The mind is a terrible thing

[1gr8bldr]

There isn't much that is ambiguous about the word 'version.'

Synonyms include interpretation, rendition, style, account, and, yes, translation.

But in a context that is entirely word-specific, and has no verifiability other than arguments over the words themselves, it ends up striking one that it matters not a fig whether I call something a 'duck' or a 'goose,' since nobody actually saw anything at all. The KJV is now only 400 years old. 400. That is how recently this particular revision came into being.

St. Jerome is said to have lived roughly from 370 to 420 A.D. That puts about 1,191 years between St. Jerome and the KJV. A good long stretch, that is to say. So if we guess that he might have been, say, 30 years old when he decided to rewrite the whole bible, that would put him about 400 years after the most important of the NT events he labors to describe and illuminate. 400 years.

400 years ago, from today, was 1611. Anyone wish to step forward and narrate in the first person, with unerring authority, the events of that one year alone? Re-writing a whole bible must have taken quite some scholarly investigation, one would think, and perhaps all of the libraries and published documents and easy access to information that was available in 400 A.D. made that task a snap for this St. Jerome fella, so he had every original document he might need right at his fingertips. No doubt he was intimately versed in all of the various languages involved as well, what with the ready availability of international travel at the time, and all of the langauge schools and self-help tapes popping up all around. Probably he just Googled the necessary gaps and had the manuscript at the publisher before his deadline, sent by parcel post with a return receipt from the local Post Office . . . And no wonder the finished work took off as a popular phenomenon -- a mere thousand years or so later someone figured out how to print enough copies for folks to actually read. Several hundred years after that, quite a few people actually learned how to read. It was a best-seller waiting to happen. Right?

Placed in the proper context of 400 A.D or so, and with an understanding of the times, and with an understanding of the sheer magnitude of the undertaking even in modern times, one is forced to a simple conclusion -- nonsense. Just the same, given the wholesale, and very successful revisions and updating of previous fictions we see coming out of Hollywood today, it seems credible that a new version of an old tale is easier to swallow whole than a new version of a fact. Who was there to witness Batman's original car, after all? The new version is just as good as the old one, and maybe better . . .

Unfortunately this sort of 'historical' revisionism isn't so easy with genuine truth, so when some fools started rabble-rousing, and bandying about the idea that the Sun didn't really revolve around the Earth, and dangerously heretical ideas like that, those individuals had to be disposed of. Belief is the antithesis of truth, and has always been. We have a history of cherishing our fictions and rejecting our facts. Often in a provenly murderous fashion.

The problem here isn't an endless game of faux-scholarly analysis of words and languages and all the like, designed only to distract everyone, the problem is that the central point is political and (like all politics) fictional. Religion is nothing more than control-minded politics, designed entirely to get the unwashed, ignorant masses to snap to the demands of the self-anointed ruling classes. It has never been anything different. Much of the motivation behind the 'religious' leaders has been proper and well-intentioned. People are self-interested, barbaric beings, and left without something to fear civilization crumbles into chaos in mere moments. Many of us 'unsaved' heretics knew that already. Much of the motivation behind the 'religious' leaders has not been quite so altuistic and benign, and religions have authored some of history's worst tragedies. Which side of that debate one lands on is a matter of personal interpretation ('Your' version of belief), but the facts are inarguable, and the actual history is clear.

Whether one word is equivalent to another in this that or the other language is little more than a mental exercise that avoids the point -- not a single one of the stories holds a molecule of water as factual. The fact that the original Old Hebrew version of Genesis clearly uses the plural 'Eloi' a number of times in the first chapter alone is the stuff of intellectual debate, but avoids the idea that there cannot, nor has there ever actually been either a singular 'god' nor a plural 'gods.' Fighting over the exact meanings of ancient superstitions seems as absurd to the rest of us as arguments over the skin color of the aliens from outer space or the nature and habits of ghosts. We're sort of happy that it gives you something to do with your extra time, but we'll thank you to keep that brand of nonsense out of our legislatures.

We have enough real, factual, earthly problems to deal with, and keeping your ancient superstitions confined to your little cult headquarters rather than continually confronting the rest of us with it and demanding with increasing violence that we agree only with you would be considered a sign that the self-described mercy and tolerance and wisdom of the various monotheistic religious sects is actually true, rather than the thinly-veiled intolerance and arrogantly expansionist oppression it actually represents in practice. Your religions aim to conquer, by whatever means necessary, not to peacefully co-exist, and your histories and modern day practices demonstrate that more than any words you can ever create.

If you want to win, bring us facts, not bluster and filibuster. Is your god so shy that he cannot reveal himself, except through your own descriptions? If so, then by describing you take on the persona of that described, and deign to speak in the stead of your god, which seems to violate your own proscriptions. Shall we believe only you, because you believe?

Hello Asath, I'm always intrigued by the fact that some unbelieving posters know so much about biblical things. How is it that you know things such as the KJ argument. What motivates someone to learn about that which they don't believe? Could you shed some light on this?

 

[centerpin fan]

How is it that you know things such as the KJ argument.

What is the "KJ argument"? I've read Asaph's post, but I'm still not sure what his point is.

 

[1gr8bldr]

What is the "KJ argument"? I've read Asaph's post, but I'm still not sure what his point is.

He indicated indirectly his knowledge of the argument of the "inspiration" of the KJ argument. That was just an example that I used. I do not wish to go there. Its interesting that many who post here are well informed. I'm not interested in science, so why would I spend large amounts of time learning about it. There must be those who enjoy the study of religion without acepting it as truthful???

 

[centerpin fan]

Again, I'll just leave your post in black, and I'll reply in blue (for the most part.)


There isn't much that is ambiguous about the word 'version.'

Synonyms include interpretation, rendition, style, account, and, yes, translation.

But in a context that is entirely word-specific, and has no verifiability other than arguments over the words themselves, it ends up striking one that it matters not a fig whether I call something a 'duck' or a 'goose,' since nobody actually saw anything at all. The KJV is now only 400 years old. 400. Yes, it is. So? That is how recently this particular revision came into being.


St. Jerome is said to have lived roughly from 370 to 420 A.D. That puts about 1,191 years between St. Jerome and the KJV. A good long stretch, that is to say. Your math skills are impeccable. So?

So if we guess that he might have been, say, 30 years old when he decided to rewrite the whole bible, that would put him about 400 years after the most important of the NT events he labors to describe and illuminate. 400 years. He didn’t “rewrite” the whole Bible. He translated it from the original languages which were written EARLIER. In some cases, he just updated previous Latin translations.

