The GDON is irrationally fighting Flemming thread! ALL HERE!
Offline First off, I love the movie and support the 'cause' so please don't think I'm trying to discredit what he has done, but I just have some questions/concerns.
I'm starting a club at my school which would be for Atheists & Freethinking people. We were going to cover mythology and I wanted to go over the mythological figures mentioned in The God Who Wasn't There.
So as I looked up each figure and found the according sites or information of them, through Wikipedia and other sources, I noticed that Beddru wasn't around.
I searched through Google and I found pages criticizing Flemming as a hypocrite for using this figure in his movie because it was the "real" God Who Wasn't There because it never existed and was made up in The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors.
I was wondering if anyone knew whether these were bogus sites - since there are still sites around saying that the world is flat you can't assume that they're all telling the truth - and it just happens to be that I haven't found any evidence in my sources or that Flemming made an understandable human error in including this Beddru.
Does anyone have anyother views on this?
"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into." -- Author unknown
- Login to post comments
Good for you! Can you tell us what you found out? Did the information you found match the attributes claimed by Flemming in his movie re Dionysus, Mithras and Osiris?
Yep. And even if it wasn't made up, how likely is it that a god in Japan(!) 2000 years ago influenced Christianity? Doesn't sound very likely in the first place, does it? Yet few people look into it, so this is to your credit.
One of those sites you saw may be mine. I did a review of Flemming's movie here: http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakuseidon/God_Who_Wasnt_There_analysis.htm
Yes, indeed, Flemming did what he accused others of doing: not checking his facts. I'm not sure whether that is hypocrisy, but it is certainly ironic.
A final point, Valmordae: should atheists question Flemming about this? Should the Rational Response squad actually ask Flemming about where he got this information from in their next interview? Or is it better to just let sleeping dogs lie? (Note that this misinformation is now being distributed under the "War on Easter" campaign. Kind of like the atheist version of Jack Chick tracts).
"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into." -- Author unknown
I too would like an answer on this. I didn't see this thread before, but I sent this message to Flemming through his email that's on his blog. I don't really expect a response, so I guess I'll paste it here.
I sent this at 1:44PM on 4/17/2006. (edited to only contain parts about Beddru)
I'll be interested in what he says. It isn't so much that he has wrong information in his movie -- that is always going to happen -- but that the only place he could have got this from was one of weird new age mythers like Acharya S. Since he included the other gods plus the list of so-called 'copycat' attributes pretty much verbatim, you have to question how much research he did on the topic.
"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into." -- Author unknown
Should one assume we haven't asked or don't have the pertinent info?
Your nemesis, Rook, will weigh in here when he has time.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
No, we shouldn't assume that. I hope that you have disinterestedly subjected Flemming's material to the same kind of analysis as any other.
Rook is generally a good egg, though he relies a bit too much on a pseudo-historical/pseudo-scientific approach. Still, I regard him as a fellow truth-seeker rather than a combatant.
Brian, I listened to your last interview with Brian Flemming, and you asked for volunteers to ask him questions. I'm willing to do it, in person or via a series of pre-submitted questions if you like.
"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into." -- Author unknown
This is a list of questions for Brian Flemming for the Rational Response Team's next interview, as suggested by Brian Sapient.
1. Beddru of Japan seems to have been created by Kersey Graves in the 19th C. How did that name end up in TGWWT movie?
2. How could a god myth in Japan affect the pre-Christian world of the middle east?
3. What similarities does Beddru have with Christ?
4. Who is 'Deva Tat of Siam'?
5. In TGWWT, some Christians are asked about Mithras, Dionysus and Osiris. What does Brian know about them and their similarities to Christ? Can Brian recount their stories?
6. What gods were born of a virgin on December 25? Can Brian name a few? And where did he get the information from? Was it the same source that talked about Beddru of Japan?
7. What gods were visited by Magi from the East? Where did he get the information from?
8. What gods turned water into wine? Is it only Dionysus? Can Brian recount the story? Does Dionysus actually turn water into wine himself?
9. Which gods were transfiggered before followers? Can Brian recount the stories?
10. Which god myths contained a story of being betrayed by 30 pieces of silver? Can Brian recount the stories?
11. Which religions celebrated a Communal Meal which represented the Savior?s Flesh and Blood?
12. Of the 17 gods listed in TGWWT having similar attributes to Jesus, has Brian actually researched those gods for their stories? Can he explain how, say, Baal and Thor share attributes with Jesus?
13. In Luke 19:27, Jesus said in a parable, "Those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them - bring them here and kill them in front of me." Why wasn't it pointed out that this was a parable, and not a command that Jesus was giving to his disciples?
14. Where did Brian get the "crucified Orpheus" amulet image from? Is he aware that it has been identified as a forgery?
15. Does Brian really believe that Justin Martyr tried to downplay pagan similarities to Christ by claiming that Satan looked into the future to perform "plagiarism in advance"?
16. When Brian says that "diabolical mimicry" is the explanation "to this day", who is actually using it as an explanation?
17. Richard Carrier has stated that "we have no reason to expect any historical record of a HJ [historical Jesus]. We are lucky to have any sources at all from that time and place, and those sources do not record every movement or its founder". Does Brian agree?
18. Has Brian looked at Paul in context of the literature of the day? If it were traditional to write using a timeless rather than a contemporary feel by leaving out distinctly historical events, should that be considered when evaluating Paul?
19. Later apologists who believed in a HJ also wrote apologies without any historical details about Jesus. Is that surprising to Brian?
20. Paul says that Christ was an Israelite from the tribe of Judah who "came out of Jerusalem", was crucified, possibly at Passover, and died sometime after Moses and probably in Paul's recent past. How does the fit the Jesus Myth?
