Good article on did Jesus exsist?

[mike]

Thanks to the internet people like me are free to inoculate the coming generations against the disease of superstition......

Impotent rage ?
Hardly

We are Doctors, administering the cure, it feels good

 

[stonehart]

You may wounder why I would bring up Atman in this thread well for the answer to this we need to go back to the Vedic texts.
In the Vedic texts the Atman = Brahman that the self is more or less a persona of God is the deeper understanding of the central philosophy.
As we know the Vedic texts are very much the basis of the Zoroastrian tradition (Traced back through the prehistorical Indo-Iranian period), and as we know the Abrahamic traditions as well as Zoroastrian influenced each other. (It is believed by most scholars that key concepts of Zoroastrian eschatology and demonology have had influence on the Abrahamic religions).

Also the cult of Mithra is born out of this as well as are a number of other minor cults.

Well anyway you get the connection that all of these Religions influenced or had influence on the other and also have a root doctrine that per-dates all of them.

This is a very very nut shell explanation as the full study of these connections is quite vast and complex but not one of these religions was born in isolation from each other and it should as I have said before be no shock that you find parts of one in another.

The Not self doctrine to cut a long story short was a direct assault on this philosophy and underscores the stand point of early Buddhism.

However Buddhism itself was changed by the religions around it to become many other schools of philosophy and thought in later century's. It is a very good example of how a religion can change and take in aspects of others.. Tibetan Buddhism is very much an outgrowth of Brahmanic ideas and local animism. This is very pertinent if we take into account that Christianity was born in an area that had many many older pagan traditions as well as transmuted ones from India and what is modern day Iran and Pakistan.

Lol well that's a bit messy but I really find it hard to condense this area into a short post.

 

[stonehart]

Who here knows much about the cult of the bodhisattva?
Let me know if you would like me to go into this as it has interesting implications for where the cult of the saints in Christianity originates from.

Actually scratch that as its not totally relevant but just sort of interesting as the cult of the bodhisattva predates the western cult of saints but the aspects are not all that dissimilar.

Just worth looking into if you have the time and would like to learn a bit more about latter Buddhism.

 

[stonehart]

Thanks to the internet people like me are free to inoculate the coming generations against the disease of superstition......

Impotent rage ?
Hardly

We are Doctors, administering the cure, it feels good

Yes Hardly.

I feel no rage only a thirst for knowledge which in other places and other times would have me burnt alive or hung.
Yeah I get fed up with it all but I feel no rage.

 

[mike]

We stand in the space left by Galileo,
We speak on behalf of those whos views were silenced by the Inquisition
Those who espoused rational thought over superstitious nonsense.

We who step, on behalf of humanity into an age of reason, and in doing so leave behind the fears and ignorance of the past.

We ARE the future of mankind, we ARE better than the ignorance that once dominated the mindset of our species.

We recognise the bigotry and racism and sexism that these musty old texts represent.
And we boldy and proudly step beyond that outdated pov.

We are the future..................

 

[mike]

Let me know if you would like me to go into this as it has interesting implications for where the cult of the saints in Christianity originates from.

Is the pope a catholic ?

Please do

 

[stonehart]

I am on it Mike.. but I am also going to use it as part of a larger discourse on how different religions cross populate ideas.

 

[trainedobserver]

Mike, pornography is where you find it. I wouldn't give you the razz if I didn't think you could appreciate it. My sense of humor is kinda quirky I know and my refusal to use emoticons probably doesn't help. But yes, I do feel you've been rather heavy with the hammer lately.

I'm just trying to engage someone with the opposing view in a conversation about why anyone should care if Jesus walked the Earth or not. Why should we care? If I muster up some interest in Jesus, which Jesus do I find? As you have illustrated, the Jesus found in the text is extremely different than the Jesus as he is presented by any but the most fundamentalist Christian sects and probably very few of those.

As an ex-Christian myself, I see the whole question as being something more fundamental than whether Jesus actually existed or not.

Superstition is a bad thing. There is a great deal of superstition involved in the practice of religion of any kind. The belief that invisible forces can be appealed to and can cause changes in our lives or the world through our intervention is an ancient, perhaps even DNA level aspect of human beings.

I'm rambling.