400 years ago, from today, was 1611. Anyone wish to step forward and narrate in the first person, with unerring authority, the events of that one year alone? Re-writing a whole bible must have taken quite some scholarly investigation, one would think, and perhaps all of the libraries and published documents and easy access to information that was available in 400 A.D. made that task a snap for this St. Jerome fella, so he had every original document he might need right at his fingertips. No doubt he was intimately versed in all of the various languages involved as well, As a matter of fact he was, which is why the Pope chose him to do it. The papal stamp of approval gave him access to the best libraries of the day.

... what with the ready availability of international travel at the time, and all of the langauge schools and self-help tapes popping up all around. Probably he just Googled the necessary gaps and had the manuscript at the publisher before his deadline, sent by parcel post with a return receipt from the local Post Office . . . Believe it or not, there were reputable scholars, academics and historians before Google. If that is your standard, we need to throw out most of written human history.

And no wonder the finished work took off as a popular phenomenon -- a mere thousand years or so later someone figured out how to print enough copies for folks to actually read. Several hundred years after that, quite a few people actually learned how to read. It was a best-seller waiting to happen. Right?

Placed in the proper context of 400 A.D or so, and with an understanding of the times, and with an understanding of the sheer magnitude of the undertaking even in modern times, one is forced to a simple conclusion -- nonsense. That is your conclusion and, from what you’ve written, it is based on a pretty spotty knowledge of church history and the history of the Bible. Just the same, given the wholesale, and very successful revisions and updating of previous fictions we see coming out of Hollywood today, it seems credible that a new version of an old tale is easier to swallow whole than a new version of a fact. Who was there to witness Batman's original car, after all? The new version is just as good as the old one, and maybe better . . . Humor me for a minute. Exactly what was the “old version” and how did it differ from the “new version” we have today? I’ve asked this question before and have never gotten an answer. Maybe you’ll be the first.

Unfortunately this sort of 'historical' revisionism isn't so easy with genuine truth, so when some fools started rabble-rousing, and bandying about the idea that the Sun didn't really revolve around the Earth, and dangerously heretical ideas like that, those individuals had to be disposed of. Belief is the antithesis of truth, and has always been. We have a history of cherishing our fictions and rejecting our facts. Often in a provenly murderous fashion.

The problem here isn't an endless game of faux-scholarly analysis of words and languages and all the like, designed only to distract everyone, the problem is that the central point is political and (like all politics) fictional. Religion is nothing more than control-minded politics, designed entirely to get the unwashed, ignorant masses to snap to the demands of the self-anointed ruling classes. It has never been anything different. Much of the motivation behind the 'religious' leaders has been proper and well-intentioned. People are self-interested, barbaric beings, and left without something to fear civilization crumbles into chaos in mere moments. Many of us 'unsaved' heretics knew that already. Much of the motivation behind the 'religious' leaders has not been quite so altuistic and benign, and religions have authored some of history's worst tragedies. Which side of that debate one lands on is a matter of personal interpretation ('Your' version of belief), but the facts are inarguable, and the actual history is clear.

Whether one word is equivalent to another in this that or the other language is little more than a mental exercise that avoids the point -- not a single one of the stories holds a molecule of water as factual. The fact that the original Old Hebrew version of Genesis clearly uses the plural 'Eloi' a number of times in the first chapter alone is the stuff of intellectual debate, but avoids the idea that there cannot, nor has there ever actually been either a singular 'god' nor a plural 'gods.' Fighting over the exact meanings of ancient superstitions seems as absurd to the rest of us as arguments over the skin color of the aliens from outer space or the nature and habits of ghosts. We're sort of happy that it gives you something to do with your extra time, but we'll thank you to keep that brand of nonsense out of our legislatures.

We have enough real, factual, earthly problems to deal with, and keeping your ancient superstitions confined to your little cult headquarters rather than continually confronting the rest of us with it and demanding with increasing violence that we agree only with you would be considered a sign that the self-described mercy and tolerance and wisdom of the various monotheistic religious sects is actually true, rather than the thinly-veiled intolerance and arrogantly expansionist oppression it actually represents in practice. Your religions aim to conquer, by whatever means necessary, not to peacefully co-exist, and your histories and modern day practices demonstrate that more than any words you can ever create.

If you want to win, bring us facts, not bluster and filibuster. Is your god so shy that he cannot reveal himself, except through your own descriptions? If so, then by describing you take on the persona of that described, and deign to speak in the stead of your god, which seems to violate your own proscriptions. Shall we believe only you, because you believe?

This should be clearly labeled as "editorial comment". If you believe it, fine. I do not.

If you want to win, bring us facts, not bluster and filibuster.

Interesting that you would accuse someone else of filibustering.

 

[Asath]

For my own part, I’ll join centerpin in not knowing just what the ‘KJ argument’ might be. It is brought up that if there were not reputable scholars, academics and historians before Google, then we might as well throw out most of written history. Well, yeah. We can throw most of it out after Google too.

First of all because there weren’t any such comprehensively schooled authors. And there still aren’t, in the sense that no one at all can actually assert with authority the totality of the events of 1611, 1511, 1411, the year zero, or 33 B.C. It can’t be done. The further from modern times the ‘historical’ event is, the more fragmentary and incomplete the evidence and the more speculative the interpretations become. But that is just fact and pragmatism and truth (ask any historian), to which religions seem immune.

The KJV seems to be one of the most widely promulgated and widely believed of the various monotheistic religious books out there, but this particular version of this particular book is only 400 years old, as I mentioned. Insofar as the sheer scope of the story it purports to verify with the words contained therein, this is the blink of an eye historically. The problems with such things are rife, as anyone might readily see -- Do they mean to say that King James ratified an ‘official’ new translation of everything, down to the OT? So far as the OT goes, the other two monotheistic religions seem to disagree. And this alone is a problem. Holding aside the NT for a moment, all three of the monotheistic practices claim to arise from the same source, and it cannot be considered credible that each has branched off into sectarian squabbles if the Word of God was clearly laid down someplace or another. Doesn’t matter where. Doesn’t matter how. Doesn’t matter by whom. Doesn’t even matter in which language (though it does seem odd that a single God ought to speak in so very many tongues). If such Word was, in fact, conveyed, it would be pretty clear. We’re talking about one’s conception of GOD here. God the Creator. It can’t be asserted that a God of any sort would be unable to make itself clear.

