When was Jesus Born?

[Guest Dingo Dave]

Dear Bryan,

You wrote:

Can you explain why people go against their moral "common sense" so routinely?

People seem generally better at not sticking their hand deliberately into a fire than, say, cheating on their spouse or on their taxes.

Because nature has also equipped people to be selfish and lustful, as well as sensible. That is why societies all over the world have devised rules of conduct for their citizens, and penalties for those citizens who flaunt those rules.

Sometimes a selfish or abusive spouse may deserve to be cheated on, if they are not providing the sort of love and support within the relationship that the cheating spouse has managed to find with someone else outside the relationship.

Sometimes a spouse will cheat on their partner out of pure selfishness or lust. In which case society generally condemns them for such behaviour.

Tax cheats certainly do so out of selfishness or plain stupidity. Just look at what happened to Kent Hovind. He is both selfish and stupid, and he now faces 10 years in jail, because the rest of society has made rules which promise to punish such acts of selfishness. There's nothing 'woo woo' or supernatural about it.

In response to my charge that the Christian doctrines Paul listed were nonsensical, you wrote:

No, they are not.

No, they do not.

It's almost like you've been brainwashed into believing that. 

Paul and I are not the only people who think that Christian doctrines are absurd.

Read some other people's opinions. I have pasted a few below.

Julia Sweeny summed up the absurdity of Christian doctrines quite well when she wrote:

"Why would a God create people so imperfect, and then blame them for his own imperfections. Then send his own son to be murdered by those imperfect people, to make up for how imperfect those people were. And how imperfect they were inevitably going to be. I mean, what a crazy idea." - Julia Sweeney Excerpt from her own deconversion story.

Or how about this?

"A talking snake made me do it. All Christian doctrine and theology can be boiled down to this absurd statement.

The talking-snake story is absurd, of course, which is why Christian theology is absurd: No talking snake, no original sin, no need for salvation, no need for Jesus. Yet this absurdity gets constant expression, not only in churches and Christian publications, but even in the mass media."

Or this;

"…an absurd problem came to the surface: 'How COULD God permit that [crucifixion of Jesus Christ]!' . . . the deranged reason of the little community found quite a frightfully absurd answer: God gave his Son for forgiveness, as a SACRIFICE . . . The SACRIFICE FOR GUILT, and just in its most repugnant and barbarous form — the sacrifice of the innocent for the sins of the guilty! What horrifying heathenism!" - [Friedrich Nietzsche]

Or this;

"Have you ever thought about how bizarre the crucifixion story is? Imagine the all-powerful, all-knowing creator of the universe sitting on his magnificent throne in heaven. He looks down onto earth and says to himself:

Those evil humans down on earth. I hate what they are doing. All this sin...

Since I am all-knowing I know exactly what the humans are doing and I understand exactly why they commit each sin. Since I created the humans in my own image and personally programmed human nature into their brains, I am the direct author of all of this sin. The instant I created them I knew exactly what would happen with every single human being right down to the nanosecond level for all eternity. If I didn't like how it was going to turn out, I could have simply changed them when I created them. And since I am perfect, I know exactly what I am doing. But ignore all that. I hate all these people doing exactly what I perfectly designed them to do and knew they would do from the moment I created them...

So here's what I am going to do. I will artificially inseminate a virgin. She will give birth to an incarnated version of me. The humans will eventually crucify and kill the incarnated me. That will, finally, make me happy. Yes, sending myself down and having the humans crucify me -- that will satisfy me. I feel much better now."

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/god14.htm

You forget that I was an active Christian for many years. It was only after I had unbrainwashed myself, that the absurdity of these doctrines became so glaringly obvious. Most ex-Christians feel the same way I do. They, like me, wonder how they could ever have subscribed to such absurd and barbarous ideas.

The clergy, by promoting Biblical doctrines, have somehow managed to convince people to associate stories of mass murder and genocide with concepts such as love and mercy; Doctrines of substitutionary sacrifice with the concept of justice; Blind unquestioning obedience with intellectual freedom.