 

[stonehart]

Oh stuff it I am going to post this, but I will try to keep it as short as I can considering the subject at hand so please excuse me if I jump over some areas to save time (also please excuse my Sanskrit it is more than a little rusty).

I said before that Buddhism is a very good way to show how a religion can transform and borrow from those around it.
In and of itself you would think that just like Christianity it simply broke up into different denominations and you would be right but you would also be very wrong and missing the point.

The point is the transmutation of existing regional cults and religions of which Buddhism became a victim to over the century's following the death of Siddhārtha Gautama (The Buddha). I could also add that the Brahmanic religion (Hindu) was a victim of Buddhism but I will get to this crossing over of religious ideas and practice soon.

The schools of Buddhism we have today are in fact very much unlike the original as far as we can ascertain.
Having broken down into over 20 schools through the ages only, Theravada, Mahāyāna, and Vajrayāna remain (I will get to Zen Buddhism latter as it is more or less an out growth of Mahāyāna via China). It can be argued that Theravada is as close as one can get to the original teachings but even here one could also argue that even if the core teachings are close to the original the day to day practice is not due to regional changes and cultural pressures on the the Buddhist community over time.

To understand this a bit deeper we need to go back to what can be seen as its birth from the Hindu traditions of the time and the first change to effect Buddhism, the birth of the Mahāyāna (Yes the subject is complex but a basic overview can be given and also note that Mahāyāna did not split Buddhism as many think but simply helps to underscore how it evolved out of Hindu traditions and cosmology).

It should be very clear to all here that Buddhism was born in India around 600 or so years BCE, but what one may not understand is that it was a direct out growth of the Brahmanic traditions of the time and pulls on many of its early writings, arguments and philosophical ideas. Even if were only to argue against or reject the ideas they still can be found as part of its philosophy or opposing philosophy if you will.

The whole cycle of birth and rebirth as represented by Buddhism today in the shape of Mahāyāna or more specifically Vajrayāna should give this away but I digress and have jumped a little ahead of myself.

The roots of Brahmanic tradition are based around Vedic tradition but what we are going to touch on here are the Upanisads a body of writings that Buddhism rejected directly.
If you understand the Upanishadic doctrine then you will know that Brahman (ब्रह्मन्) = atman (आत्मन्) or that the self is part of God in broad sense with Brahman being God and atman the self. As such the core idea maintains that the Atman or self is eternal and as such is of itself an unchanging part of Brahmin for an interpretation of this concept we can look to the Taittiriya Upanishad where Brahman is described as:

सत्यम् बोध अनंतम् ब्रह्मन्

satyam jnanam anantam brahman

"Brahman is of the nature of truth, knowledge and infinity"

An interesting fact is that the more you look at this you get the idea that it brings the Brahmanic philosophy very close to monism and could be seen by the lay person as monotheistic at its core but that is a discussion for another time.

Now as I said before Buddhism rejects this idea as the Buddha proclaimed that he could find no evidence for the existence of either the personal soul/self (atman) or its cosmic counterpart and as such saw this philosophy as flawed (I should state that this is not the only reason for the formation of Buddhism as it is almost certainly a product of the social systems of the time but it is one of its core foundations in any case).

So you would think that Buddhism rejected all of the tenants and cosmology of the religion that preceded it right?

Unfortunately this is not the case and it gets very messy trying to extract one from the other in some cases, I will state, that this in my own opinion is one of the factors that lead to Buddhism being reabsorbed back into Hind tradition latter on in its place of birth India. Also one should note that unlike later western thinking eastern philosophy tends not to throw ideas out whole sale but to build on or change them so it is no wounder given this tendency that some of these ideas remained in Buddhism to bubble to the surface as different doctrinal and philosophical schools latter on. As such Buddhism maintained much of the core ideas of cyclic re-existence and Karma (आस्रव) as part of its central philosophy to give us our first example of how a religion can transmute ideas into a new tradition. As we all know the Hindu traditions never died out but this has more to do with the cultural frame work in which it exists and the power base that the caste system in India afforded the Brahmins that supported it.
Buddhism in and of itself was never really able to shake this old cultural system off as the local religious thinking allowed for one to be lets say a follower of Vishnu in the morning and a follower of the Buddha at night neither were seen as incompatible.