Other general questions:
21. In an interview, Brian says that there was no Nazareth during the time of Christ, but Richard Carrier says that there almost certainly was. Has Brian checked this with Richard Carrier?
22. Brian apparently is a fan of Doherty's Jesus Puzzle. I know quite a lot about Doherty's views, and I've found that few Doherty supporters can coherently discuss where Doherty places the crucifixion of Christ. Can Brian summarize Doherty's view here?
I'll add some more questions as I get a chance.
"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into." -- Author unknown
Well I'm rather certain you weren't a volunteer, however we would entertain the questions. Would you be available today (Sat), if Brian is?
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
I'm in Australia, so the timing will be difficult. If we could organise a time a few days in advance, that would be better. Still, I think that many of the questions I wanted to ask are in the list I gave in a separate thread.
"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into." -- Author unknown
When I heard about "Rational Response Squad", I thought "Good! Finally, a group that will look into claims without an agenda!" There is too much misinformation floating around the internet now being copied uncritically from website to website.
I was hoping that this website would be different, that it would look into claims regardless of its religious or political nature.
Unfortunately it doesn't appear to be the case. When I questioned Luigi Cascioli's claim about "John of Gamala", who appears to be a character in a 19th C novel, and tried to find out more information about it, all Sapient could do was point me to a 3rd C gnostic Gospel about Jesus and Mary. Can anyone appreciate the irony of this -- using a 3rd C gospel for evidence of historicity of a 1st C person? It's clear that Sapient had no interest in looking into Cascioli's claims despite interviewing him on their program.
On "The God Who Wasn't There", there are a LOT of areas that could be questioned, incl how a "Beddru of Japan" could influence pre-Christian Middle Eastern sociey, and on Dionysus, Mithras and Osiris.
And thus the "dirty little secret" -- you guys KNOW that TGWWT has misinformation in it, yet you are allowing this to go out without addressing it!
Where are the hard questions for Brian Flemming? Why does he get a free-pass? Where is the investigation?
I think that concentrating on irrational claims of religion is fine. But it doesn't serve any purpose to combat irrational claims by promoting counter-claims that you KNOW are incorrect. I suggest a more disinterested approach may be more appropriate.
"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into." -- Author unknown
In that case, let's rationally analyze theism, and ignore history, because history can and always will be distorted.
So what is god?
We imagine a being (that resembles us to some degree) who is all powerful, all knowing, and resides in a plane of existence that we cannot reach (except through death), and is credited with creating the earth, and possibly the whole of the visible universe. While this isn't true of all god's humanity had fabricated, it is how it perceived by the current majority of theists (regardless of which specific religion we are talking about).
If that was the extent of god, while I would personally see no reason to believe in such a being, I would also see no problem with someone else believing in a higher power that created everything we see, and knows everything that will happen within this verse, and can manipulate anything within this verse. (having multiple spatial dimensions beyond the three that we can see could easily lend itself to this).
Where did god come from? The typical response is that he always existed, but this doesn't make any sense. If this so called god were to exist outside of the confines of our 3 spatial + 1 time dimension, then we could easily see how this being could exist as far as we could tell for all time, because time as we know it could be rendered meaningless to this being. (much of this is drawing from recent physics theories which have not been able to be tested except on paper due to technological constraints)
Still no reason to really suggest this sort of being actually exists, but it is certainly possible.
Now comes the fun part. Religion.
Religion takes the concept of an all powerful being that exists outside of this verse, and makes it human. Takes all our own desires and emotions, and places them into this concept. This is bad.
Our religions claim this god character actually gives a fuck about what goes on here, and in a rather petty manner. That this god character actually understands us, created us, and then set in place a variety of rules that would be utterly meaningless to a being who existed outside of this realm. What concern would a being who has power over what is to us a vast and almost limitless verse have with how we reproduce, how we treat each other, Who owns what land? Suddenly god as we typically envision it begins to fall apart.
God as a human character is no better than any human, is subject to the same flaws, same irrational decisions, and the same insecurities. Why would god establish a law to keep holy a particular period of time, when time would be meaningless to such a being (not to mention that it shows how little the actual writers of the law knew about the physical world), Why would such a being be concerned with how and with whom we reproduce when it's a function that would be meaningless to a being who doesn't reproduce (however, if this higher being were to live in a society of higher beings, it would then be plausible that it would understand reproduction and most certainly reproduce itself, but then we would need to completely re-think our whole god scheme). Why would such a being be at all concerned with the daily affairs of some tiny specks below it, when it apparently has the power to create and destroy on a much larger scale (though still smaller than itself). Which leads me to believe that if such a being does exist, not a single religion has it right. They depict god as being too human, too involved and concerned with our own insecurities and social order. I personally feel that religion does not do even the possibility of such a being justice as to how truly amazing (in our eyes) such a being would actually be.
It's a little short, I know, but I'm tired and haven't had my caffiene today.
music
http//www.myspace.com/antiqwak
So, religion is bad or wrong, therefore any counter-claims should be promoted without examination?
If the Rational Response team believes that certain topics are off-limits for examination, I'd like to know. If Brian Flemming or Luigi Cascioli, are not to be questioned critically, then I will stop raising questions on this board.
"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into." -- Author unknown
I'm sure Sapient and others are pretty busy right now, but I do believe they should be in the chat room when the show airs tonight if you want to talk to them directly.