It's like something out of George Orwell's book '1984', in which the government authorities coined slogans such as,"War is peace", "Freedom is slavery", "Ignorance is strength" , in order to essentially lobotomise an entire society into being entirely submissive to their commands.

The Bible, and the clergy, by promoting blind obedience as being the highest of virtues, and by condemning independant thought and free enquiry as being the most heinous of sins, attempts to do the very same thing. It is contemptible that the Bible encourages people to become like sheep. After all we know what fate awaits all the sheep in the shepherd's flock don't we? They are fleeced until they are no longer useful, and then they are either discarded or killed.

What an appropriate analogy the Christians inadvertantly make when they describe themselves as the flock, and their pastor or priest as the shepherd.

[Guest Dingo Dave]

NO!!!!!!!!But all Terrorists are Muslims!! radicals

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No they're not.

The guy who bombed one of your government buildings a few years ago wasn't a Muslim.

The 'unibomber' wasn't a Muslim.

The guy who sent anthrax to people through the mail wasn't a Muslim.

The members of the Spanish inquisition weren't Muslims.

The ancient Hebrews who invaded the promised land and slaughtered everyone in their path weren't Muslims.

Need I go on?

[Guest Dingo Dave]

I hope this isn't a stupid question..... What is a dingo ??

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A dingo is the Australian wild dog. It's a bit like a cross between a wolf and a coyote. If you would like more information about them, just do a google search.

[Guest Dingo Dave]

Both Bryan and Kiefer start off with the wrong premise:  treating propaganda and/or myth as history.  This is not a biography; it is propaganda put together to sell a product, i.e., Christianity.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Very good summary. It's laughable to argue that Kiefer is doing unbiased historical analysis when he himself admits , that he's doing apologetics.

There is quite a lot of information on the internet about Kiefer. One thing's for sure, he was not a historian, either by profession or method.

[Bryan]

Dear Bryan,

You wrote:

Because nature has also equipped people to be selfish and lustful, as well as sensible.

Is it common sense to pass your genes as widely as possible, or is it just selfishness?

Your answer is extensive, but it doesn't answer anything.

In response to my charge that the Christian doctrines Paul listed were nonsensical, you wrote:

Paul and I are not the only people who think that Christian doctrines are absurd.

Read some other people's opinions. I have pasted a few below.

How will you distinguish your approach from the fallacy of argumentum ad populum?

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/popular.html

You forget that I was an active Christian for many years. It was only after I had unbrainwashed myself, that the absurdity of these doctrines became so glaringly obvious.

How do you know you didn't just change brands of cranial cleanser?

You're arguing your points fallaciously. Is that reasonable?

Most ex-Christians feel the same way I do. They, like me, wonder how they could ever have subscribed to such absurd and barbarous ideas.

Huh. If ex-Christians think so, it must be true.

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/popular.html

<snip>

You learned how to preach, anyway.

[God Save Us From Christians]

LOL, just as stupid! It's sure not Muslims who bomb abortion clinics here in the USA, for one.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nope, it's Christians that bomb abortion clinics, in the name of jesus.

[Guest river]

No they're not.

The guy who bombed one of your government buildings a few years ago wasn't a Muslim.

The 'unibomber' wasn't a Muslim.

The guy who sent anthrax to people through the mail wasn't a Muslim.

The members of the Spanish inquisition weren't  Muslims.

The ancient Hebrews who invaded the promised land and slaughtered everyone in their path weren't Muslims.

Need I go on?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

All Terrorists are Muslims!!!!

[Guest Onward]

All Terrorists are Muslims!!!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Again stop posting, you're just a hateful person. There is no place for that.

[Strife767]

All Terrorists are Muslims!!!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

(KOTW, I'm surprised at you...if hate speech like this is not disallowed on the forums, then what is the point of moderating them at all?)