But that is precisely what seems to have occurred, and that is what is disputed. By people. Over words. St. Jerome translated the Bible from the original languages? Really? In about 400 A.D.? About 125 years after Constantine ordered just about everything that didn’t agree with his own interpretations destroyed? But the Pope (largely installed by Constantine) had copies of all that stuff hidden in the best libraries of the day? And gave them to Jerome? And there were original copies of the Pentateuch laying about, and this Jerome fella was also versed in faithfully interpreting these ancient dialects in their original meanings? Interpreting being the operative word here. But, to be fair, Constantine and his inquisitors were only destroying anything other than his approved parts of the NT, which is what he was writing. Jerome largely left the OT alone, but certainly had no original copies of that either. And as far as the NT goes, the earliest known ‘Gospel’ was written somewhere between 70 and 100 years after the events it pretends to describe, making it perfectly fair to ask any participant here to pick up a pen and faithfully describe the events of 1911 from personal memory and expect to be taken so seriously that a religion will spring up around them. Nonsense.

So, what happened to the Books of Nicodemus, Laodicians, Clement I and II, Barnabas, Polycarp, and many others which were discovered (hidden from the purging) much later?
They weren’t in the library at the time, of course. This tends to belie a ‘translation’ from the ‘originals’ as well. One cannot translate that which was thought to no longer exist.

What then, in all cases, in all versions, and in all disputes is being tossed about and argued? The Word of God? The original writings? The One True Path? No. The words of men. Written, edited, translated, mistranslated, and rewritten time and again by men. God seems to have neglected to have learned how to write, and the historical Jesus seems to be lacking in that skill as well – the man seems not to have written a single word of his own. Much is made of that fact, in interpretations, but the fact itself remains.

1gr8bldr wondered why a non-believer would bother to learn more about belief systems than the believers seem to know -- that is simpler to answer: medical researchers largely do not themselves have the diseases they seek to cure. Believers seek to direct my behavior and force it to conform to their beliefs, while I do no such thing to them. I don’t remember passing a law enforcing that God doesn’t want us to buy beer on Sunday. Once their ‘belief’ crosses the line onto my reality and my legislature and my courthouse it is both my right and my responsibility to resist oppression that is authored in the name of fiction. I have no such problems with facts, but similar to environmentalists, believers in anything at all seem immune to truth, and assert that everyone must think as they do, simply because they say so. They have no provable standing for that assertion, and I view it as little more than political bullying. Organized religions are a pervasive and cancerous influence on everything, and one can only cure a disease by first understanding it.

 

[TheBishop]

1gr8bldr wondered why a non-believer would bother to learn more about belief systems than the believers seem to know -- that is simpler to answer: medical researchers largely do not themselves have the diseases they seek to cure. Believers seek to direct my behavior and force it to conform to their beliefs, while I do no such thing to them. I don’t remember passing a law enforcing that God doesn’t want us to buy beer on Sunday. Once their ‘belief’ crosses the line onto my reality and my legislature and my courthouse it is both my right and my responsibility to resist oppression that is authored in the name of fiction. I have no such problems with facts, but similar to environmentalists, believers in anything at all seem immune to truth, and assert that everyone must think as they do, simply because they say so. They have no provable standing for that assertion, and I view it as little more than political bullying. Organized religions are a pervasive and cancerous influence on everything, and one can only cure a disease by first understanding it.

I think you just won by slaughter rule.

 

[stringmusic]

I think you just won by slaughter rule.

What exactly did he win? He got asked a question and gave a really long answer, do long answers impress you that much?

Would he have still won by the slaughter rule if he would have said "Theology is interesting to me"?

 

[stringmusic]

Organized religions are a pervasive and cancerous influence on everything, and one can only cure a disease by first understanding it.

On everything? Everything? No, no, you couldn't have meant everything? Right?

 

[centerpin fan]

I think you just won by slaughter rule.

I'm glad somebody's impressed by this mess.

I'm working on a response to Asath. Gimme some time. It's not easy wading through his posts. Fortunately, I've got my waders out in the truck.

 

[TheBishop]

What exactly did he win? He got asked a question and gave a really long answer, do long answers impress you that much?

No its not the length but the logic, something you seem unable to follow. Interesting you think so little of me that you think I am impressed only by big words and long posts. I am not as simply minded as to be blinded by words alone.

Would he have still won by the slaughter rule if he would have said "Theology is interesting to me"?

Not to me he wouldn't. He said exactly the reason we should seek more knowledge in general, to combat oppression. It is those that question that can only truely be free, and those that don't shall forever be manipulated.

 

[stringmusic]

No its not the length but the logic, something you seem unable to follow. Interesting you think so little of me that you think I am impressed only by big words and long posts. I am not as simply minded as to be blinded by words alone.

I was just joking with ya Bishop, thats why the is there, but thanks for the shot about my logic.

Have a good thanksgiving!

 

[centerpin fan]

You know the drill: you in black, me in blue.

Here's the short answer to much of your post: ignore the Dan Brown conspiracy stuff and read actual church history. I'll try to expand below.

First of all because there weren’t any such comprehensively schooled authors. Oh, please. And there still aren’t, in the sense that no one at all can actually assert with authority the totality of the events of 1611, 1511, 1411, the year zero, or 33 B.C. It can’t be done. The further from modern times the ‘historical’ event is, the more fragmentary and incomplete the evidence and the more speculative the interpretations become. The entire NT we have today was completed by about 100 AD. There was at least one apostle still alive at that time (John), and there were some of their disciples still alive (Polycarp, for example.) But that is just fact and pragmatism and truth (ask any historian), to which religions seem immune.

The KJV seems to be one of the most widely promulgated and widely believed of the various monotheistic religious books out there, but this particular version of this particular book is only 400 years old, as I mentioned. But it's a translation of very old copies of the original Greek and Hebrew. What is hard to understand about that? Insofar as the sheer scope of the story it purports to verify with the words contained therein, this is the blink of an eye historically. The problems with such things are rife, as anyone might readily see -- Do they mean to say that King James ratified an ‘official’ new translation of everything, down to the OT? Yes, that's exactly what they did, and that's exactly what the translators of the NKJV, NASB, NIV, ESV, etc. did. So far as the OT goes, the other two monotheistic religions seem to disagree. And this alone is a problem. Holding aside the NT for a moment, all three of the monotheistic practices claim to arise from the same source, and it cannot be considered credible that each has branched off into sectarian squabbles if the Word of God was clearly laid down someplace or another. Why not? Islam is based on the Koran, a book shorter than the NT, and it has many divisions. Doesn’t matter where. Doesn’t matter how. Doesn’t matter by whom. Doesn’t even matter in which language (though it does seem odd that a single God ought to speak in so very many tongues). If such Word was, in fact, conveyed, it would be pretty clear. We’re talking about one’s conception of GOD here. God the Creator. It can’t be asserted that a God of any sort would be unable to make itself clear.