While I see no problem with critically questioning the information they present as well as their sources, I personally see no point in even concerning myself with the history of a particular religion (well, I suppose that is a bit far reaching, since religion plays a bigger part in history than just those whom it's based off of). I personally have not seen TGWWT, nor have I heard Luigi Cascioli's arguments so I can't criticize them myself, check their sources, nor do I have the time or interest to devote to studying the issue from that angle. Also, you seemed to have only mentioned a couple points to critique, and I'm sure (at least with TGWWT) there is far more information present in that film than just the couple points you brought up (and I believe the beddru issue was addressed elsewhere on this site).
music
http//www.myspace.com/antiqwak
An extremely dishonest man you are gdon. Where did I point you to a 3rd c gnostic gospel about Jesus and Mary? I did nothing of the sort. I pointed you to this, if you recall:
Here is where the readers can pick up.
And the irony that millions of people believe in a man that has no contemporary proof is overlooked by Gdon?
Yet anyone who heard the program would know we questioned Luigi on his sources. Your deceit ooozes off of your posts.
You've already been told the Beddru reference was a mistake. Are you going to continue to espouse your version of the facts even when the source himself has given you evidence to the contrary. I vote for you to start "The Deception Response Squad." As for Mithra, Osiris, and Dionysus... it is your position that couldn't have possibly influenced Christianity?
Wrong. As stated earlier, TGWWT is being revised, errors are being removed, and a new version is being printed. Unlike Christianity, us atheists can admit when we make mistakes and revise our information appropriatly. Ironically none of these little side issues that you hope to expose do nothing to expose the overall purpose of the movie which is to show that no contemporary evidence for Jesus exists.
Contact conservative radio and have them ask the hard questions. I'd address more of your questions with Flemming if I knew you'd accept the answers. But as evidenced here with your Beddru reference, there really is no point. Even if he answers your questions you wont accept his answers, you'll stick to your weak attempts at damaging the credibility of the overall tone in the movie, while never addressing the overall tone.
He doesn't. Send him the questions, and stop asking me about it. I've asked Brian the questions I need to ask in private, you don't deserve to be privy to those conversations, I loathe liars.
I believe a group of people are making a movie called "The God Who Was There" feel free to take up arms with them, send them money, or give them your information.
Name one claim the RRS promotes that we KNOW is incorrect.
We're not interested in the suggestions of dishonest men who would pick inane points of something to attempt to discredit the big picture. That my friend is irrational.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
If Flemming or Cascioli have any errors in their claims, this doesn't change the fact that theism should be wiped off the face of the Earth. Evidence again, you miss the big picture.
Nothing is off limits for examination. However those who get answers to topics, and then revert to their pre-conceived ignorant notions don't deserve the time to participate in the examination. (that's you)
You should question them, not us. We bring them on the show to share in what we agree with, neither Luigi or Brian have ever said anything on our shows that we disagreed with to the point that we need to examine their claims, that is all that's important.
There are likely statements and claims that Luigi or Brian would make that I'd disagree with, however none of that was presented to us on-air. Really gdon, this is getting old fast.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Tommorrow at 4 pm EST www.InfidelGuy.com homepage will be showing the movie for free.
He's ignoring that as he would no longer be able to use it in his feeble attempts at discrediting Flemming. (meanwhile he greatly discredits himself)
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Send them to Flemming.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Yes, you did, and when I asked for more information, you replied with LeftOfLarry's quote referring to the "The Proto-gospel of Jacob". That is a 3rd C gnostic gospel about Jesus and Mary.
Readers can check the link that Sapient gave for themselves to see if I am correct or not.
Cascioli seems to be the only person who believes that "John of Gamala" was historical (other than the RRS I suppose). I really DO want to know the source of Cascioli's information on "John of Gamala". Since you guys interviewed him, I was hoping you could tell me. I can't find any other information on the net except to say that "John of Gamala" is fictional.
I don't want to be deceptive, Sapient, all I want to know is Cascioli's source. I want to check this out for myself. It is frustrating -- you say that you questioned Luigi on his sources. I ask you about them, and all you can do is point me to a Wikipedia article where Luigi just claims that John of Gamala is historical, or a 3rd C gospel. Did you ask him and then forgot??? I'm not trying to trap you, I'm genuinely interested in his sources.
How about this: If you asked him about his sources for John of Gamala, can you please tell me? I promise I will never bring this topic up again on this board if you can tell me what his sources are. Is that fair enough?
I honestly, sincerely want to look into this further for myself.
No, it is my position that Flemming never actually explains the connection between them and Christianity in his movie. He just ASSUMES that there is a connection. Can you tell me what the connection is?
Anyway, Beddru is the tip of the iceberg. What about Deva Tat? How about the similarities between Thor, Baal and Jesus? Which virgin-born gods were born on Dec 25? Which gods were betrayed for 30 pieces of silver? Have YOU looked into these claims from the movie?
I don't want to expose anything. I want you guys to start questioning things!
OK. I disagree, of course. I think the overall tone is set by the facts being presented. Unless those facts are validated, there is no point talking about the overall tone. I'd like Flemming to answer the questions for himself in order to see whether his claims can be substantiated or not. But I suppose if you think I won't accept his answers, then fair enough. Not much point in you asking him.
OK. I suppose that's fair enough. If you've questioned him on the areas that you think were needed, and he answered those questions satisfactorily, then there isn't much more I can ask you to do.
Let me ask a question, then. Are there errors in TGWWT that you know of? Are you still asking people to place them in churches, without an addendum about those errors?
I've said many times before, and I'll say it again: questioning the historicity of Jesus is a valid line of enquiry. But not examining counter-claims just because they support your view is the start of a slippery slope. But apparently you've already asked the questions, even if in private, so that is good enough I think.
(Ed to add) I won't bring this topic up again on this board about Cascioli or Flemming. I'll follow up personally with Flemming myself.