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=45776

[Guest Dingo Dave]

You're out of line because there was no evidence of miracle-belief in the text you were supposed to be evaluating.

Well, you're just making stuff up again, Dingo Dave, because you know you're up against it regarding your claim that Kiefer engaged in special pleading.

Regardless, your charge that he engaged in special pleading must come from the text in question.  Not from your imagination.

This, Dingo Dave, is a red herring.

You were to produce evidence in support of your claim that Kiefer engaged in special pleading in the text in question (not that you've found it any place other than your imagination even now).

Instead of addressing the main issue, you addressed something else, apparently as intended distraction from your failure.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Kiefer plainly accepts the miraculous parts of the text. They are the very things which his article was designed to defend. He didn't simply assert his belief in the existance of astrologers. He was defending the idea that in this instance the astrological predictions of the Magi were accurate and historically factual.

He didn't quote the text about the Magi and Joseph being warned by the god Yahweh, he paraphrased those passages and then used them in his article as statements of historical fact.

To suggest anything else is to my mind dishonest, and a betrayal of what Kiefer actually set out to do in the first place.

I quoted from another of his articles in order to demonstrate that Kiefer is a firm and enthusiastic believer in Bible miracles. To suggest that he suspended his 'woo woo' beliefs just for this particular article is ridiculous. The very suggestion is betrayed by the article itself.

I'm apologise if this long and protracted argument is boring some readers.

It's beginning to bore me as well.

[KOTW]

(KOTW, I'm surprised at you...if hate speech like this is not disallowed on the forums, then what is the point of moderating them at all?)

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=45776

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Strife767, Members and Guests:

We know that all terrorists are not muslims (as one of our posters pointed out) and that all abortion clinic bombers are not christians. Although comments like these are objectionable and if the poster was serious hate speech, I tend to be optimistic that post such as the two you find objectionable simply are sarcastic attempts to prove the opposite: Only some terrorists happen to be muslim. Only some abortion clinic bombers happen to be Christian.

KOTW

[Strife767]

Only some abortion clinic bombers happen to be Christian.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, I'm not so sure...I have never heard of anything but fanatical (obviously--if they weren't fanatical they wouldn't have bombed something) pro-life Christians bombing abortion clinics in this country. I would be very interested in seeing a report on this where the 'bomber' was _not_ Christian, because it would be the first time in my life.

[Bryan]

Kiefer plainly accepts the miraculous parts of the text. They are the very things which his article was designed to defend. He didn't simply assert his belief in the existance of astrologers. He was defending the idea that in this instance the astrological predictions of the Magi were accurate and historically factual.

That's an inference of yours, not an implication of the text.

Even today, I could report that Tom Smith arrived at Daytona Beach because an astrological reading instructed him to be there. Such a report could reply on Smith's own account. It would not be necessary for me to affirm the reliability of astrology in any way, other than reporting the coincidence that he found something in Daytona Beach that, to him, met the expectation that he had (fleshing out the analogy a bit).

If you infer on the basis of the report that I affirm my belief in astrology, you are simply wrong, and regardless it has nothing to do with whether or not my account is historical.

He didn't quote the text about the Magi and Joseph being warned by the god Yahweh, he paraphrased those passages and then used them in his article as statements of historical fact.

Two texts that you highlighted, Dingo Dave, were in fact direct quotations of the text. If you were not objecting to those quotations, then why did you highlight them?.

Aside from that I have already mentioned to you to standard historical approach to ancient texts: A historical text under evaluation for historicity is taken at face value for the sake of argument. If you take none of it as true for the sake of argument, then there's no point in trying to falsify the text. Instead, you simply fallaciously beg the question by assuming your conclusion.

To suggest anything else is to my mind dishonest, and a betrayal of what Kiefer actually set out to do in the first place.

Pointing us again to your failure to understand how ancient history is done--and nothing more.