But that is precisely what seems to have occurred, and that is what is disputed. By people. Over words. St. Jerome translated the Bible from the original languages? Really? Yes, really. In about 400 A.D.? About 125 years after Constantine ordered just about everything that didn’t agree with his own interpretations destroyed? Good grief, not Constantine again. I'll ask it again: what doctrine of the church did Constantine change? I've heard this "Constantine rewrote the Bible to suit himself" line so many times, it's pitiful. Nobody ever cites specifics, though. What teaching of the early church did Constantine add to or take away? I've asked that question many times in many different threads, and I'm still waiting for an answer. Give it your best shot. But the Pope (largely installed by Constantine) had copies of all that stuff hidden in the best libraries of the day? And gave them to Jerome? And there were original copies of the Pentateuch laying about, and this Jerome fella was also versed in faithfully interpreting these ancient dialects in their original meanings? I don't want to shock you, but there are people alive today who can read Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. Why is it so difficult to believe Jerome could as well? Interpreting being the operative word here. But, to be fair, Constantine and his inquisitors were only destroying anything other than his approved parts of the NT, which is what he was writing. Jerome largely left the OT alone, but certainly had no original copies of that either. As for the OT, even if he had nothing else, he had the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures. It had been in use for several hundred years. And as far as the NT goes, the earliest known ‘Gospel’ was written somewhere between 70 and 100 years after the events it pretends to describe, making it perfectly fair to ask any participant here to pick up a pen and faithfully describe the events of 1911 from personal memory and expect to be taken so seriously that a religion will spring up around them. Nonsense. "Nonsense" correctly describes much of your post. You've been so busy reading the Dan Brown conspiracy stuff, you've neglected the important writings: the ante-Nicene fathers. "Ante-Nicene" means "before Nicea". Their collected works fill ten volumes and about 6,000 pages. In all their writings, they quote the NT extensively, so extensively that you could almost reproduce the entire NT with them. And here's the kicker: when they quote a NT passage, it's almost identical to that same passage in any modern version of the Bible. Now how is that possible if Constantine rewrote the entire Bible?

So, what happened to the Books of Nicodemus, Laodicians, Clement I and II, Barnabas, Polycarp, and many others which were discovered (hidden from the purging) much later? They were never considered scripture by the early church.They weren’t in the library at the time, of course. This tends to belie a ‘translation’ from the ‘originals’ as well. One cannot translate that which was thought to no longer exist.

What then, in all cases, in all versions, and in all disputes is being tossed about and argued? The Word of God? The original writings? The One True Path? No. The words of men. Written, edited, translated, mistranslated, and rewritten time and again by men. You're reading too much conspiracy theory into what actually happened. No Christian will argue that God used men to transmit His word to us. We just take exception with your assertion that Constantine started the "rewrite ball" rolling, and others have followed in his footsteps. God seems to have neglected to have learned how to write, and the historical Jesus seems to be lacking in that skill as well – the man seems not to have written a single word of his own. Much is made of that fact, in interpretations, but the fact itself remains.

 

[Asath]

“It is those that question that can only truely be free, and those that don't shall forever be manipulated.”

Well said sir.

Some seem to ‘believe’ that refuting on a point-by-point basis actually constitutes a connected argument, a logical sequence, and sufficient cause . But when the refutation contradicts itself internally it becomes a mockery of itself, and devolves into insults, which I’m sure was not intended. (BTW, I never bothered reading Dan Brown – twisting the few things that actually can be known into an even more complex fiction – solely for personal gain – seemed too close to the source of the problem for my taste . . . ) Adding more fictions, asserted as fact, completes the deal:

“The entire NT we have today was completed by about 100 AD.” Not a chance. That statement is so easily falsified that it can’t rise to the response trigger.

And this: “There was at least one apostle still alive at that time (John), and there were some of their disciples still alive (Polycarp, for example.)” Really? You have evidence that, first, there really was a ‘John’ (or some close translation of that name which did not exist in the time and place in question), and that this person lived well over 100 years in an age when the average life-span was about 40 years, and that this person was not only able to write, but did so? Sir, you have a huge scoop on your hands, and one that has escaped all of the biblical scholars and researchers. I would suggest that you present this evidence and publish it immediately. You’ll be rich.

But the real fun is here – let us start at the end – “No Christian will argue that God used men to transmit His word to us.” Indeed. So Christians argue, to the contrary, that god wrote the words himself? That seems rather difficult to demonstrate.

Just previous to this, referring to the rather large number of writings that were forcibly not included in any of the ‘authorized’ versions, we have this justification: “They were never considered scripture by the early church.” Here we see the immediate transfer of authority from the writers and believers themselves to the ‘early church,’ which is perhaps somehow an authority that existed and acted outside of men. Perhaps the ‘early church’ was a static, authoritarian, alien being? So, already, the ‘scripture’ has become a judgment call – if the ‘early church’ didn’t deem it worthwhile, then it wasn’t actually the Word. So who, exactly, is this ‘early church’? Not people, of course. Nor an already established institution composed of people. So what was it?

Perhaps they were this crowd – “ . . . you've neglected the important writings: the ante-Nicene fathers. "Ante-Nicene" means "before Nicea".” Now, I don’t mean to be rude, but if this group of ‘fathers’ and their writings were so influential, one must ask several questions – the first one being how they managed to ‘quote’ so literally and extensively from a work that was still in progress, historically; second, how they could have become the ‘anti-Nicene’ anything if their writings pre-date the Council of Constantine; and third, why this particular group might have been already arguing over a Word of God that has already been asserted to be something that men were not used to transmit? If this Word was already there, then why all the bother?

This sort of backs itself into the previous statement: “What teaching of the early church did Constantine add to or take away? I've asked that question many times in many different threads, and I'm still waiting for an answer. Give it your best shot.” Well, you already answered that one yourself, just out of the gate: “(Polycarp, for example.)” You can also add to that the writings of everyone I mentioned above, and add Magnesians, Trallians, Philadelphians, Hermas I through III, Smyrnaeans, and a few more . . . But, again, these are the writings of mere men, and the assertion was made right up front that, – “No Christian will argue that God used men to transmit His word to us,” so the writings actually included in this most holy of books cannot be the work of men by that standard. Thus whatever Constantine did or did not do cannot matter to a believer, since these words you read in your own version originated from Above. So is the question rhetorical, or merely defensive?

And in that light, why would that thing about John living a hundred and some-odd years matter? Whose words are they? If John wasn’t transmitting the Word, then why does a single thought be wasted on defending what he is purported to have written in the first place? If men didn’t transmit the words, then who cares about the men said to have written them? What’s all the fuss about this Moses fella, if he didn’t ‘transmit’?