But I WOULD like to follow up on Cascioli's claim about "John of Gamala". So I would appreciate it if you could list that information here or PM it to me, when you have time.
Thank you all.
"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into." -- Author unknown
I shall do. Thanks, Sapient.
Well, my computer has been dead for quite a while so let me try to recap what's going on here.
As a matter of fact, gdon, that was the site that I had seen. What a coincidence. Haha. Unexpected, really.
I would say that I would subject Flemming's movie to analysis just as I would any other piece of work - I did, of course, put my Christian belief under the microscope quite a while ago and reject them so I don't see why I can't place a movie, that although I love and don't see any point in rejecting just because of one error, under the same treatment. Besides, that's exactly what Carrier was talking about in the movie, whether it was in the movie or the extra interview section I cannot remember, when he said that Christians assume something is true because they read something in a book which is published by what is thought of as a respectable publisher or just assumes that the guy wouldn't lie and they keep repeating it but do not mean to lie, they just do not know. I believe this is what might have occurred with Flemming, as he might not have checked his sources.
Also, I had - either read or heard, I read and hear too much of him so it's all garbled - from Dr. Price AKA The Bible Geek that he did not particularly take to the World's Sixteen Crucified Saviours because he, I think said, did not see evidence for some or did not see the connections. So once I read that the list was taken from that book, I was not too sure of it.
Although, I fear that some people, obviously the other Atheists, Agnostics, etc, might not want the movie to be incorrect in part and therefore simply ignore the matter. I do not believe it is to be ignored. This, as I said, does not debunk Flemming's entire claim, we must remember that he, although we forget when amazed by his skills, is human and could have made a human error.
I hope that I didn't arrive too late to my own party to have missed any future replies.
And was gdon ever able to ask Flemming his questions?
"But we have no wish whatever to enter into the kingdom of heaven
we have become men - so we want the earth."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
This is what I was wanting to point out. I'm not saying that the movie should be rejected because of one error. But the "Beddru" error is symptomatic of other problems in his movie (which I've pointed out in my review). He seems to have got his other misinformation from the same source.
Sure, anyone can make a mistake. But my point is that there are lots of similar errors. "Beddru" is the tip of the iceberg. I suspect that Flemming got a lot of his misinformation from the same source from where he got "Beddru".
You got to know that the only people who make mention of some of the things that Flemming refers to are as whacko as the creationists.
But I promised I wouldn't try to get the RRS to address these anymore, so I won't ask for them to look into this again.
Not yet, but I'll let the board know.
"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into." -- Author unknown
That's as silly as saying that "atheists hate God". Denying (or blaspheming) the holy spirit, at least according to the gospels, is attributing the actions of God (via the Holy Spirit) to Satan.
Which actions of God are you guys attributing to Satan?
I know that some of you do it to try to be shocking, so it probably doesn't matter whether it makes sense or not to you. Just be aware that it doesn't make any sense for an atheist to say it.
That Flemming, a former "fundamentalist", can say "I deny the holy spirit" is both funny and sad IMHO. Funny because an atheist saying that they deny the holy spirit doesn't make sense, and sad because he is obviously (still!) as ignorant as the fundies he is decrying.
"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into." -- Author unknown
He's denying it's existence. Yeah... hilarious. (not) As do I.
Yes, it's so obvious he's ignorant. :roll:
So what brand of theist are you, GDON? It's clear you're of the "say things that make no sense to try and cope" variety, but technically speaking, what brand of theist are you?
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
maybe the sarcasm involved here is lost upon gdon.
I really don't think any of us is particularly serious. I deny the magic birdie and the scary ghost as a joke. When serious, I wouldn?t waste a millisecond of my time with such a meaningless statement.
Nice way to cover your bases of a blanket statement gdon. Say it makes no sense, and then don't explain why you think that.
Your life makes no sense. It's funny and sad at the same time.
No, I will not explain why I think that, that's just how it is. I will however, cite my interpretation of a book.
Not good enough? Tough.
Okay, just for balance I also deny the following:
The Easter Bunny
Father Christmas
The Soup Dragon
Clangers
Compassionate fox hunters
Tolerant members of the british national party
Ra
Satan
Quetzelcoatl
The green man
Pan
Zeus
Jupiter
Odin
etc. etc. etc.
N
Lock up your libraries if you like; but there is no gate, no lock, no bolt that you can set upon the freedom of my mind. ~ Virginia Woolf 1928.
An atheist saying that you deny Quetzelcoatl doesn't make sense. It's also sad because you obviously are (still!) as ignorant as the tolerant members of of the british national party you are denying.
*stomps off like a 3 year old*
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Sapient - Quetzelcoatl was (according to Wiki) ...
The name "Quetzalcoatl" literally means quetzal-bird snake or serpent with feathers (Amphitere) of the Resplendent Quetzal (which implies something divine or precious) in the Nahuatl language. The meaning of his local name in other Mesoamerican languages is similar. The Maya of Mexico knew him as Kukulk?n; the Quich?-Maya of Guatemala, as Gukumatz.
The Feathered Serpent deity was important in art and religion in most of Mesoamerica for close to 2,000 years, from the Pre-Classic era until the Spanish conquest. Civilizations worshipping the Feathered Serpent included the Olmec, Mixtec, Toltec, Aztec, who adopted it from the people of Teotihuacan, and the Maya.
"Quetzalcoatl" can be spelled many different ways.
I am denying the existance of these without proof. Send me a feathered serpant and I'll apologise for my post. And since when is it alright to call someone '(still!) as ignorant as' for no apparent reason? Sheesh, I'm an athiest and I feel under attack for a nice, flippant & sarcastic post!