The first real change to Buddhism could be seen as the ideal of the Bodhisattva (बोधिसत्त्व) and that this did not split the sangha (सन्घ monastic school) as you would expect if it were a western religion may be surprising but remember the tendency to absorb old and new ideas that eastern thinking has and you have your answer as to why it did not, however to keep the post short I will simply state that the central change or new thought came from differing philosophical ideas on how enlightenment or Nirvana (निर्वाण) could be attained and should be attained.

As a matter of fact there is also no evidence that Mahāyāna was ever referred to as a separate formal school or sect in early Buddhism, but rather that it existed as a certain set of ideals, and later doctrines, for bodhisattvas.

In a nut shell what happened was the development of the ideal of the Bodhisattva or that one should abstain if you will from obtaining bodhi (बोधि) until all beings have been liberated from the wheel of existence. Even though Mahāyāna in and of itself never became a formal school or sect in early Buddhism its impact is extremely important. The reason for me placing this here is its influence on Buddhist philosophy as it was transmitted into China, and the formation of pure land Buddhism etc. I can not overstate how important this is and as such requires mention at least now as it will become very central to our latter discussion.

So what is pertinent to our discussion at this point is the importance returned to the wheel of Samsara (संसार) and that liberation could some how be held back until one was ready also that other beings needed to be made free of it as well. The problem here is that to reincarnate in this case would be to have knowledge of ones former self and past lives, so you can see the problem forming here already if we return to the basic ideas of the original philosophy and the rejection of atman etc. There is in fact a huge amount of writing on this very subject and how the problem can be resolved in Buddhist texts as I am sure they were all to aware of the problem as well from a philosophical stand point .What I in fact see is simply Buddhisms origins in Hindu tradition coming through and as such helps but again to show how the ideas of one religion keep surfacing in another over time.

This idea can also be found in Theravada in relation to the Buddhas previous lives so it is not unique Mahāyāna but what might be is the relationship between the ideal of the bodhisattva and the cult of saints in later western religion which I will cover in my next post on this subject.

So to recap what we have covered thus far.

That Buddhism was a rejection of older traditions of the time but that still did not make it immune to the cosmological hangover of the older traditions that birthed it as in time these would begin to resurface as new ideas on an old frame work.

Now that I have laid a skeleton frame work, and believe me it is little more than a bare bones synopsis I will move on to how Buddhism moved out from India and absorbed and got absorbed by the other traditions it ran into. I will also cover how and why Buddhism eventually became reabsorbed back in to Hindu tradition, with a basic explanation also of what I mean by the influence on the western cult of saints.

Yes this is a big topic and I know I am being very general with my coverage of it but to be blunt I am not going to post what would be a 60 or 70 thousand word thesis here on the paracast forum as that is what it would take at a minimum to cover even half of it in depth.

 

[Voyager]

Oh stuff it I am going to post this, but I will try to keep it as short as I can considering the subject at hand so please excuse me if I jump over some areas to save time (also please excuse my Sanskrit it is more than a little rusty).

I said before that Buddhism is a very good way to show how a religion can transform and borrow from those around it.
In and of itself you would think that just like Christianity it simply broke up into different denominations and you would be right but you would also be very wrong and missing the point.

The point is the transmutation of existing regional cults and religions of which Buddhism became a victim to over the century's following the death of Siddhārtha Gautama (The Buddha). I could also add that the Brahmanic religion (Hindu) was a victim of Buddhism but I will get to this crossing over of religious ideas and practice soon.

The schools of Buddhism we have today are in fact very much unlike the original as far as we can ascertain.
Having broken down into over 20 schools through the ages only, Theravada, Mahāyāna, and Vajrayāna remain (I will get to Zen Buddhism latter as it is more or less an out growth of Mahāyāna via China). It can be argued that Theravada is as close as one can get to the original teachings but even here one could also argue that even if the core teachings are close to the original the day to day practice is not due to regional changes and cultural pressures on the the Buddhist community over time.

To understand this a bit deeper we need to go back to what can be seen as its birth from the Hindu traditions of the time and the first change to effect Buddhism, the birth of the Mahāyāna (Yes the subject is complex but a basic overview can be given and also note that Mahāyāna did not split Buddhism as many think but simply helps to underscore how it evolved out of Hindu traditions and cosmology).

