will notice you're a fucking douche.
What makes you think I was referring to you agreeing with the posts Heath has made in this thread? Obviously, your admiration for him predates this thread. You wrote that you respect him for his "integrity" and I am saying that I don't buy that. (How has he shown "integrity?" Did he refuse graft in your presence? Did he retract a defamatory column?)
Michael Heath has never hesitated even one time, that I have seen of him, to admit he was wrong when he was convinced he was wrong. Nor has he ever been inclined to treat someone he disagrees with, with disrespect - unless they were being an ass. And even then it takes a lot to get him riled.
Rather, I think he has said things you agree with and you are calling that "integrity." (You don't have to agree with everything he says, in this thread or elsewhere, for that to be the case, if it is the case, and I think it is.)
That is what we in psychology call projection. You don't know nearly enough about me, or anyone else here who you are accusing of bad faith arguments, to make that kind of judgment. You are not doing your cause any favors by showing everyone that you are a fucking douche. Accusing people you don't know of lying is not a great way to ingratiate yourself or develop any sort of credibility.
Nor is it a good witness for the Christ you are arguing for the existence of. I am an atheist, but that was not always the case. When I was a young fundamentalist I was taught that my greatest tool as a witness for Christ, was my actions - how I treated others and how I behaved. Unfortunately, you don't seem to have learned that lesson - or you just don't give a shit about others and want them to burn in the hell you likely believe in.
By my reading of the bible, driving people away from divine grace and salvation through the blood of Jesus is a rather horrible sin.
You are irrational. It is fallacious to base you acceptance or rejection of an argument on the personality of the person advancing it.
I am being sarcastic you fucking sinfilled, vile little douche.
Sadie Morrison = me too!!
You should be made aware that the entertainment, is entirely about your total fucking douchbaggery, your fucking hypocrisy and your sins.
Posted by: DuWayne | December 13, 2009 8:53 AM
DuWayne directed at Milesius:
For me, the greatest source of entertainment in these sorts of exchanges is watching people make an argument that extends way beyond what the empirical evidence will support where the level of claimed certainty increases the further the argument extends beyond the evidence. Especially if the argument's degree of rationality goes down the further from the evidence the argument goes, e.g., a divine Jesus who is one aspect of a trinitarian monotheistic god. Another correlation we normally observe in these cases is the level of vileness directed towards others increases the further they get from the evidence along with the rhetorical and logical fallacies employed.
When honest critical thinkers come up against an oppossing view that is coherent, cogent, and arguable, we should demand civility and we normally see it. However, we also see these same worthy debaters throw out some invectives when oppossing defective, dishonest arguments that meet the fatally flawed conditions described in my first paragraph. This causes the defective thinker to consider themselves victims of prejudice for their arguments when not accorded the same respect as opponents with cogent arguments, either consciously or unconsciously avoiding the reality that they're not garnering respect because they're failing to meet the conditions of those people making cogent dissenting arguments.
This form of a mistaken sense of victimhood is something I do not find entertaining and actually eggs my competitive juices to take the defective thinker down. I'm far from unique on this point as we see in this thread, in fact it appears to be a trait shared by many commenters here. The question begged is how much energy do you use to bring citations to an argument where you know the defective thinker won't adapt their views in spite of empirical evidence falsifying their position.
With mroberts I spent hours providing him independently validated evidence falsifying his premises. That's because mroberts did initially appear to me to occassionally display some desire to actually learn and adapt on some issues, e.g., science-related issues like climate change or some economic issues like management of the federal debt or economic growth; though his record in this forum continues to be an inability to translate desire into results (and why I no longer respond to his comments). Of course, democommie's record on pegging people is far superior to mine and I now yield to his description of mroberts' character.
Milesius on the other hand, and I could very well be wrong this is merely an initial perspective, doesn't appear to have any desire to actually learn and adapt, he appears to merely be looking to make himself feel less impotent by debating people willing to challenge his positions. I think so he can claim to himself his arguments can withstand scrutiny. Why else would someone show up in a Scienceblogs forum with distinctly anti-scientific approach to seeking objective truth not asking questions to learn, but instead to do rhetorical battle?