...this board was growing on me - now I'm feeling really pissed off.
*stomps off also*
Lock up your libraries if you like; but there is no gate, no lock, no bolt that you can set upon the freedom of my mind. ~ Virginia Woolf 1928.
He was kidding, and for all I know you are too.
See what happens when you even emulate a theist's attitude? It doesn't even have to be legit for rational people to get pissed off.
Exactly. I was illustrating the ridiculousness we see coming from Gdon.
Yeah I know. Sorry you didn't get the joke Natto (or did u?), I still love you. I figured it would be clear.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Sorry, my bad. I'm referring to the end of the movie where Flemming talks about "the unforgiveable sin". Flemming implies that the unforgiveable sin is denying the existence of the holy spirit, thus his "I am not afraid" statement.
But if you check the Bible, the sin is actually attributing God's activities to Satan ("how can Satan cast out Satan?"
Check Mark 3:23 onwards and Matt 12:24 onwards, where Jesus is accused of being able to cast out demons because he worshipped Satan. The sin is that God's activity is visible through Jesus's actions, but the observers are attributing it to Satan.
The NT doesn't say what the consequences of denying the existence of the holy spirit are, but that isn't what those passages are about. That's why I asked which actions of God's are you guys attributing to Satan.
I suppose part of my point is: if Flemming was so concerned about this while he was a fundy theist, why didn't he look into it at the time? It would have taken 5 minutes.
Hey, here's an idea! How about you guys checking out those Bible passages, and seeing whether I am correct or not? Wouldn't that be neat? Let's start looking into the information that Flemming provides in his movie together!!! You know, maybe I'm wrong, or I'm trying to trick you for Baby Jesus and those passages are actually talking about the existence of the Holy Spirit -- I AM a theist you know, so you shouldn't take my word for it.
So let's actually start looking into these claims for ourselves, rather than accept any old claim! Wouldn't that be fun?!?
"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into." -- Author unknown
Actually the sin is blasphemy of the holy spirit. Denying the holy spirit exists, out loud is a method of blasphemy.
Here is what Billy Graham says:
Denying the Holy Spirit is exactly what Christian evangelists think the only unforgivable sin is, and that was the whole point of what Brian was trying to accomplish. Again, you fail to see the big picture, and look at things in the small Gdon box in a weak attempt to discredit what you hope to be untrue. Brian was mocking those who think denial of the Holy Spirit is the only unforgivable sin, and we are too. Capeche?
Your arguments are weak, full of straw grasping as well as (like I said): "say whatever you want even if it has no bearing on reality to prove your emotional point."
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Oh! I didn't know you believed that. In that case, fair enough.
So... don't you have to actually believe in Christ in order to turn your back on Christ's witness? I'm not sure how that helps your point.
To be clear: you are mocking those who think that denial of the existence of the Holy Spirit is the only unforgiveable sin. You haven't addressed the contents of the passages in the Bible.
I don't know if my arguments are weak, since they haven't really been addressed AFAICS. Still, I've certainly been questioning the content of Flemming's movie. Wouldn't it be good if we can look into that together? Actually start to investigate his claims? I think it would be fun!
"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into." -- Author unknown
Yeah you did know. That's the whole point of the thread. Try being honest. But it wasn't fair enough or you wouldn't have pulled your own interpretation out of your ass.
No. Don't you wish, though.
Thanks, Captain Obvious, that's what I said.
Yeah I did, the contents are:
LUKE 12:10, "And everyone that says a word against the Son of Man, that will be forgiven; But he that blasphemes against The Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.
MARK 3:29, "Whoever blasphemes against The Holy Spirit will never have forgiveness, but is guilty of everlasting sin."
MATTHEW 12: 31-32 "Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. And whoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age, or in the age to come".
You however did not prove your interpretation is the correct one.
Obviously, for if you did, you probably wouldn't present them. Unless you have no dignity, which is entirelly possible.
I just addressed your misinterpetation of the bible in this thread, and your claim that it is Christians (and us) that are actually misinterpreting it.
Yeah, I know. I've seen the fact that you got an answer to question 1, yet have completely ignored it, not updated your site to reflect the new knowledge, and brought it up again after the fact. There really is no reason to move on to question 2 when dealing with a man not in search of answers but instead in search of discrediting those who can easily discredit your own irrational beliefs.
No. I wouldn't want to do anything with you. Your a dishonest irrational person. I've looked up Flemmings claims myself. In fact, the history that I researched independently before I saw Flemmings movie, matches up with what Flemming presented, so there was very little research needed. I could've done what you did, and attacked the brown background with blue text, but I'm above that. I'm able to see the deeper intent.
Done.
Yes, it was. I think you're a sarcastic dishonest and philosophically weak man!
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
That was my (admittedly very poor) attempt at humour, i.e by "you BELIEVE that" I was jokingly implying that it is part of a belief system as abitrary as any theist. Sorry about that.
You may find the odd Christian who agrees with you that denying the existence of the Holy Spirit is also the unforgiveable sin, I suppose. The other Christians will just think you are ignorant.
I suggest you look at the context and think of it this way: why doesn't the NT just say "denying God" is the unforgiveable sin? Why specify the Holy Spirit? I suggest the context gives the answer. Anyway, I'll leave you to your interpretation.
Eh? What answer??? The only answer you gave was "Flemming is wrong"! How does that resolve the other issues??? "Flemming admits he is wrong about one point, therefore we should stop looking at the rest"?
He is DEMONSTRABLY WRONG on that point!!!
And I'm saying that Flemming is wrong about a whole heap of things. If you admit he is wrong on Beddru, shouldn't that ENCOURAGE you to look more closely into his other claims?