And finally, concerning the branching of sectarian squabbles: “Why not? Islam is based on the Koran, a book shorter than the NT, and it has many divisions.” Yes, Islam is actually centered on the Koran, just as Christianity is centered on the NT, and Judaism is centered on the OT. But one needs to learn only a single thing to realize that this ‘holy book,’ too, is based entirely on the OT. The supposed and entirely invented God of Abraham underpins Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. All three begin at the same source. But they have divisions amongst, between, and within themselves that cannot be resolved even through centuries of wholesale and horrific bloodshed concerning these differences. All of this bloodshed was authored by the writers of these many words in so few books.

None of it can be supported, especially when this god that is being asserted seems not to have ever appeared and actually written His Own Book. In any language. Unless or until that moment arrives, I’m afraid that there is only one reasonable conclusion.

There is a conspiracy, to be sure, but it is certainly the believers who hold the pen, and only the believers who seek to oppress.

(And what does it matter if it was Constantine, which it was, or Martin Luther, which it also was, or King James, which it also was? The revision hit parade never stops.)

 

[centerpin fan]

First things first ... you aren't Diogenes with a new name, are you? Come back to haunt us? There are definite similarities between you two:

1) Epic-length posts,

2) Lots of Bible/church history references with little evidence of actually having read any of them,

3) A fixation on Constantine that borders on the pathological,

4) Not using the quote function but just using quotation marks instead, and

5) Often posting late at night or very early in the morning.


“It is those that question that can only truely be free, and those that don't shall forever be manipulated.”

Well said sir.

Some seem to ‘believe’ that refuting on a point-by-point basis actually constitutes a connected argument, a logical sequence, and sufficient cause . I'm sorry you don't like my methodology, but the only way to eat an elephant is one bite at a time. If you cut your posts down from "Lord of the Rings" length to a more manageable size, I'd respond differently. But when the refutation contradicts itself internally it becomes a mockery of itself, and devolves into insults, which I’m sure was not intended. (BTW, I never bothered reading Dan Brown – Neither have I, but I know it like the back of my hand. Maybe I should have said you've read the stuff that he plagiarized. The info is all over the internet, and it permeates the popular culture.

... twisting the few things that actually can be known into an even more complex fiction – solely for personal gain – seemed too close to the source of the problem for my taste . . . ) Adding more fictions, asserted as fact, completes the deal:

“The entire NT we have today was completed by about 100 AD.” Not a chance. That statement is so easily falsified that it can’t rise to the response trigger. I'll rephrase since you seem to have mistook my meaning: the last book of the NT (Revelation) was written around 100 AD. The other books are generally dated from the mid 50's/early 60's up to the end of the 1st century.

And this: “There was at least one apostle still alive at that time (John), and there were some of their disciples still alive (Polycarp, for example.)” Really? You have evidence that, first, there really was a ‘John’ (or some close translation of that name which did not exist in the time and place in question), and that this person lived well over 100 years in an age when the average life-span was about 40 years, and that this person was not only able to write, but did so? Sir, you have a huge scoop on your hands, and one that has escaped all of the biblical scholars and researchers. It hasn't escaped the Biblical scholars. It's just escaped you. That fact could be remedied by simply reading the materials that you dismiss out of hand. To produce an average age of 40, you'll have some dying very young and some dying very old. It wasn't "Logan's Run". They just didn't drop dead once they hit the magic number of 40.

I'm not sure how old John was when he died. It depend on when he wrote Revelation. (I've seen it dated as early as 90 AD and as late as 110 AD.) As for Polycarp, he says "Eighty and six years have I served him ..." which means he lived to at least 86. I would suggest that you present this evidence and publish it immediately. You’ll be rich.

But the real fun is here – let us start at the end – “No Christian will argue that God used men to transmit His word to us.” Indeed. So Christians argue, to the contrary, that god wrote the words himself? That seems rather difficult to demonstrate. I left out a word. I'll restate: God used men to transmit His word to us. No Christian will deny that.

Just previous to this, referring to the rather large number of writings that were forcibly not included in any of the ‘authorized’ versions, we have this justification: “They were never considered scripture by the early church.” Here we see the immediate transfer of authority from the writers and believers themselves to the ‘early church,’ which is perhaps somehow an authority that existed and acted outside of men. The writers and believers ARE the early church, the "ekklesia" in Greek, the "called out". Read the Bible. Who do you think Paul is referring to when he writes "church"?Perhaps the ‘early church’ was a static, authoritarian, alien being? So, already, the ‘scripture’ has become a judgment call – if the ‘early church’ didn’t deem it worthwhile, then it wasn’t actually the Word. The early church knew the authors and their disciples. They knew what was "legit" and what was not. For the church to accept any writing as scripture, it had to be authored by an apostle (or someone very close to one, such as Luke) and it had to be from the 1st century. That's why many "gospels" were never accepted by the church. So who, exactly, is this ‘early church’? Not people, of course. Nor an already established institution composed of people. So what was it?

Perhaps they were this crowd – “ . . . you've neglected the important writings: the ante-Nicene fathers. "Ante-Nicene" means "before Nicea".” Now, I don’t mean to be rude, but if this group of ‘fathers’ and their writings were so influential, one must ask several questions – the first one being how they managed to ‘quote’ so literally and extensively from a work that was still in progress, historically; As I said before ... the NT was completed by about 100 AD. No, you could not walk down to the local Christain bookstore and buy a copy. The writings of the apostles were well known, however. The ante-Nicene period is generally dated from 100 AD to 325 AD and included lots of smart people like Irenaeus, Tertullian and Origen.

... second, how they could have become the ‘anti-Nicene’ anything if their writings pre-date the Council of Constantine; Good grief. By definition, ante-Nicene predates the Council of Constantine (held at Nicea.) (Postscript: I just noticed you wrote "anti-Nicene", not "ante-Nicene". There is a difference. "Anti" means "against" or "opposite". "Ante" means "before". Therefore, the ante-Nicene fathers lived before Nicea. They weren't against Nicea.)

... and third, why this particular group might have been already arguing over a Word of God that has already been asserted to be something that men were not used to transmit? If this Word was already there, then why all the bother? What arguments are you talking about? There was very little disagreement on what was included in the NT. Yes, there were some, but they are in the minority.

This sort of backs itself into the previous statement: “What teaching of the early church did Constantine add to or take away? I've asked that question many times in many different threads, and I'm still waiting for an answer. Give it your best shot.” Well, you already answered that one yourself, just out of the gate: “(Polycarp, for example.)” Polycarp did not consider his writings to be scripture, and neither did the rest of the church.

You can also add to that the writings of everyone I mentioned above, and add Magnesians, Trallians, Philadelphians, Hermas I through III, Smyrnaeans, and a few more . . . Now, you're just throwing out letters from St. Ignatius (for the most part.) Have you actually read any of them or is that the result of a quick Google search? Since I have read them, I can tell you that, like Polycarp, he did not consider them to be scripture and neither did the early church. They were letters to various churches he wrote on the way to his martyrdom.