It should be very clear to all here that Buddhism was born in India around 600 or so years BCE, but what one may not understand is that it was a direct out growth of the Brahmanic traditions of the time and pulls on many of its early writings, arguments and philosophical ideas. Even if were only to argue against or reject the ideas they still can be found as part of its philosophy or opposing philosophy if you will.

The whole cycle of birth and rebirth as represented by Buddhism today in the shape of Mahāyāna or more specifically Vajrayāna should give this away but I digress and have jumped a little ahead of myself.

The roots of Brahmanic tradition are based around Vedic tradition but what we are going to touch on here are the Upanisads a body of writings that Buddhism rejected directly.
If you understand the Upanishadic doctrine then you will know that Brahman (ब्रह्मन्) = atman (आत्मन्) or that the self is part of God in broad sense with Brahman being God and atman the self. As such the core idea maintains that the Atman or self is eternal and as such is of itself an unchanging part of Brahmin for an interpretation of this concept we can look to the Taittiriya Upanishad where Brahman is described as:

सत्यम् बोध अनंतम् ब्रह्मन्

satyam jnanam anantam brahman

"Brahman is of the nature of truth, knowledge and infinity"

An interesting fact is that the more you look at this you get the idea that it brings the Brahmanic philosophy very close to monism and could be seen by the lay person as monotheistic at its core but that is a discussion for another time.

Now as I said before Buddhism rejects this idea as the Buddha proclaimed that he could find no evidence for the existence of either the personal soul/self (atman) or its cosmic counterpart and as such saw this philosophy as flawed (I should state that this is not the only reason for the formation of Buddhism as it is almost certainly a product of the social systems of the time but it is one of its core foundations in any case).

So you would think that Buddhism rejected all of the tenants and cosmology of the religion that preceded it right?

Unfortunately this is not the case and it gets very messy trying to extract one from the other in some cases, I will state, that this in my own opinion is one of the factors that lead to Buddhism being reabsorbed back into Hind tradition latter on in its place of birth India. Also one should note that unlike later western thinking eastern philosophy tends not to throw ideas out whole sale but to build on or change them so it is no wounder given this tendency that some of these ideas remained in Buddhism to bubble to the surface as different doctrinal and philosophical schools latter on. As such Buddhism maintained much of the core ideas of cyclic re-existence and Karma (आस्रव) as part of its central philosophy to give us our first example of how a religion can transmute ideas into a new tradition. As we all know the Hindu traditions never died out but this has more to do with the cultural frame work in which it exists and the power base that the caste system in India afforded the Brahmins that supported it.
Buddhism in and of itself was never really able to shake this old cultural system off as the local religious thinking allowed for one to be lets say a follower of Vishnu in the morning and a follower of the Buddha at night neither were seen as incompatible.

The first real change to Buddhism could be seen as the ideal of the Bodhisattva (बोधिसत्त्व) and that this did not split the sangha (सन्घ monastic school) as you would expect if it were a western religion may be surprising but remember the tendency to absorb old and new ideas that eastern thinking has and you have your answer as to why it did not, however to keep the post short I will simply state that the central change or new thought came from differing philosophical ideas on how enlightenment or Nirvana (निर्वाण) could be attained and should be attained.

As a matter of fact there is also no evidence that Mahāyāna was ever referred to as a separate formal school or sect in early Buddhism, but rather that it existed as a certain set of ideals, and later doctrines, for bodhisattvas.

In a nut shell what happened was the development of the ideal of the Bodhisattva or that one should abstain if you will from obtaining bodhi (बोधि) until all beings have been liberated from the wheel of existence. Mahāyāna in and of itself never became a formal school or sect in early Buddhism but it is its influence latter on as Buddhist philosophy was transmitted into China etc that is important in my opinion.

So what is pertinent to our discussion at this point is the importance returned to the wheel of Samsara (संसार) and that liberation could some how be held back until one was ready also that other beings needed to be made free of it as well. The problem here is that to reincarnate in this case would be to have knowledge of ones former self and past lives, so you can see the problem forming here already if we return to the basic ideas of the original philosophy and the rejection of atman etc. There is in fact a huge amount of writing on this very subject and how the problem can be resolved in Buddhist texts as I am sure they were all to aware of the problem as well from a philosophical stand point .What I in fact see is simply Buddhisms origins in Hindu tradition coming through and as such helps but again to show how the ideas of one religion keep surfacing in another over time.