I don't care two twigs what you think of my beliefs. I said that I wouldn't bring up the questions about Flemming's movie again, because you simply refused to address them, and I didn't want to waste your time or mine by trying to get you to address them in this forum. Are you seriously trying to suggest that you have addressed them? If so, perhaps I should indeed bring them up again.
And PLEASE DON'T TRY TO PRETEND you are taking the high road here. "No reason to move on to question 2" indeed. That Flemming was WRONG on question 1 is surely every reason to move on to the next question.
How can you make an adequate assessment of Flemming's movies if there are potentially lots of errors in there? I just can't see how you can.
The "big picture" defense is weak if enough components can be found to be in error. To be honest, it is usually used by people who want the specifics to go away.
I'm saying that Flemming has many errors in his movie. You say you've looked up Flemming's claims, so I'll give you three questions raised in Flemming's movie. Yes, I know you will evade answering them by calling me dishonest and not looking at the big picture, etc. I just want the others to see you evade the SPECIFIC claims made by Flemming in his movie one more time. Keep in mind I have lots of others as well.
1. Who is 'Deva Tat of Siam'? What are the similarities to Christ? Primary sources?
2. What gods were visited by Magi from the East? Primary sources?
3. Which god myths contained a story of being betrayed by 30 pieces of silver? Primary sources?
Rook Hawkins is your Bible expert. Perhaps get him in on this (Wasn't he supposed to review my article on TGWWT movie?).
I can tell you that Flemming got 1 at least from Kersey Graves, whose infamous book also listed Beddru. Not sure where he got 2 & 3, but it probably comes from Freke and Gandy, which means there will be no primary source for the claim.
Look, Sapient, I'll put this as kindly as I can: you are as closed-minded as any creationist. Surely you can see that I am questioning your beliefs here, and that this is a GOOD thing? IMO Flemming has sincerely regurgitated a lot of nonsense that he thinks is true, and you have swallowed his regurgitation and called it nourishment. If, hypothetically, that is the case, wouldn't you WANT to know the truth? Wouldn't it be a GOOD thing for you to answer my 3 questions above, just so you know the truth for yourself? Perhaps you are wrong, and you can find out the truth. Perhaps I am wrong, and you can shut me up! Don't you want to do that?
"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into." -- Author unknown
I did look at the context stop ignoring me and inserting your own fantasies. Now, would you care to show the context on all three passages I mentioned that fits your claim. Point out the passages specifically and explain yourself.
Funny how you word it. Your emotional appeal is obvious. He said it was a mistake, he cut and pasted info incorrectly. He knew before he made the movie not to use anything from Kersey Graves, and it was a simple oversight. He was specifically told by Carrier not to use anything from Kersey Graves, which he mentions to us in show 12.
Yet the overall message of the movie that there is no contemporary evidence for a Christ and that Christ is merely a copy of previous myths are things I understood before I saw Flemmings movie. I knew those things before I saw his flick, I wasn't inclined to pick apart a movie I already knew was legit. You just don't get it. You don't want to, and it appears you never will. I happen to know this act of yours is a very old one, seeking out those who credit this movie as a good thing.
You missed the point. The point was not that he was wrong about Beddru, so we shouldn't move on to question two. That argument would just be ridiculous on my part. The point was that there isn't any reason to move on to question two with you. You haven't revised your site or your argument, to you the 1 second of the film with a picture of Beddru is still an issue to you even when mentioned it was an oversight and it's coming out of the second edition. You hope to misrepresent his movie not in hope of rational inquisition, but instead in hope of reinforcing your implausible beliefs.
As noted in show 12, Flemming states Carrier told him before the movie not to use anything from Kersey Graves, he said anything about Beddru of Japan made it in accidentally, which was Kersey Graves.
STOP BRINGING UP KERSEY GRAVES CHANGE YOUR WEBSITE TO REFLECT THE INFORMATION BRIAN GAVE YOU (via RRS), OR I CAN'T CONDONE ANYONE DISCUSSING ANYMORE QUESTIONS WITH YOU:
http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakuseidon/God_Who_Wasnt_There_analysis.htm#1.3 <--- you have some adjusting to do!
You were given information from the source, you haven't updated your data, you are not in search of truth, that is extremely fucking clear.
I was a creationist, if I was close minded I would still be one.
If I wanted to shut you up, you would be banned.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
My interpretation is pretty standard. Here are 3 websites' evaluation on what Jesus meant. The first is an atheist website. Note that it refers to what "many Christians today argue" regarding the meaning:
http://atheism.about.com/od/biblegospelofmark/a/mark03d.htm
"This, in turn, leads us to one of the less generous comments that Jesus is described as making in the various gospel stories: there exists a sin so horrible that it cannot be forgiven. This is, of course, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. But just what constitutes such blasphemy? Many Christians today argue that it means saying that Jesus? powers were derived from demons or simply equating Jesus with Satan.
That interpretation isn?t mandated by the text, but it is possible. A broader interpretation argues that the sin doesn?t lie in attributing Jesus? power to demons but the inability to properly distinguish good from evil or God from Satan."
http://www.ctlibrary.com/ct/1999/june14/9t7082.html
"In Mark, Jesus' saying regarding the "eternal sin" follows the scribes' charge that Jesus casts out demons by the power of Beelzebul, the prince of demons. They deny Jesus' claim that his power to cast out demons is a manifestation of the Holy Spirit, that is, of the very power of God. In this context, then, Jesus uses blasphemy of the Holy Spirit to mean attributing the work of the Holy Spirit to the power of Satan."
http://www.kencollins.com/bible-d1.htm
"If Jesus is casting out demons by the power of the Holy Spirit, but the Pharisees slander the Holy Spirit by trying to make people think the Holy Spirit is Satan, then they are clearly blaspheming against the Holy Spirit."