I quoted from another of his articles in order to demonstrate that Kiefer is a firm and enthusiastic believer in Bible miracles. To suggest that he suspended his 'woo woo' beliefs just for this particular article is ridiculous.

Why? Because you say so?

You need relevant evidence from the text.

So far, you've got zilch.

The very suggestion is betrayed by the article itself.

Apparently you're back to objecting that the text is taken as true for the sake of argument in order to make use of any clues as to the explanation for the problem passages.

That is nothing less than a mark of your ignorance of historical study, Dingo Dave.

I don't typically recommend Wikipedia as a source, but this is a pretty decent summary of historical method. Even you should be able to see the utility of taking the text as true for the sake of argument (internal consistency) and for perceiving clues as to the explanation of problem texts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_me...cal_reliability

[Guest river]

Strife767, Members and Guests:

We know that all terrorists are not muslims (as one of our posters pointed out) and that all abortion clinic bombers are not christians.  Although comments like these are objectionable and if the poster was serious hate speech, I tend to be optimistic that post such as the two you find objectionable simply are sarcastic attempts to prove the opposite:  Only some terrorists happen to be muslim.  Only some abortion clinic bombers happen to be Christian.

KOTW

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You hit it right on the head !!!!

They wouldnt know sarcasm if it hit them in the face ...They didnt llike my comment on the Muslims but they are preaching the same saying Christians bomb abortion clinics in the name of Jesus .

Im breaking balls and these wackos think its for real ... But I dont see anyone chiming in on those comments ...Typical!!!!!!

Typical ...

[Guest bik49ypik@yahoo.com]

(KOTW, I'm surprised at you...if hate speech like this is not disallowed on the forums, then what is the point of moderating them at all?)

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=45776

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You showed your true colors when you called my dead mother a whore. This is the character of this person. That’s why you disgust me. You showed your true lack of class. I am glad you support the LaClairs and not me.

[Guest bik49ypik@yahoo.com]

Strife767, Members and Guests:

We know that all terrorists are not muslims (as one of our posters pointed out) and that all abortion clinic bombers are not christians.  Although comments like these are objectionable and if the poster was serious hate speech, I tend to be optimistic that post such as the two you find objectionable simply are sarcastic attempts to prove the opposite:  Only some terrorists happen to be muslim.  Only some abortion clinic bombers happen to be Christian.

KOTW

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am surprised that you let Strife get away implying that someones mother a whore. Where does it stop here? This is getting more than just a blogging site and it should be better controlled. I suspect it is not going to stop until someone really gets hurt. You really need to do a better job policing what is going on here. Certain people here need to be controlled.

[Guest Guest]

I think Strife's allusion went right over your head, bik49ypik.

[Strife767]

You showed your true colors when you called my dead mother a whore. This is the character of this person.  That’s why you disgust me.  You showed your true lack of class.  I am glad you support the LaClairs and not me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Unbelievable how you take things out of context in an attempt to smear me. Apparently you didn't read this post the first time:

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=45850

And here's the original post with the ACTUAL context intact: http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=45604

You asked if I was related to Paul or if I was sleeping with him, then smugly said you were "just asking." So I made fun of that stupid move by quoting from the Daily Show when Jon Stewart made fun of exactly that kind of transparent implication.

But I have a feeling you knew exactly what I meant, and are intentionally twisting my words because it suits your purpose. So you're either ignorant/oblivious, or pure scum. Considering the content of previous posts of yours, I'd guess the latter. *points to his signature*

[Strife767]

I am surprised that you let Strife get away implying that someones mother a whore.

You're the only one stupid enough to think that happened. Not only did I quote someone else, but it was a type of comment (an assertion extremely-weakly disguised as a question) that I quoted to mock your use of the same.

Where does it stop here?  This is getting more than just a blogging site and it should be better controlled.  I suspect it is not going to stop until someone really gets hurt.  You really need to do a better job policing what is going on here. Certain people here need to be controlled.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No one called your mother, dead or alive, a whore. Stop whining already. Besides, did you not imply that I had ulterior motive in supporting Paul by suggesting I was either related to him or going to bed with him? Despicable hypocrite.