He displays his frustration by lashing out because we treat his positions with the respect they deserve, not much. So my desire to go all out and completely falsify the vast majority of Milesius' points like many of us did with mroberts, using independently validated evidence, is just not there.
Milesius - if you want respect in this forum, start with seeking help to improve the quality of your arguments in general and put forth arguments with a degree of certainty commiserate to the evidence we can collectively validate. I have no problem with someone claiming Jesus is the divine son of God who also recognizes their belief is based only on faith; it's when they start making Lee Stroebel or related arguments that the knives come out.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 13, 2009 9:31 AM
Re Michael Heath & Duwayne Brayton
Several threads ago, Mr. DiPietro opined that Mr. Milesius was actually Robert O'Brien, of Robert O'Brien trophy fame. Since his level of discourse here bares considerable resemblance to that which Mr. O'Brien exhibits on those few blogs that still allow him to comment, I think that it is a good hypothesis. If, in fact, fuckface Milesius is Mr. O'Brien, his pretensions to academic credentials are rather lacking on the ground as Mr. O'Brien teaches statistics at a community college in San Diego, hardly on a par with UC San Diego @ laJolla.
Posted by: SLC | December 13, 2009 9:52 AM
SLC:
Is it possible that Mr. Mileastius has founded a new science, "Theostatistics", where all theorems and postulates actually require that the "unknown" remain unknown if order for the proposition to work?
Posted by: democommie | December 13, 2009 11:59 AM
I think you're right on the money. I see this Miley Cyrus guy as someone who is fundamentally insecure, but who puts on a show of bravado by touting his credentials left and right and calling anyone who disagrees with him a "moron" a priori actually reading or considering their viewpoints. You're 100% right that he (and his ilk, such as MRoberts, whom we fortunately seem to have finally lost) is not in any way interested in a genuine debate here, and that is precisely why he is nothing more than a troll (which is why I ignore him completely). Having divergent viewpoints doesn't make someone a troll; I would never call Heddle a troll, in spite of how annoying he often is. Arriving on the scene with the purpose of belligerence and combat, all to stroke a fragile ego, is nothing if not troll-like behavior. These people deserve no respect.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 13, 2009 12:08 PM
SLC "Not to defend Walmart or its customers but I have seen plenty of fat people shopping at Whole Foods and Balduccis'."
Sure. Fat elitists.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 13, 2009 1:37 PM
I haven't read all 200-some-odd (some very odd) comments, so my apologies if this is a repeat, but wingnutopia is going to make seasonal songs mandatory, I very strongly recommend The Pogues Fairytale of New York, complete with classic verse:
Seems perfect. Celebrates the joys of christmass, preying, singing songs, and so on…
Posted by: blf | December 13, 2009 2:20 PM
Quit while you are behind. E=MC^2 is from physics; not all mathematics has applications. (Although, we have found applications in the most surprising areas of mathematics.)
Correct. However, I wrote, in response to another poster's mere assertions, that arguments concerning the nature and existence of God are to be (formally) argued in the context of mathematical logic; I did not agree to engage in such arguments in this thread.
Admitting error might very well go to his integrity but being respectful or courteous does not.
For me to be projecting, I would have to praise someone for his "integrity" simply for agreeing with me, while accusing you of doing the same. Where did I do that? In point of fact, you are projecting when you write: You are throwing shit at a wall and still have no idea what you are talking about.
Some folks only understand one thing.
Posted by: Milesius | December 13, 2009 3:24 PM
I recall mentioning, once, in another thread, that I have an advanced degree in an analytical discipline and am a coauthor on a couple of papers (thus far). This response makes it twice. Did you flunk arithmetic, reading, or both?
I do call my opponents here morons quite often, but that is just a case of truth in labeling.
Posted by: Milesius | December 13, 2009 3:33 PM
"I recall mentioning, once, in another thread, that I have an advanced degree in an analytical discipline and am a coauthor on a couple of papers (thus far). This response makes it twice. Did you flunk arithmetic, reading, or both?"
And yet you seem coy about showing your work, fuckwad. Why is that?