But, again, these are the writings of mere men, and the assertion was made right up front that, – “No Christian will argue that God used men to transmit His word to us,” so the writings actually included in this most holy of books cannot be the work of men by that standard. Thus whatever Constantine did or did not do cannot matter to a believer, since these words you read in your own version originated from Above. So is the question rhetorical, or merely defensive? The question is unanswered, once again.

And in that light, why would that thing about John living a hundred and some-odd years matter? Whose words are they? If John wasn’t transmitting the Word, then why does a single thought be wasted on defending what he is purported to have written in the first place? If men didn’t transmit the words, then who cares about the men said to have written them? What’s all the fuss about this Moses fella, if he didn’t ‘transmit’? See above.

And finally, concerning the branching of sectarian squabbles: “Why not? Islam is based on the Koran, a book shorter than the NT, and it has many divisions.” Yes, Islam is actually centered on the Koran, just as Christianity is centered on the NT, and Judaism is centered on the OT. But one needs to learn only a single thing to realize that this ‘holy book,’ too, is based entirely on the OT. The supposed and entirely invented God of Abraham underpins Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. All three begin at the same source. We can at least agree on that. But they have divisions amongst, between, and within themselves that cannot be resolved even through centuries of wholesale and horrific bloodshed concerning these differences. All of this bloodshed was authored by the writers of these many words in so few books.

None of it can be supported, especially when this god that is being asserted seems not to have ever appeared and actually written His Own Book. In any language. Unless or until that moment arrives, I’m afraid that there is only one reasonable conclusion.

There is a conspiracy, to be sure, but it is certainly the believers who hold the pen, and only the believers who seek to oppress.

(And what does it matter if it was Constantine, which it was, or Martin Luther, which it also was, or King James, which it also was? The revision hit parade never stops.)

To this last bit, I really don't have much to add that I haven't already said in previous posts.

 

[bullethead]

No Christian will argue that God used men to transmit His word to us.

No Christian could argue anything other than that because it is all there is holding up the entire religion. No god ever writes anything, talks to anyone, makes an appearance or shows in a way that is universally understood to every being on the planet. SOOOO, a bunch of stories have to be written(obviously by man because something so powerful to create everything ever cannot write it down) in order to "create" at set of beliefs/rules/laws.

Take a group of children and tell them that when they die there is nothing and you will see them melt in the reality of it all. Then after you feel bad make up some story about a happy place where everyone goes and it is so much better than what we have now that we will be better off. Then when they start asking more questions about the place and head honcho just keep adding to the story with answers that fit the questions. Any that do not fit, chalk it up as something beyond man's comprehension and only a supreme version of "us" can understand. Whatever helps ya get through life.....

 

[Asath]

I appreciate the comparison with Diogenes, and have long wondered why his voice suddenly disappeared. If you feel that I mimic his methods, it is simply because I read nearly all of his posts, and agreed with his reasons and reasoning. I don’t think I’m quite up to that standard, but I’m flattered to be included in such company.

Complex questions often require long explanations, and if one can accuse: “ . . . ignore the Dan Brown conspiracy stuff and read actual church history,” and then in the next post assert: “(BTW, I never bothered reading Dan Brown) – “Neither have I, but I know it like the back of my hand,” then I’m afraid I have no idea what you’re talking about. You are genuinely able to assert an intimate knowledge of something you will admit to having never read? I find that a little bit confusing . . . But not really.

Perhaps reading the long version, though, might avoid leaping to conclusions. My point in mentioning that I didn’t read Dan Brown was meant to illuminate my lack of qualification to therefore comment on what he may or may not have said. If I read your own context correctly, your mentioning that you also haven’t read Dan Brown is being used as an assertion of your qualification to comment on the contents of the book you proudly have not read. You know it like the back of your hand because you haven’t read it? Honestly?

Assertions as to dating, similarly, must be compared to the actual dating of the earliest known fragments – simply ‘knowing’ that something was written by a certain date is a far reach from demonstrating that to be true. And in truth, the earliest know fragment of the new testament is a small bit of the Gospel of John, reliably dated at about 125 CE. Portions of Matthew, Luke, and Revelations have been found that reliably date from 150 to 175 CE. The rest runs from 200 to 350 or later. So whoever decided that Revelations ought to be the last Book and Matthew the first was clearly exercising a bit of editorial license -- nearly all of what they put in between was written much later by all indications, and none of it was written, by any plausible argument, by anyone who was actually alive when it happened. But the point remains that the works of Jerome, who lived in the fourth century, includes the Gospel of Mary, which he attributed to Matthew, and which was not included. Contemporaries of Jerome, including Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis; and Austin also mention a Gospel under this name. Who took this out of his writings? This one, and many, many others. There is no short version of this sort of thing, since the list can go on for dozens of pages concerning the revision, new revisions, re-revisions, and deletions authored by the various people over the many years. You cannot use the Bible as a source of itself and a verification of itself, and then argue authorship. The two positions are mutually exclusive. Either it is a self-contained ‘Holy’ truth in a single volume, or it was written, compiled, and approved by men. It cannot be both.

AND, all of this niggling nonsense fails to address, yet again, the actual point – if the ‘scholars’ of 2,000 years from now fail to exactly and accurately date all of the Disney stories and Grimm’s fairy tales, or get them in the right order, it still won’t make any of them true. Bogging everyone down in the scientific method of the dating and historical verifications still won’t make the stories true, and springing up a rich and powerful Cult of Cinderella will still be Dopey. The Church of Bambi won’t gain any credibility by verifying the date and authorship of the story.

This is what makes these stories true to the cultists: ““No Christian will argue that God used men to transmit His word to us.” That was the statement. Clear as a bell. One post later: “I left out a word. I'll restate: God used men to transmit His word to us. No Christian will deny that.” Mystifying. Completely different statements. But if the new statement is the right one, then how does that one refute the truth that all of the writings are the words of men? Made by men, compiled by men, and endlessly revised by men for only the purposes of men? The first one didn’t, so it was immediately revised into the converse of itself, which also fails to prove the point being made. But the ability of believers to change words, statements, assertions, and tactics with alacrity, and stand behind all of them simultaneously is the definition of belief. Facts need proof, and can only change with a genuine counter-proof. Beliefs are true (to believers) by assertion, and cannot be disproved. They’ll simply change the standards.