[Strife767]

they are preaching the same saying Christians bomb abortion clinics in the name of Jesus .

Please find me one abortion clinic bomber who isn't Christian. I've never heard of one, and also it seems unlikely to me that anyone except for psycho-Christians who take their pro-life nonsense too far would attack an abortion clinic like that. Feel free to prove me wrong, though.

[Guest Dingo Dave]

Bryan wrote:

Even today, I could report that Tom Smith arrived at Daytona Beach because an astrological reading instructed him to be there. Such a report could reply on Smith's own account. It would not be necessary for me to affirm the reliability of astrology in any way, other than reporting the coincidence that he found something in Daytona Beach that, to him, met the expectation that he had (fleshing out the analogy a bit). If you infer on the basis of the report that I affirm my belief in astrology, you are simply wrong, and regardless it has nothing to do with whether or not my account is historical.

And if you told me that Tom Smith had followed a magic star in order to find and worship a magic baby, and then was warned by God in a dream to get out of there and go home by a different route because the government wanted to kill the magic baby, I would have every reason to think that you were nuts. And indeed I do.

"Pointing us again to your failure to understand how ancient history is done--and nothing more."

This is the last time I am going to say this to you Bryan. Kiefer was not doing history, he was doing apologetics. There is a world of difference between the two.

Two texts that you highlighted, Dingo Dave, were in fact direct quotations of the text. If you were not objecting to those quotations, then why did you highlight them?

To demonstrate to you that Kiefer did in fact include supernatural events in his article. Contrary to what you had previously asserted.

What are you trying to prove by all of this Bryan? Kiefer is a well known Christian apologist, he is not an ancient historian. He works in a government research laboratory (The Mathematical and Statistical Computing Laboratory , Center for Information Technology) and dabbles in church history in his spare time.

No competent ancient historian gives credence to all the miracle claims that are made in ancient documents, and any who did would be labled as crackpots by their ancient historian collegues.

For your enjoyment, please allow me to quote Kiefer again from yet another of his articles, entitled 'Michael and All Angels'.

In the Hebrew Scriptures, it is occasionally reported that someone saw a man who spoke to him with authority, and who he then realized was no mere man, but a messenger of God. Thus we have a belief in super-human rational created beings, either resembling men in appearance or taking human appearance when they are to communicate with us. They are referred to as "messengers of God," or simply as "messengers.".....

"Everlasting God, who have ordained and constituted in a wonderful Order the ministries of angels and mortals: Mercifully grant that, as your holy angels always serve and worship you in heaven, so by your appointment they may help and defend us here on earth; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever."

Ancient historian my arse! You're having a laugh.

[Guest WilliamK]

You showed your true colors when you called my dead mother a whore. This is the character of this person.  That’s why you disgust me.  You showed your true lack of class.  I am glad you support the LaClairs and not me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He did no such thing, of course. The quote was obviously illustrating a point and not aimed at anyone. And unless you're prepared to claim imbecility, I'm inclined to think that you are well aware of that, and chose to lie about it anyway. Then you criticized HIS character based on YOUR lies. Despicable. You are in no position to judge anyone's character.

Any response other than an admission and apology will only deepen your dishonor.

[Guest bik49ypik@yahoo.com]

Unbelievable how you take things out of context in an attempt to smear me. Apparently you didn't read this post the first time:

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=45850

And here's the original post with the ACTUAL context intact: http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=45604

You asked if I was related to Paul or if I was sleeping with him, then smugly said you were "just asking." So I made fun of that stupid move by quoting from the Daily Show when Jon Stewart made fun of exactly that kind of transparent implication.

But I have a feeling you knew exactly what I meant, and are intentionally twisting my words because it suits your purpose. So you're either ignorant/oblivious, or pure scum. Considering the content of previous posts of yours, I'd guess the latter. *points to his signature*

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your implication was directed in a harming way. You post you "ad hominem" because they disagree with your opinion and when you cannot stand it you attack their family. How very courageous of you.