Posted by: democommie | December 13, 2009 4:00 PM
No, that is merely an excuse you know the echo chamber will accept. I have shot down everything you asserted re: Tacitus and provided citations. By way of contrast, you have offered nothing but unsubstantiated assertion.
As I wrote previously, you are a poseur. You stick to echo chambers because you would not survive elsewhere.
Posted by: Milesius | December 13, 2009 4:12 PM
Some folks only understand one thing.
And your "arguments" -- and the religion they support -- are aimed solely at those folks, and are useless to the rest of us.
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 13, 2009 4:53 PM
Milesius #191:
No, he didn't. There were such things as 'procurators' back in that 'previous era' as well - it's just that Pontius Pilate wasn't one.
Well, if he's not infallible, and you're basing your argument that Jesus must have existed on a mention, in passing, of his crucifiction by him when about something entirely different, your argument is nonexistant.
Sorry, what era, precisely? I never actually said when the passage was allegedly forged.
#192:
I guess you are unaware that mistakenly calling Pilate a 'procurator' is a common mistake in translations of the works of Josephus. However, in the original Greek, he actually uses the more general term, 'governer'.
It's amazing. As I said, I'm not a historian, yet I can quickly point out major holes in your arguments, yet you seem to think we should actually treat you as if you know what you're talking about.
Posted by: Zmidponk | December 13, 2009 5:20 PM
Oh, and, Milesius, I note you failed to actually address my original point - that it was equally possible Tacitus simply accepted the story of Jesus being crucified because it meshed with his experience of how the Roman Empire operated, nor did you address the point of Tacitus not particularly liking Nero, so possibly being willing to accept the story of Jesus being crucified to bolster the idea of Christians being persecuted scapegoats.
Posted by: Zmidponk | December 13, 2009 5:25 PM
Re democommie @ #233
Of course Mr. Milesius, aka Robert O'Brien, isn't going to give a reference to any of his papers because that would out him as Mr. O'Brien, who has been banned from this blog.
Posted by: SLC | December 13, 2009 5:38 PM
Oh, sorry, Milesius, you did give examples of Tacitus not 'just taking people's word for it', and giving caveats, in #208, so I suppose you did, obliquely, address this. However, firstly, just because he did give caveats for alleged events in a few other places does not automatically mean he would have here - especially as it's not really clear he was not merely referring to the beliefs of the Christians rather than an actual historical event. Secondly, in your examples, he was writing specifically about the events he gave the caveats about. In his reference to Jesus' crucifiction, he was referring, in passing, to another event whilst writing about something entirely different.
Posted by: Zmidponk | December 13, 2009 5:42 PM
If you really want to declare war on the modern American version of Christmas, donate all your money to charity instead of buying gifts, work a few evenings in a soup kitchen or homeless shelter instead of going to parties, and spend your weekends playing games and reading with your kids instead of dragging them to the mall.
Posted by: Shay | December 13, 2009 5:50 PM
blf "I haven't read all 200-some-odd (some very odd) comments…"
Well, I can't speak for everyone, but some of us are taking whateveritis we're talking about seriously.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 13, 2009 7:01 PM
Why has nobody mentioned my favorite Christmas song?
o/`
This year has been a little crazy for the Andersons
You may recall we had some trouble last year
The robot council had us banished to an asteroid
That hasn’t undermined our holiday cheer
And we know it’s almost Christmas
From the marks we make on the wall
And that’s our favorite time of year
Merry Christmas from Chiron Beta Prime
where we’re working in a mine
For our robot overlords
Did I say overlords?
I meant protectors
Merry Christmas from Chiron Beta Prime
On every corner there’s a giant metal Santa Claus
Who watches over us with glowing red eyes
They carry weapons and they know if you’ve been bad or good
Not everybody’s good but everyone tries
And the rocks outside the airlock exude ammonia-scented snow
It’s like a winter wonderland
Merry Christmas from Chiron Beta Prime
where we’re working in a mine
For our robot overlords
Did I say overlords?
I meant protectors
Merry Christmas from Chiron Beta Prime
That’s all the family news that we’re allowed to talk about
We really hope you’ll come and visit us soon
I mean we’re literally begging you to visit us
And make it quick before they [MESSAGE REDACTED]
Now it’s time for Christmas dinner
I think the robots sent us a pie
You know I love my soylent green
Merry Christmas from Chiron Beta Prime
where we’re working in a mine
For our robot overlords
Did I say overlords?