“The writers and believers ARE the early church, the "ekklesia" in Greek, the "called out". Read the Bible.” I did. That is how I know that the ‘early church’ was men, as you just said – ‘the writers and believers.’ So if the ‘writers and believers’ in this book actually believed their own writings and beliefs, and made an ‘early church’ out of it, then that would seem to make my point. People, all of them. Not a single god with a pen in hand amongst them, and not a single witness to the divine events they purport to describe. (Aside from John of Patmos, whose hallucinations were of such vividness that he actually may have been wherever he imagined himself to be . . and who was of such singular nutball quality that he was exiled from society and forced to write his rantings on an island far from actual civilization.)

I’m quite aware, as well, of what the ‘ante-‘ prefix denotes, and hope you will pardon my hasty misspelling. But stick with me here – the assertion is made by many that we have before us the Word of God. When challenged on that, the next assertion many make is, well, okay, it is the ‘God Inspired’ Word. Then, when challenged on that, the position further erodes to, well, okay, it is the Word as Approved by the ‘Church Fathers.’ Then when challenged on that position it continues to erode and folks start trotting out ancient authorities who may or may not have existed and who may have been writing cautionary folk tales for children. Wouldn’t it strike one as a bit odd that the few extant writings (read – the ones that weren’t order destroyed) of the ‘pre-Nicene Fathers’ so neatly and compactly ratify the post-Nicea outcome? Or are we simply making convenient, cherry-picked, and once again assumptive knowledge from something that is so well and popularly known that we don’t need to bother actually reading it? After all, actually reading even Dan Brown is a lot of work, and since one already knows what it says without reading it, that is quite enough to be able to make hard conclusions and accuse others of a lack of knowledge . . .

That is Religion and religious history in a nutshell . . . Believers, largely, readily admit that they don’t even read or understand the actual basis of their own beliefs, but they don’t care, and assert that their beliefs are true simply because they say so. For the rest of us, this has been a tragic mistake.

 

[centerpin fan]

I appreciate the comparison with Diogenes, and have long wondered why his voice suddenly disappeared. If you feel that I mimic his methods, it is simply because I read nearly all of his posts, and agreed with his reasons and reasoning. I don’t think I’m quite up to that standard, but I’m flattered to be included in such company. It was not a compliment. Diogenes confused verbosity with insight. He was amusing, though. I’m still laughing about the time he used a Mormon site as a source.

Complex questions often require long explanations, and if one can accuse: “ . . . ignore the Dan Brown conspiracy stuff and read actual church history,” and then in the next post assert: “(BTW, I never bothered reading Dan Brown) – “Neither have I, but I know it like the back of my hand,” then I’m afraid I have no idea what you’re talking about. You are genuinely able to assert an intimate knowledge of something you will admit to having never read? I find that a little bit confusing . . . But not really.

Perhaps reading the long version, though, might avoid leaping to conclusions. My point in mentioning that I didn’t read Dan Brown was meant to illuminate my lack of qualification to therefore comment on what he may or may not have said. If I read your own context correctly, your mentioning that you also haven’t read Dan Brown is being used as an assertion of your qualification to comment on the contents of the book you proudly have not read. You know it like the back of your hand because you haven’t read it? Honestly? Honestly. A few years ago, Peter Jackson directed a new version of King Kong. Having seen the original 1933 classic and the 1976 remake many times, I didn’t have to watch Jackson’s version to know the plot included a giant ape grabbing Anne Darrow, climbing to the top of the Empire State Building with her, and then being shot by planes armed with machine guns. That is the story. Likewise, I don’t have to read Dan Brown to understand a story that’s been around for ages (most notably in Holy Blood, Holy Grail, whose authors sued Brown for plagiarism.) BTW, if you’re interested, skip Dan Brown and read Foucault’s Pendulum by Umberto Eco. As one reviewer noted, Foucault is the book Dan Brown wished he had the talent to write.

Assertions as to dating, similarly, must be compared to the actual dating of the earliest known fragments – simply ‘knowing’ that something was written by a certain date is a far reach from demonstrating that to be true. And in truth, the earliest know fragment of the new testament is a small bit of the Gospel of John, reliably dated at about 125 CE. Portions of Matthew, Luke, and Revelations have been found that reliably date from 150 to 175 CE. The rest runs from 200 to 350 or later. Dating the earliest known fragments tells you one thing: when that copy was written. It doesn’t tell you when the original was written. If I flew to Germany tomorrow, went to a yard sale, and found a copy of Mein Kampf, that does not mean that Mein Kampf was written in 2011. For estimated dates of the original NT writings, see here:

http://www.errantskeptics.org/DatingNT.htm

… and here:

http://www.bethinking.org/resource.php?ID=233

So whoever decided that Revelations ought to be the last Book and Matthew the first was clearly exercising a bit of editorial license -- nearly all of what they put in between was written much later by all indications, and none of it was written, by any plausible argument, by anyone who was actually alive when it happened. But the point remains that the works of Jerome, who lived in the fourth century, includes the Gospel of Mary, which he attributed to Matthew, and which was not included. Contemporaries of Jerome, including Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis; and Austin also mention a Gospel under this name. Who took this out of his writings? Nobody took it out. It was never included in the first place. I’ve said this before in other threads, but it bears repeating:

St. Irenaeus, writing in the 2nd century, stated that there were …. four gospels.

Tertullian, writing in the late 2nd/early 3rd centuries, stated that there were …. four gospels.

Tatian (2nd century) wrote the Diatessaron, which was a harmony of the … four gospels.

Origen, possibly the greatest intellect of his day, wrote in the 3rd century that there were …. four gospels.

This one, and many, many others. There is no short version of this sort of thing, since the list can go on for dozens of pages concerning the revision, new revisions, re-revisions, and deletions authored by the various people over the many years. It can only go on for dozens of pages if you ignore facts such as those I just listed. You cannot use the Bible as a source of itself and a verification of itself, and then argue authorship. The two positions are mutually exclusive. Either it is a self-contained ‘Holy’ truth in a single volume, or it was written, compiled, and approved by men. It cannot be both.

AND, all of this niggling nonsense fails to address, yet again, the actual point – if the ‘scholars’ of 2,000 years from now fail to exactly and accurately date all of the Disney stories and Grimm’s fairy tales, or get them in the right order, it still won’t make any of them true. Bogging everyone down in the scientific method of the dating and historical verifications still won’t make the stories true, and springing up a rich and powerful Cult of Cinderella will still be Dopey. The Church of Bambi won’t gain any credibility by verifying the date and authorship of the story. Then why bring up the dates at all? I didn’t start this mess. I’m just correcting you.