This idea can also be found in Theravada in relation to the Buddhas previous lives so it is not unique Mahāyāna but what might be is the relationship between the ideal of the bodhisattva and the cult of saints in later western religion which I will cover in my next post on this subject.

So to recap what we have covered thus far.

That Buddhism was a rejection of older traditions of the time but that still did not make it immune to the cosmological hangover of the older traditions that birthed it as in time these would begin to resurface as new ideas on an old frame work.

Now that I have laid a skeleton frame work, and believe me it is little more than a bare bones synopsis I will move on to how Buddhism moved out from India and absorbed and got absorbed by the other traditions it ran into. I will also cover how and why Buddhism eventually became reabsorbed back in to Hindu tradition, with a basic explanation also of what I mean by the influence on the western cult of saints.

Yes this is a big topic and I know I am being very general with my coverage of it but to be blunt I am not going to post what would be a 60 or 70 thousand word thesis here on the paracast forum as that is what it would take at a minimum to cover even half of it in depth.

What do you now about the Gnostic Texts? Maybe in another thread.

 

[stonehart]

I know enough to have a basic understanding of them Voyager but I really only looked at them in passing in relation to the work I was doing at the time.
So I am no expert by any means and would never say I was.

 

[Kim323]

ok, stonehart, I just logged on, caught up with you and mike feeding off each other. A test, pure and simple, for you: i see you are online here, you frequently allude to your facility in languages. Right now, in the next five minutes, write ten sentences or a paragraph in latin, but just common stuff about, say, yourself: simple, like I live in, my favorite foods are, i have a pet named, etc. In latin. Believe me, I will be able to spot it if you cut and paste. And you don't have to tell the whole truth, reveal personal stuff, make up your favorite foods, your pets, etc. Ready, set, GO, NOW!

 

[Kim323]

Stonehart, you seemed to mysteriously and quickly disappear on that one. Furthermore, and please, folks, NOTE THIS: Stonehart and Mike, as I've noted from after my first few posts in this thread, are interested only in ridicule of religion. They do not read the suggestions I note. They do not read Bart Ehrman's article. Their posts are cut and paste fast and furious, tumbling one after the other, after EACH OTHER, competing even between them for how breathlessly fast they can cut and paste and ridicule and above all, stay OFF the topic. No honest discussion is wanted, and in fact, no honest discussion is allowed by them, as they by their own words feel it is their duty to ridicule religion. Others in the thread have noted the avoidance (to put it euphemistically) on their parts to have an honest conversation. Now, Stonehart, let's see here: you claim an education at the college level, you go on and on about things all over the map, avoid the topic, but, and this I want to point out and it took me just a few seconds to get suspicious, and then only a minute to confirm THIS FACT ALONE, and I will stick to one: the above essay you write above MORE THAN IMPLIES that it is ALL your own words and writing. New paragraph now, below, in all capitals:

HOWEVER, I SEE THIS: YOU WRITE: "Now as I said before Buddhism rejects this idea as THE BUDDHA PROCLAIMED THAT HE COULD FIND NO EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF EITHER THE PERSONAL SOUL/SELF (ATMAN) OR ITS COSMIC COUNTERPART" Read on:

However, Stonehart, I see that DAMIEN KEOWN has written: "THE BUDDHA SAID HE COULD FIND NO EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF EITHER THE PERSONAL SOUL (ATMAN) OR ITS COSMIC COUNTERPART" You do not contain what you evidently claim as your own words in quotes and attribute it as you should to the person who ACTUALLY WROTE IT. You seem to change said to proclaimed, but anyone can see that SOMETHING PERHAPS IS FISHY HERE, Stonehart. I read all "you" wrote, as I've read and listened to and watched everything you and Mike have cut and pasted and what little you've actually written. I THINK WE DESERVE AN EXPLANATION FOR THIS, AND I STATE NOTHING EXPLICIT AND MAKE NO DIRECT ACCUSATION, JUST WONDER WHY YOU DID NOT ATTRIBUTE WHAT YOU TYPED TO ITS CORRECT SOURCE. PERHAPS KEOWN IS QUOTING YOU!!!! PLEASE EXPLAIN, STONEHART.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Okay, this thread is becoming silly.
Kim, you have to realize that this is an informal forum and no one needs to pass anyone else's tests. You don't need to believe him if you don't want to and he doesn't have to prove to you who he is and what he knows to participate.