How very righteous you think you are because you have all day to post on here.

[Bryan]

Bryan wrote:

And  if you told me that Tom Smith had followed a magic star in order to find and worship a magic baby, and then was warned by God in a dream to get out of there and go home by a different route because the government wanted to kill the magic baby, I would have every reason to think that you were nuts.

I love the way you import your prejudices into your reworking of my example.

What is a "magic" star? You must have some idea, since you chose the term.

What is a "magic" baby?

Kings were real. Lines of descent were real. People looked at real objects in the sky and took them to have meaning in terms of human events.

Those are all facts.

And you still haven't come up with any example of special pleading. This is just another in your series intended to change the subject and leave your failed argument to get swallowed by the sands of time.

And indeed I do.

This is the last time I am going to say this to you Bryan. Kiefer was not doing history, he was doing apologetics.

For example? Oh, that's right--you don't have anything.

You don't know how history is done (and probably have scant familiarity with apologetics as a discipline).

Try this one: Are apologetics and history mutually exclusive in principle?

There is a world of difference between the two.

And you can tell us the difference, too!

And if not, you'll go get your daddy! And a bunch of friends! And beat somebody up!

To demonstrate to you that Kiefer did in fact include supernatural events in his article. Contrary to what you had previously asserted.

Bzzt. You're making stuff up again.

"You're out of line because there was no evidence of miracle-belief in the text you were supposed to be evaluating." (not a claim that supernatural events are not mentioned)

"1) You have insufficient basis in this writing of Kiefer's to conclude that he "believes that the gospels are accurate in their entirety." Case in point, Kiefer believes that Luke may have made an error of misidentification respecting the governor of Palestine. That is bad logic on your part, Dingo Dave." (Again, not a claim that supernatural events are not mentioned)

How about you quote the alleged assertion of mine, Dingo Dave?

What are you trying to prove by all of this Bryan?

You're the one with something to prove. I'm just marking your (lack of) progress. Originally, you were going to prove that Kiefer was engaged in special pleading but you appear to have given up on that one. Now you want to argue that Kiefer believes in the supernatural (whatever that's supposed to prove), among other things.

Kiefer is a well known Christian apologist, he is not an ancient historian. He works in a government research laboratory (The Mathematical and Statistical Computing Laboratory , Center for Information Technology) and dabbles in church history in his spare time.

And therefore ...?

No competent ancient historian gives credence to all the miracle claims that are made in ancient documents, and any who did would be labled as crackpots by their ancient historian collegues.

Relevance? What ancient historian have we found who supposedly gives credence to all the miracle claims made in ancient documents?

For your enjoyment, please allow me to quote Kiefer again from yet another of his articles, entitled 'Michael and All Angels'.

Ancient historian my arse! You're having a laugh.   

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So, you still have nothing to suggest that Kiefer committed the fallacy of special pleading, and absolutely no specific evidence that his paper did not properly follow established prinicples of historical study.

Great work, Dingo Dave!

Maybe your next post can take us even further from your original topic?

[Strife767]

Your implication was directed in a harming way.

My implication was, and is, that it is stupidly transparent of you to imply something then try to make it look innocent by stating it like a question.

You post you "ad hominem" because they disagree with your opinion

I'm guessing you don't know what "ad hominem" means. If someone responds to a post with nothing but a lame personal attack and ignores their actual argument (so there isn't even a direct "disagreement" with an opinion, only an implied one), that's ad hominem.

and when you cannot stand it you attack their family.  How very courageous of you.

Repetition doesn't make something true. I didn't say anything about anyone related to you, and you can whine about it every day for the rest of your life and it won't become true, sorry.

How very righteous you think you are because you have all day to post on here.

I'm surprised you don't understand the concept of ad hominem, considering you use it so liberally.