As I said, I'll leave you to your interpretation that it includes denying the existence of the Holy Spirit.
They were ALL taken from Graves AFAIK. Of the 17 gods that Flemming lists in the movie, how many should not be there? How many were cut and pasted incorrectly? Deva Tat? Baal? Thor?
Well now. That is starting to get to the centre of my what I am arguing. I would say that "Christ is merely a copy of previous myths" is false information and not true. But how do we resolve that? I can't see any other way than to start investigating the claims one-by-one. Beddru, Deva Tat, Baal, Thor, etc, is the start.
Perhaps you could list some of the previous myths that Christianity copied from, and the significance?
I'm more than happy to update my website, but I haven't got any quote from Flemming. I'm reluctant to put up any paraphrase since I could then be accused of misrepresentation.
Can you provide a direct quote from Flemming on the question of Beddru, please? I promise that I will note it on my webpage.
"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into." -- Author unknown
Well with that said, here is a special revision interpretation specifically to mock your beliefs:
The holy spirit is Satan!
All things that the holy spirit were said to have done were really the work of Satan!
Jesus is actually Satan and is not the son of god!
And one last one, we'll call the Satanic wager:
How do you know that it isn't Satan that has tricked you into believing the biblical story and that it's actually Satan that inspired the entire story?
Perhaps you could stop ignoring the ones that historians tend to agree on. Try Horus or Mithra.
Just for you, take what you want (from show 12): http://www.rationalresponders.com/media/FlemmingAnswersAGdonQuestion.mp3
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Gdon is the master of the red herring, glad others see this so quickly.
He goes on and on about minor details, while he himself has no problem swallowing major fallacies concerning his own beliefs.
Precisely.
On a related issue, one of the most common red herrings that Gdon tosses out is to point out that other sources for the jesus myth could not have influenced the jesus myth because they date from 2nd or 3rd century.
While some of these sources may well date from these periods (this is the red herring) the idea that the jesus myth could not have been influenced by them is a clear fallacy.
The fallacy stems from the fact that the jesus myth, like any other myth, transmuted over time. Later influences could have helped change the myth we have today.
And this is a commonly observed phenomena in christianity. One example: the catholic concept of the ascension of mary wasn't really 'accepted' until some time around the 6th century.
By the way, Gdon has conceded to this fact on other sites..... yet he moves on and seems to suffer amnesia...
It's clear that Gdon himself has no interest in looking into the contradictions and other logical fallacies in his own beliefs... when confronted with them on infidelguy.com, he heads for the hills... only to return to his red herrings.
Take a look at this thread from infidelguy.com
http://www.infidelguy.com/ftopicp-174246-.html#174246
I caught him in a clear contradiction concerning the adam and eve myth.... I demonstrated that the bible makes several illogical blunders on of foundational importance to christianity in the third chapter of genesis, and gdon had NO problem with this.. NONE at all.
Yep. He goes from site to site doing just that....
People: Gdon has no real interest in seeing the errors corrected... his sole desire is that they go uncorrected, so he can continue to leap upon these minor issues.... otherwise, he himself will have to confront the only real significant issue: that his belief system is based on illogical premises....
Oh, and GDON: this is todangst from infidelguy, the guy you run from on that site (as proven above) so you can just 'ignore' this like you ignore every other post that critiques YOU.
Now, isn't THAT ironic?
Gdon also tends to believe he thinks for all theists, everywhere... (i.e. they either agree with him, or they are utterly uncommon and ignorant)
He's even said, on the infidel site, that christians don't believe that a person will go to hell for not accepting jesus.... again he conflates his view with the views of christianity.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Thanks for weighing in Todangst. I have much less experience with him than you and Rook, but I can easily see what you guys have had to dealt with. I hate preachers of truth who are full of deceit.
What do you suppose his title on this forum should be?
"Irrational Contradictor" ?
"Red Herring dealer" ?
something else?
Now, that is funny.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Here's another gdon claim I randomly pulled up:
"Origen definitely mentioned Josephus referring to Jesus as Christ."
And here it is refuted:
http://www.infidelguy.com/ftopicp-389076-.html#389076
"In your quotes of Origen, notice that Origen actually never said that Josephus mentioned Jesus at all, he says that Josephus mentioned James. It is Origen who is linking James as being the brother of Christ. Although, granted, the way it is written it could be read that he is saying that Josephus said James was the brother of Christ. But that isn't necessarily what he means."
Despite being refuted, Gdon simply holds to his claim..
The difficult matter is that Gdon masks his bullshit with valid points..... the red herrings.... . and since there's little doubt that any detailed argument contains errors, and we should be open to correcting them. So I'm not sure if I'd mention his name at all.... but it's up to you....
He believes that people don't go to hell at all... they are lovingly obliterated out of existence instead..... he also believes that this is their choice (!) since we have a free will choice to either 1) have all our desires fulfilled or 2) be obliterated...... silly me, I find a compulsory choice between an irresistable reward and and utter destruction to be coercision... (a choice free from any coercive influence would not include a dichotomous selection with one of the options being torture or destruction!) but hey, leave it to a theist to kidnap a word's actual meaning for the sake of holding to their delusions and after all, since gdon has already argued that one can know 'good' before one has the knowledge of good, why stop with just one internal contradiction?
There's another tiny problem here too: gdon's claims contradict the bible...... "jesus' tells us, on the sermon on the mount, that 'hell' is a real place, and that one cannot avoid 'hell' without his help.... if a christian rejects these words, then on what grounds does he hold to his counter view?!