I meant protectors
Merry Christmas from Chiron Beta Prime
Posted by: Benjamin Geiger | December 13, 2009 7:05 PM
I did not claim otherwise. I wrote: So Tacitus used the then current term instead of the correct term of a previous era. It should have been clear that I was referring to the title of the governor of Judea, which previously was prefect but was procurator in Tacitus' day.
That is a fine non sequitur.
Any era between the 1st and 11th centuries, inclusive.
Yes, he uses hegemon. Hegemon maps to both prefect and procurator, which should tell you something.
No ****.
Pull the other leg; it has bells on it.
I provided far more than a few examples and the examples I gave were just from the first four books. You are welcome to cling to your fantasy re: Tacitus in spite of the evidence, though.
Posted by: Milesius | December 13, 2009 7:40 PM
I should add the caveat:
Or it would have been the title of the governor of Judea in Tacitus' day, had not the Jewish Wars taken place, one of the major consequences of which was that Judea (later Palestine) was ruled by legates.
Posted by: Milesius | December 13, 2009 7:47 PM
Just keep serving up the bullshit there, Mr. O'Brien. But, please, give us some writing samples so we may be awed by your wisdom and intellect. So far, you're not really wowing anybody but yourself.
Posted by: democommie | December 13, 2009 8:07 PM
Milesius #243:
It might have been clear if you had used clearer language. However, this is exactly the kind of detail Tacitus should have known, and, if he's the anally careful and meticulous historian your argument requires, should have got correct, but didn't. And, of course, that's assuming the historians who are raising questions over the passage's authenticity are wrong to do so.
How is it a non sequitur? Your argument requires that Tacitus is such a careful and meticulous historian that he makes absolutely sure that every detail is 100% correct, even things that he only refers to in passing. If you admit that he is not infallible, then you admit the possibility that this particular little detail he refers to in passing is merely what is believed to have happened, rather than what did actually happen. Therefore your argument is non-existant.
Well, your problem is, then, that you can only seemingly try to refute the points made by the historians raising questions over the passage's authenticity by saying that you can speak about the motives of every single person who who had any kind of opportunity whatsoever to fabricate such a thing for a period of an entire millennium.
Yes, it tells me the point you were trying to make is wrong. If you're trying to imply that maybe the same error occurred with translating Tacitus, then you're obviously unaware that Tacitus wrote in Latin.
Well, if you actually address the points I'm making and provide some kind of evidence that your assertions are anything more than assertions, most especially your original assertion that Tacitus must have investigated to make sure that Jesus actually did exist and was crucified before making a passing comment about the crucifiction of Jesus, maybe I might be convinced that your description of 'fantasy' is accurate.
In other words, put up or shut up.
Posted by: Zmidponk | December 13, 2009 9:04 PM
I bet that Merry Hyatt is one of those nutjobs who includes a birthday cake for Jesus at her Christmas dessert table.
Posted by: OleanderTea | December 13, 2009 9:53 PM
In other words, you were wrong.
Nice to know.
Posted by: Rilke's Granddaughter | December 13, 2009 10:27 PM
Milesius has mentioned that he's provided actual "evidence" at one point or another. Can anybody point me to it? I've looked at his posts and found nothing.
Posted by: Rilke's Granddaughter | December 13, 2009 10:30 PM
OT,
No more nutty than leaving a place for Elijah at seder.
Besides, what's wrong with MORE CAKE?!?!?
Posted by: billygroat | December 13, 2009 11:07 PM
This is so funny... I was in Malaysia for the better part of this past week, and there were Christmas displays all over the place.
Same thing here in Thailand... Christmas displays all over the place... with gift exchanges happening in many Buddhist households later this month, basically an extension of the New Year's holiday season.
Why do these Buddhist and Muslim countries celebrate Christmas (and not just the Christians living in these countries)? Because for them, Christmas isn't about promoting religion, it's about selling stuff.
Generally speaking, the only "War on Christmas" that the teabaggers and other fundies should be worried about is the commercialization of Christmas into just another generic purchasing holiday.