This thread is pretty much a perfect case study for the "backfire effect." Look it up if you don't know what it is, but it pretty much comes up all the time in most internet forums where people have opposing views. Guess what? Because of human psychology, there is very little room left for civil discussion at this topic at this point because both sides have dug into their beliefs and no matter what anyone says, you will find an opposing view. Trust me, I know, I've been involved in many such discussions where I have been on one side of the argument (look at any global warming thread, or 9/11 thread). I've been trying really hard not to do that any more.

Please stop being silly or I will gladly close this thread.

 

[Bob Watson]

Ok kim you yet to adress my statments. 5000 were fed by Jesus. may I ask to see a witness account that is not in the bible? Jesus preached a "sermon on the mount. Where may I ask can i find a account of of this that dose NOT apper in the bible? ect ect that what I want to see. Plinty the elder NEVER met jesus nether did joshepus! that article has NO 1st hand refreces at all and thats what I want to see.

 

[CitizenK]

There simply aren't any to find VesveHighfolk...even Ehrman says so himself. (And I loosely quote, "he didn't seem to make much of a splash to be put in the history books in the time he lived...")

 

[Bob Watson]

and there you have it! NONE! so if we have volumes on pilate on ceaser on so many others to fix them in history why NONE on this man? simple he did not exist...

 

[Kim323]