Anyway, I just wanted to give you some examples of how much bullshit this guy willingly swallows when it comes to his religion.... the fact that he expects every atheist to be infinitely more open minded than he is ... is cute....
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Yes, that's a much more accurate!
I understand that the "Jesus copycat" idea is largely bogus, and reliant on sources as discredited as Kersey Graves. What parts of the Horus myth or Mithras myth was copied by Christianity?
Thanks for that Sapient. I'll update my website shortly, as soon as I've transcripted some quotes.
"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into." -- Author unknown
You mean you don't feel like researching those names? You never have? I figured you'd find it "so fun."
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Yes, I've researched them, as well as most of the other "copycat" god figures. There is some influence with regards to art, but that's about all that can be shown. Most of the information regarding how Horus and Mithras myths influenced Christianity is rubbish coming out of the 19th C and early 20th C, and repeated by the likes of Acharya S and Freke&Gandy.
If you have any comments or articles by historians, I'd be more than happy to view it. Seriously, why don't we look into this together? Not as antagonists, but as people who want to get to the bottom of these things?
"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into." -- Author unknown
http://www.medmalexperts.com/POCM/pagan_christs_getting_started.html
If you're too inept to go through the trouble of browsing that site yourself without me picking through it to cite specific examples, then as far as I'm concerned you're simply not worth revealing the truth to.
"Cause like...we're all gods children, but if you're not white...well...I mean it's like you're gods step-child."
Hi, Crazywumbat. We are looking at Horus and Mithras, as starters. That website doesn't mention Horus at all, which is interesting, since when I first read POCM a few years ago, it definitely listed Horus and a whole heap of other gods as well. I can't be sure, but I wonder if I debated that author a while ago -- some of his comments below on the cr*p coming from the 19th C seem like word-for-word quotes from me.
But anyway, looks like the author has started to check into these things for himself. Very interesting! This is what he says about "the copycat" idea on the main page. Note what he says about Mithras (he contradicts himself later on):
Before you start clicking through to each of the Gods here, looking for xerox similarities, you're going to want to read this. Chances are you came to this page pretty quick after you found POCM. Most people do. After all, to find out if Jesus really is a copy of other ancient Gods, the thing to do is study the other Gods' myths for virgin births and crucifixions, right?
And the way it works is, Jesus was a xerox God, a copy of Mithras, because Mithras was born of a virgin on December 25th, called The Redeemer, and Mithra's temple in Rome had a sign saying: "And thou hast saved us by shedding the eternal blood." The details of Jesus' story are so close to Mithras' myth, there had to be copying, right?
No. The answer is, "No." First of all, Mithras wasn't born of a virgin on December 25th, and His mother wasn't a virgin, and many other Jesus-and-Mithras-or-other-ancient-God-myth similarities are also phony. Made up. Not found in the ancient sources. If you've heard them, what you heard was outdated mythicist scholarship (late 1800s - early 1900s), or modern amateur enthusiasm, or internet urban legend.
Fish for this stuff in the ancient sources; you'll come up dry. I've tried. It's just not there. In all of ancient literature, there is no myth-by-myth analogue of Jesus.
And that is really good. As I said earlier, the last time I checked POCM, it just repeated a lot of nonsense. So it looks like the message is getting out! Excellent.
The website continues:
If a claim about ancient religions isn't supported by ancient evidence, don't believe it.
Again, excellent! That is a very useful rule-of-thumb, and should definitely be applied to Christian claims as well.
The website continues:
What happened was this. Christianity did not copy myths, Christianity copied religious ideas, ideas around which it built it's own myths. The myths are similar because the ideas they are built on are similar.
By the way, don't misunderstand. The fact Jesus was not a xerox of one particular Pagan God, does not mean Jesus was new and different. What you'll discover here at Pagan Christs is that there were lots and lots of Godmen, fulfilling prophecies, gathering disciples, teaching wisdom, healing the sick, raising the dead, ascending to heaven?and (some of them) bringing their faithful eternal salvation.
Jesus isn't a myth-by-myth analogue of any other ancient God because every ancient God was a bit different from all the others.
And again, that is all good.
As I said, POCM appears to now be missing Horus. It seems the author actually determined that the usual "copycat" claims about Horus could not be found in the primary sources.
So, what does it say about Mithras on the Mithras page? Well, not alot. And what it does says contradicts the above. Check this out!
http://www.medmalexperts.com/POCM/pagan_christs_mithras.html
Mithras was born in a cave, on December 25th, of a virgin mother.
What the heck??? Compare that with what the author said above:
Mithras wasn't born of a virgin on December 25th, and His mother wasn't a virgin
Looks like the author hasn't updated that page yet.
The rest of that page contains NO primary sources. Note what the author said earlier: "If a claim about ancient religions isn't supported by ancient evidence, don't believe it."
Let's look into this together, Crazywumbat! Let's work together to find the truth of this!
"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into." -- Author unknown
If these two pictures weren't enough to make me move on to the next site in my research
then these two directly contradictory quotes were:
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
LOL! Agreed.
I like this picture the best:
"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into." -- Author unknown
I've been in contact with several historians, including Richard Carrier, over the past few weeks working on my Josephus essay, something I'm really looking forward to completing. I'd love to weigh in on this discussion myself, but I've long decided that gdon has nothing worthwhile to say.
Rook Hawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
I decided that long ago. I've never seen anyone say so little in so many words before.
I'm actually listening to you talk a lot right now Rook (fishdontwalk episode). I just literally LOLed when he said "Do you believe in God?" and you said "No I don't. I'm an atheist.......and I deny the holy spirit." I almost fell out of my chair. That was great man. He didn't even react.
Chris