Posted by: doctorgoo | December 13, 2009 11:33 PM
I think that it is good that we put "God" back into Schools. After all we did have the "pledge of allegience" that the diaper heads (terrorists) had removed because it had God in it. My point is it don't say whos- God.
Maybe this will help the kids be more socialable to each other and become better people to each other and society. Not video game freaks who make violence okay and become loners.
Posted by: splenda | December 13, 2009 11:59 PM
splenda: I would counter your short rant with facts, but reading it has, for all practical purposes, rendered me as historically ignorant and pridefully stupid as you are.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 14, 2009 12:11 AM
Tacitus could very well have known it; perhaps he introduced a minor "anachronism" for the sake of his audience.
My argument does not require that.
Your twisted logic is painful to read. (Perhaps if you spent less time gaming and more time reading up on logic and critical thinking...) My argument does not require "that Tacitus is such a careful and meticulous historian that he makes absolutely sure that every detail is 100% correct..." No historian is infallible.
As I wrote previously, the brain dead mythicist argument is a product of the modern age and there is no reason why someone would want to forge such a passage from the 1st to 11th centuries, inclusive. I do not have to be clairvoyant to make such a statement. Rather, I only need to possess something you lack, i.e., logic and critical thinking skills.
I know Tacitus wrote in Latin. I am suggesting that hegemon mapping to both prefect and procurator attests a fluidity between the titles.
I provided evidence from Tacitus' Annals that he was careful in presenting reports about which he was unsure.
Posted by: Milesius | December 14, 2009 12:49 AM
Rilke's (a backwater Northern European name if I have ever heard one) granddaughter wrote:
Yes, technically, and I corrected myself. What's your point, rube?
Your lack of reading comprehension is noted. Have someone read this to you.
Posted by: Milesius | December 14, 2009 12:58 AM
Good to know.
Your sophomoric sense of humor doesn't disguise the fact that you failed to show any evidence on that post.
Epic fail.
Posted by: Rilke's Granddaughter | December 14, 2009 2:14 AM
You can add that delusion to your stockpile. Did you correct me? No. Did anyone else? No. I corrected myself.
I provided evidence, which even Zmidponk conceded, your incurable stupidity notwithstanding. What a low-rent, trifling mediocrity from a long line of low-rent, trifling mediocrities you are.
Posted by: Milesius | December 14, 2009 2:29 AM
Well, Miletus, since you're the one who pointed out that you don't know what you're talking about, I see we share this "delusion".
Oh and I thought you were offering evidence for an actual argument, rather than evidence that you just contradicted yourself.
Do you always have so much trouble holding a simple discussion? Or only when you're dealing with topics you're not well versed in?
Posted by: Rilke's Granddaughter | December 14, 2009 3:05 AM
Damn you're dumb.
That's just nonsense. Are you trying to make some sense?
Look, I already know you are a pretentious moron. (I've known that for a number of years, in fact.) You don't need to keep demonstrating it.
Posted by: Milesius | December 14, 2009 3:14 AM
Thanks for agreeing on your ignorance. You're making progress.
I admit my point was subtle. Should I explain it to you?
And now you're just fantasizing, my child. You haven't known me for years. I'm out of your league.
Posted by: Rilke's granddaughter | December 14, 2009 3:23 AM
Oh, and Golem? A word of big sisterly advice - your rather juvenile and mundane attempts at insult are making folks laugh at you - I'm sure you don't want that, do you?
Posted by: Rilke's granddaughter | December 14, 2009 3:27 AM
Lay off the chronic.
Noxious mediocrity,
This is not the first time I have encountered your invincible stupidity.
You are an oxygen-depletor, your delusions of adequacy notwithstanding.
Posted by: Milesius | December 14, 2009 3:28 AM
Golem? As in the creature of Jewish folklore?
Those would be horselaughs. And I don't need advice from a vapid internet parasite.
Posted by: Milesius | December 14, 2009 3:42 AM
Is this reminding anybody else of their mother and father? No?
Oh.
...