This is what makes these stories true to the cultists: ““No Christian will argue that God used men to transmit His word to us.” That was the statement. Clear as a bell. One post later: “I left out a word. I'll restate: God used men to transmit His word to us. No Christian will deny that.” Mystifying. Completely different statements. Yes, adding a negative tends to do that. But if the new statement is the right one, then how does that one refute the truth that all of the writings are the words of men? I’m not trying to refute that. I believe God used men to transmit His word to us. I can’t say it any plainer than that. Made by men, compiled by men, and endlessly revised by men for only the purposes of men? Not “endlessly revised”. The identity of Jesus does not change with each new Bible translation. The first one didn’t, so it was immediately revised into the converse of itself, which also fails to prove the point being made. But the ability of believers to change words, statements, assertions, and tactics with alacrity, and stand behind all of them simultaneously is the definition of belief. Facts need proof, and can only change with a genuine counter-proof. Beliefs are true (to believers) by assertion, and cannot be disproved. They’ll simply change the standard. As do you. Check out my post # 118.

“The writers and believers ARE the early church, the "ekklesia" in Greek, the "called out". Read the Bible.” I did. That is how I know that the ‘early church’ was men, as you just said – ‘the writers and believers.’ So if the ‘writers and believers’ in this book actually believed their own writings and beliefs, and made an ‘early church’ out of it, then that would seem to make my point. People, all of them. Not a single god with a pen in hand amongst them, and not a single witness to the divine events they purport to describe. Wrong. (Aside from John of Patmos, whose hallucinations were of such vividness that he actually may have been wherever he imagined himself to be . . and who was of such singular nutball quality that he was exiled from society and forced to write his rantings on an island far from actual civilization.)

I’m quite aware, as well, of what the ‘ante-‘ prefix denotes … You could’ve fooled me. … and hope you will pardon my hasty misspelling. You didn’t just misspell it. You got the meaning wrong entirely. Here’s your original quote:

how they could have become the ‘anti-Nicene’ anything if their writings pre-date the Council of Constantine

So what you meant to say was “how they could have become the ‘before-Nicene’ anything if their writings pre-date the Council of Constantine”? Please.

… But stick with me here – the assertion is made by many that we have before us the Word of God. When challenged on that, the next assertion many make is, well, okay, it is the ‘God Inspired’ Word. Then, when challenged on that, the position further erodes to, well, okay, it is the Word as Approved by the ‘Church Fathers.’ Then when challenged on that position it continues to erode and folks start trotting out ancient authorities who may or may not have existed and who may have been writing cautionary folk tales for children. Wouldn’t it strike one as a bit odd that the few extant writings … Few? Ten volumes containing 6,000 pages is a “few”?

… (read – the ones that weren’t order destroyed) of the ‘pre-Nicene Fathers’ so neatly and compactly ratify the post-Nicea outcome? Obviously, it was due to a massive conspiracy perpetrated by Constantine. And what exactly was “the post-Nicea outcome”? What doctrine of the faith did he change to suit his nefarious purposes? Or are we simply making convenient, cherry-picked, and once again assumptive knowledge from something that is so well and popularly known that we don’t need to bother actually reading it? After all, actually reading even Dan Brown is a lot of work, and since one already knows what it says without reading it, that is quite enough to be able to make hard conclusions and accuse others of a lack of knowledge . .

That is Religion and religious history in a nutshell . . . Believers, largely, readily admit that they don’t even read or understand the actual basis of their own beliefs, but they don’t care, and assert that their beliefs are true simply because they say so. Pot, meet kettle. For the rest of us, this has been a tragic mistake.

 

[Asath]

“Or take those who live alone with a dog. They speak to him all day long; first they try to understand the dog, then they swear the dog understands them, he’s shy, he’s jealous, he’s hypersensitive; next they’re teasing him, making scenes, until they’re sure he’s become just like them, human, and they’re proud of it, but the fact is they’ve become just like him: they have become canine.”
-Umberto Eco; ‘Foucault’s Pendulum’

“Incidentally, if the normal condition were nothingness, and we were only a luckless transitory excrescence, the ontological argument would also collapse. It would not be worth arguing that, if it is possible to think id cujus nihil majus cogitari possit (that is, possessed of all perfections), since part of this being’s due should also be the perfection that is existence, the very fact that God is thinking proves that He exists. Of all the confutations of the ontological argument, the most energetic seems to be expressed by the question “Who says that existence is a perfection?” Once it is admitted that absolute purity consists of Nonbeing, the greatest perfection of God would consist of His nonexistence. Thinking of Him (being able to think of Him) as existing would be the effect of our shortcomings, capable of sullying with the attribution of being what has the supreme right and incredible good fortune not to exist.”
-Umberto Eco; ‘Kant and the Platypus’

“Man somehow feels that he is infinite, or rather that he is capable of desiring in an unlimited fashion; he desires everything, we might say. But he realizes that he is incapable of achieving what he desires, and therefore he must prefigure an Other (who possesses to an optimum degree what he most desires), to whom he delegates the job of bridging the gap between what is desired and what can be done.”
-Umberto Eco; (paraphrasing Feuerbach); ‘Travels in Hyperreality’

"...the first quality of an honest man is contempt for religion, which would have us afraid of the most natural thing in the world, which is death; and would have us hate the one beautiful thing destiny has given us, which is life."
-Umberto Eco; ‘The Island of the Day Before’


Thanks for bringing up Eco. I have nine of his books, and have read a few more, but never thought I’d have a chance to use any of that here . . .

Now, I could easily spend a few paragraphs defending my misspelling and the ready misinterpretation that spawned. The statement stands, though poorly worded in that context. But the thought remains – the ‘collected’ writings of these ante-Nicene ‘fathers’ were not collected and published until the late 1800’s. Perhaps they ought to have been better known as the post-Nicene fathers, since the writings contained therein are among the few that were not ordered destroyed. Similar to modern times, cherry-picking the few bits one agrees with, and disposing of the rest, is hardly a new idea. This sort of thing is why we have tried to get rid of Emperors to begin with, and why we now try to do away with the remnants of their extra-political control mechanisms currently known as religions.

There is not now nor will there ever be a singular human, whether a Pope or an Emperor or a Pharaoh or a King, nor will there ever be a collection of humans oddly assembled over several centuries and suddenly decreed to be the ‘Fathers’ of anything at all, that will be able to assert from a position of authority the patently absurd. It might be that the only truth that all of human history has to teach us is that the vast majority of humans have always been wrong.

If you wish to actually take this up, point by point, in an adult and intellectual manner, I’d recommend dispensing with the insults, and actually spending some time reading critically, rather than looking only for confirmations of already revealed biases in third party sources. Desiring is not learning, after all.

 

[Drowntaff]

Doesn't matter, I don't know what's going to happen so that keeps my curiosity for life going.

 

[centerpin fan]

At least we can agree on Eco. I just picked up The Prague Cemetery. Looking forward to reading it.