Well, Angelo, you can close it if you want. I wouldn't blame you, but I do take issue with the silly part, and I will admit I genuinely don't think objectively I have indulged in silliness. In fact, the basic issue is precisely honesty. I came into this thread staying on topic, and I have. My posts speak for themselves. I just think that posters have to want a discussion, and the history of this thread is one of attack on religion in and of itself, and I have stressed that though I am Christian, I have pointedly maintained that I just want to deal with the topic of this thread, and if someone claims special knowledge aside from cut and paste, that is a fundamental issue that can be addressed. I have dealt in facts, and I have seen firsthand how suggestions I have made for reference have been ignored and ridiculed when they addressed specifically the points brought up by Stonehart and Mike. I notice you don't have any words of criticism for them. Oh well, I do admit it was getting wearisome. I will say, and I know this sounds pretentious, that I don't think that Mike and Stonehart are really in my league when it comes to basic intellectual honesty, and that Mike and Stonehart have not discussed honorably, and have ridiculed not just me but other posters who want to have an honest dialogue. I will maintain that when special knowledge or education is alleged to buttress points that that fundamentally can be challenged, and yes, a test is not uncalled for. I specifically called for explanation from Stonehart for his clear quote of someone without attribution. But I suppose that is an unfair and silly test. Though I have specifically maintained that I do not and have not discussed this topic from a perspective of BEING a Christian, I have been compared, to paraphrase, part of the mob that burned people, etc., etc. But that's ok, and not worthy of any singling out on your part. Oh well, you are the administrator, and do what you will. I really can't argue that it has gotten to the point because of basic dishonesty, that is was becoming a fruitless endeavor on my part, but you can see where again and again I have attempted to steer Mike and Stonehart back to the facts of the discussion and the topic of the discussion. But you are right in the sense that no one will be convinced. However, that is no excuse for intellectual dishonesty. Full capitals to this point: IF YOU ARE GOING TO DISCUSS SOMETHING WITH ANOTHER HUMAN BEING, THERE HAVE TO BE SOME GROUND RULES THAT TRANSCEND SOME MERE LIST OF RULES OF, SAY, A FORUM. THERE HAS TO BE A DECENCY, AN INTELLECTUAL DECENCY, THAT A PERSON ADHERES TO FROM IF NOT HIS HEART THEN FROM AN ADHERENCE TO WIDELY ACCEPTED VIEWS AS TO WHAT CONSTITUTES AN INTELLECTUAL DISCUSSION. THERE ARE SUCH RULES, EVEN A NATURAL ADHERENC BY MOST PEOPLE, EDUCATED PEOPLE, BY REASON OF BASIC HONESTY, AMONG SCHOLARS, EDUCATORS, DEBATE CLUBS, AND ON AND ON. But, I take your point, and will post no more. I think Chris O'Brien, when he alluded to anonymity on this forum, had a good point. It caused me to think, as this Jesus thread progressed, that, really, I am dealing with a couple of people who hide, and that by the very nature of this medium anonymity is used to be dishonest on a very basic intellectual level, and when, intellectually, the seat gets too hot, it's ok to ridicule, demean, etc. I know this is not possible, but Chris made me think that a basic rule of this forum would be, almost, a list of rules that I know other forums have that I am members of, which are moderated, too, and which absolutely REQUIRE that full names be used, that full identity is established. You wouldn't believe how that engenders more honesty and more respect. HOWEVER, and again, I know this sounds pretentious, the CALIBER of the members generally on those kinds of forums is much, much (much!) higher, and the level of discourse is higher. I don't necessarily mean that, per se, the members of those forums are smarter in terms of IQ, are more educated in terms of actual college degrees, because that IS NOT my point. It's just by the nature of the rules of those forums with full names, members come in with a set of ground rules that for the most part they ALREADY NATURALLY ADHERE TO, and accept. ONE OF THOSE WILL BE STICKING TO THE TOPIC. I will not deny that I've strayed, but very minutely I stress (!), into personal observations of other posters, but there's something in me naturally that moderates me and strives to stick to the topic and the facts. Frustrated with constant cut and paste and ridicule just to be mean, I will admit I've challenged, but I think appropriately. Clearly, the rule of full identity as a condition of membership in this forum will not happen. And I stress that those other forums mean only the disclosure of your full and honest name, and believe me, there's no way to fake your name on these forums and not be found out quickly. Why? Because there is a personal relationship of basic respect, and I know I overuse the phrase, but of INTELLECTUAL HONESTY when debating a topic. Oh well, enough is enough. But this forum would benefit, I think, from more disclosure of identity. THAT IS WHERE CHRIS O'BRIEN HAD A POINT ABOUT ANONYMITY AND WHAT IT CAN ENGENDER. But, and I can't stress this enough, and this is to you, Chris, that the only thing I attribute to you in the mention of your name is JUST THE POINT you brought up generally about being anonymous in another thread. I do NOT mean to invoke you beyond that, and anything I've written beyond just saying that you brought up the word as it pertains to posting, is purely my own thoughts. I do think, and this is ME, that disclosure of full names would benefit this group. Now, I don't believe that will happen, or necessarily that it should, and I bring it up to the administrators as the policy of some very reputable forums, not that flaming, etc. don't happen there. Anyway, I appreciate what the moderators all do here. In fact, I consider what Gene and Chris and Don, and the other administrators do here a real service. In fact, what Gene does alone, and Chris, speaks to nearly a full time job that if done by others would net them a good salary every year. But from what I see, they work hard with little if any remuneration. I've watched The Paracast grow, and if you think about it, Gene and Chris are, really, full time hosts. I can't imagine doing what they do so publicly. I think radio hosting is a real talent, and when I listen to The Paracast, I often listen as much to just HOW Gene and Chris do this, the actual flow of conversation they engender, etc. that is truly a skill. Ok, I'm done, not with this forum, no way, but on this thread I am truly done, and though I've said that before, I actually see the reality of it now. Kim P.S. I know I'm guilty of this, and in fact do little more than skim what I've written before posting, and am guilty of agonized syntax and grammar, as we all are, but may I, as a teacher of 35 years, even overseas, make an observation that one of the people I've sparred with fruitlessly on this thread is prone to do that is decidedly NOT A TYPO? Excuse that sentence, that was tortured syntax. It's the misuse of the apostrophe, in myriad ways, but primarily its use as a designation of the simple plural! I really DO think that that is a general indicator of someone's education. I know, Kim's getting in a last cheap shot, but no, I don't mean it that way. Kim

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Kim, I said that the thread was becoming silly, and it's not only you. It's up to each individual member to decide what he or she would like to provide in terms of personal information. The only people that can not be anonymous are the moderators. Although my screen name is not my real name, it's actually pretty close. Check my twitter if you want to know more about me.

PS. I took the time to read everything you wrote.

 

[trainedobserver]

WALL O' TEXT. (sigh)

Anyone who wants to see my ugly mug or exchange email is welcome to message me. Most everyone knows who I am that cares to know. The whole anti-anonymity thing holds no water for me.