Me neither.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 14, 2009 3:43 AM
Milesius
Do digress from this discussion for a moment -
To which flavour of Christianity do you subscribe? You remind me very much of one Mormon fellow (or was he Catholic?), a maths major as I recall, who was fond of lofty language and employed a similar invective laced style of argumentation. I cannot recall the specific forum where I encountered him. He had a fondness for Charlemagne and a disdain for Jews. He used a different nick - something to do with a horse. Same person?
Posted by: Joe | December 14, 2009 3:58 AM
Actually, Miletus, we've never met. Online or off. I'm sorry your memory is faulty.
Posted by: Rilke's granddaughterre | December 14, 2009 4:00 AM
Sorry about the golem joke. Apparently I overestimated your erudition. I could explain it, but I doubt you have either the education or the humor to understand.
Posted by: Rilke's granddaughter | December 14, 2009 4:04 AM
Milesius #254:
So, maybe when referring to Jesus crucifiction, he did a similar thing.
Erm, yes it does. You are saying that Jesus must have existed because Tacitus mentions his crucifiction in passing, and, you assert, Tacitus must have investigated that this actually occurred before mentioning it, even in passing. If he is not an extremely careful, meticulous and infallible historian, this simply is not true.
No, you need to be a time-travelling psychic.
Maybe if you start demonstrating that at some point, I might believe you. You also seem to lack the skill to actually provide evidence for your assertions.
...in Greek. Tacitus, as I pointed out, wrote in Latin.
No, you provided some examples of Tacitus providing caveats when reporting rumours when writing specifically about those rumours. You did not provide any evidence that Tacitus would investigate the authenticity of being told something occurred, when it was a fairly commonplace occurrence, before mentioning as a relatively minor detail, in passing, when writing about something else. Nor did you provide any specific evidence that Tacitus actually conducted such an investigation in THIS case.
Milesius #257:
Well, I suppose you're technically correct, but if you read the post you linked to, I pointed out that you provided evidence of something that wasn't really all that relevant to your assertions. And that's the only bit of evidence you've actually provided. As my challenge was, 'put up or shut up', in as many words, and you've failed to put up, I'm not going to pay any more attention to you.
Well, it's interesting. I came to this discussion without really knowing whether there really was a historical Jesus, but actually leaning in the direction of 'there was'. However, if Milesius' arguments are the best there is in favour of that idea, I'm becoming increasingly convinced there wasn't.
Posted by: Zmidponk | December 14, 2009 8:16 AM
Milesus (a suspect name of decidedly untrustworthy foreign origins) -
Why between only the 1st and 11th centuries, specifically?
Also have you considered that monks might of added evidence of someone called 'Joshua' being crucified (or a similar name, not being uncommon one, and the punishment being, as I posted earlier, not an uncommon for 'uppity' slaves) because they assumed that such a careful historian as Tacitus should have reported Jesus being crucified, since such a thing was incredibly important to them.
Ever thought of that that? = DJ
Posted by: DIngoJack | December 14, 2009 8:41 AM
(a backwater Northern European name if I have ever heard one)
I think this one quote pretty well proves that thre's no point in trying to educate Milesius: he has no idea what he's talking about, he knows he lost the argument and made a fool of himself long ago, and he's now reduced to pointless name-calling and thread-hogging. He can't win the argument with facts and logic, so he's now trying to win it by sheer endurance: keep on saying stupid shit until everyone else just gives up trying to impress an overgrown baby with adult discourse.
Here's a helpful hint, Milesius: insulting people and talking over them only works in face-to-face oral arguments, where you can intimidate people with your presence and louder voice. On a written forum like this, it doesn't work so well. Stick with what you know, okay?
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 14, 2009 11:11 AM
It really is the best there is. I mean, people can argue it better by providing the same 'evidence' sans insults, but there isn't any other actual evidence to bring to the table. They can either point to Josephus (the relevant parts of which are widely believed to be forged) and Tacitus (him recording something people believe), or they can say that they assume Jesus existed because of lack of disproving evidence. There's not really any other avenue to take for Jesus belief. At least the latter type are honest and do not try to pretend there is actual evidence to support their presuppositions.
Posted by: Paul | December 14, 2009 11:27 AM
I suspect you don't know how to spell Gollum.
If you are as anemic as your insults and your looks are as haggard as your arguments, then you must look like you have been rode hard and put away wet.
Posted by: Milesius | December 14, 2009 1:13 PM
Because Josephus wrote in the first century and the earliest extant manuscript we have dates from the 11th century.
Why would they do that when a) they have the New Testament and b) the passage is so disdainful of Christians? If you want a good example of a "pious" fraud, then take a look at the Donation of Constantine.
Posted by: Milesius | December 14, 2009 1:19 PM
That is a dumb rejoinder. If Tacitus inserted a false story concerning Jesus Christ into his history, knowingly or unknowingly, then it would not be an anachronism; it would be a false story. Moreover, there is a distinct difference between using the then common title for governors in place of the older title and inserting a false story, knowingly or unknowingly, into his history.
You are a tiresome blockhead. I claim that Jesus existed and one of the lines of evidence I offer is Tacitus' mention of him. I also defended his credibility as a historian by giving examples of him distinguishing rumor from fact. Your moronic standard is such that we could not trust any history before the modern era and much history in the modern era.
Let me walk you through this slowly. There is one word in Greek that maps to two Latin titles. That suggests fluidity between the words in Latin. Else, we would expect two different Greek words, especially for two languages in constant contact as Greek and Latin were at the time.
You are exceedingly obtuse. My argument, as any argument would under similar circumstances, relies on probabilities. Tacitus exhibits a certain pattern of behavior throughout his history. If you think he deviated from that pattern in this case, then the onus is on you, dim bulb, not me, to provide evidence for your claim.
Thankfully. I've had enough of your pretense of knowledge.
Posted by: Milesius | December 14, 2009 1:42 PM
That should be Tacitus, not Josephus. And while Tacitus started writing in the first century, it would not have been until the 2nd century that someone would have the opportunity to engage in forgery, so it should be 2nd to 11th centuries, inclusive, and that's being generous with the window of opportunity.
Posted by: Milesius | December 14, 2009 1:55 PM
So... "Melesius". Detailed religious orientation?
P.S. My last name is de Lange; from what backwater do I hail? What's your's?
Posted by: Joe | December 14, 2009 2:30 PM
Good God - you really didn't get the joke. I did overestimate both your education and your intelligence. After all, consider that you make invalid arguments like:
Apparently you've no understanding of linguistics. The "fluidity" (not a valid linguistic concept, I'm afraid, my child) demonstrates that Greek had no need to distinguish the two using that word. There were other terms in Greek used in the Eastern regions of the Imperium. Your lack of understanding of Greek terminology has led to you a rather...stupid claim. Once again, you demonstrate you've no understanding of this topic.Good to know.
P.S. Why you would choose to self-identify as a small, slimy, rather stupid creature is interesting.
Posted by: Rilke's granddaughter | December 14, 2009 2:48 PM
Thank you for essentially repeating what I wrote.
If you knew Attic or Koine (the latter being more pertinent to the period in question), then you would have made reference to specific Greek words. You did not because you do not.
Posted by: Milesius | December 14, 2009 6:39 PM
Not Mormon or Catholic. (Although, I do like Aquinas and episcopal polity.)
Posted by: Milesius | December 14, 2009 6:42 PM
Milesius "Although, I do like...episcopal polity."
Who doesn't? Episcopal polity is the best kind of polity. Go episcopal polity! Woo!
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 14, 2009 6:56 PM
This has got to be O'Brien. You should ask if they offer anger management classes at whatever two-bit crack head rehab church took you in. Why do you even care if Jesus existed? You clearly don't give two fucks about modeling his behavior. Well, his purported behavior, I should say. Unless maybe the Greek work for douchebag also maps to Jesus.
Posted by: Leni | December 14, 2009 7:19 PM
O'Brienesius musta run outta ink; or, he's gone to retrieve the scholarly articles that he's been boasting about.
Posted by: democommie | December 15, 2009 7:47 AM
Back to the subject of songs. Irving Berlin not only wrote White Christmas, he wrote The Easter Parade. And not only was he of Jewish origins, he was apparently an atheist (or at least an agnostic).
Posted by: MTS | December 15, 2009 11:52 AM