Dawkin's God Delusion

[BohsPartisan]

So what are we arguing about at the moment? That God is a racist, homophobic rapist? Or that the writers of the Testaments made a mess of it?

No, just that Pineapple Stu's arguement of the Jews not being warlike in biblical times doesn't hold water.

[pineapple stu]

Read the old testament, particularly the book of Judges. 10,000 infidels smited in the first paragraph.

The Old Testament was a thousand years and more before the time of Jesus. I don't think it's entirely relevant in this context, no more than is our culture.

You don't have to be a "warrior race" to embellish things anyway. Greek and Roman historians made embellishments all the time.

Are you seriously saying the the Greeks and Romans weren't to some extent a warrior race?! The Romans who conquered half of Europe and who gave us gladiator fights, and the Greeks whose warriors were world-renowned (or as much of the world as was known then), to the extent that they gave us the word Spartan?

I'm not trying to argue that the ancient Jews didn't embellish stuff, don't forget. I am trying to say that you can't argue they made stuff up on the basis of a conversation in work or on the basis of a couple of warrior sagas, as BohsPartisan is trying to do. It's perfectly possible to have an ancient story which hasn't been greatly embellished, which people seem to be denying here.

For an example, again delving back into our own culture, take the story of St Brendan. We have the manuscript Navigatio Sancti Brendani Abbatis, which tells of his voyage across the Atlantic Ocean to America in a small leather curragh in about the 6th century AD. Along the way, he encountered monsters throwing fiery rocks at him, landed on an island which mysteriously sunk and narrated many other rather bizarre experiences. The implausibility of the stories and of his boat caused most people to dismiss the possibility that he had actually made the trip, and the voyage was commonly held to be fiction, or at worst a gross embellishment. In the 1970s, Tim Severin set out to follow in Brendan's footsteps and not only confounded the critics by making it successfully across the Atlantic, he also found rational explanations for most of Brendan's sightings (a volcano and a whale, in the examples above). Obviously, Brendan had to describe things as best he could as he didn't know what a volcano was, but it's now largely accepted that the story did take place roughly as narrated. Brendan obviously wouldn't have been your more warriorly of people, which again fits in with what I was saying about warriors being more likely than pious religious people to exaggerate their stories.

I'm not trying to argue that the Bible happened exactly as described, but just that BohsPartisan and others are wrong to dismiss it based on their experiences in work or some warrior sagas.

Going back onto the original topic, incidentally, is it me or does Dawkins sound like a Michael Moore-type writer? I agree with a lot of what Moore has to say, but even then, he's an incredibly irritating writer, the more so on the occasions I disagree with him. That's the impression I'm getting of Dawkins too.

[BohsPartisan]

Are you seriously saying the the Greeks and Romans weren't to some extent a warrior race?!

No more than the Jews were.

[pineapple stu]

Don't recall the Jews conquering half of Europe or having one of the most feared warrior set-ups in the ancient world. You're still basing your comments on happenings a good thousand or two years before the time e're talking about.

[John83]

Don't recall the Jews conquering half of Europe or having one of the most feared warrior set-ups in the ancient world. You're still basing your comments on happenings a good thousand or two years before the time e're talking about.

The part of Poor Student's last post you so selectively quoted made rather a good case for it.

[BohsPartisan]

Don't recall the Jews conquering half of Europe or having one of the most feared warrior set-ups in the ancient world. You're still basing your comments on happenings a good thousand or two years before the time we're talking about.

They were no longer renown as warriors because they had been subjugated by the romans but there were resistance movements and they would have seen themselves very much in the context of their warrior heritage. In fact if you read the gospel of Thomas in the Nag Hammadi Library Jesus comes accross a bit like a classical Jewish version of Mao.

[micls]

The writers of the Gospels were trying to sell Christianity so of course they embellished stuff. They wrote for different people and classes in different places and based their version to suit the needs of that group.

The contradictions alone show that the stories were not completely accurately oral passed on from the time of Jesus.

[pineapple stu]

And I'm getting criticised for making sweeping statements.

[Poor Student]

Are you seriously saying the the Greeks and Romans weren't to some extent a warrior race?! The Romans who conquered half of Europe and who gave us gladiator fights, and the Greeks whose warriors were world-renowned (or as much of the world as was known then), to the extent that they gave us the word Spartan?

BP got my point. They're as little or as much a warrior race as the Greeks or Romans.

Don't recall the Jews conquering half of Europe or having one of the most feared warrior set-ups in the ancient world. You're still basing your comments on happenings a good thousand or two years before the time e're talking about.

As John pointed out, I outlined a good load of contemporary incidents that highlighted their own bellicose nature. The period between Greek and Roman rule was quite impressive. Hasmonaen rule's violent expansive policies created the biggest ever Jewish kingdom, bigger than modern day Israel, and subjugated many different peoples and forcibly converted a lot of them. This was actually quite an impressive feat and Rome felt the need to halt this possible threatning expansion. You don't know your history of the area.

I'm not trying to argue that the ancient Jews didn't embellish stuff, don't forget. I am trying to say that you can't argue they made stuff up on the basis of a conversation in work or on the basis of a couple of warrior sagas, as BohsPartisan is trying to do. It's perfectly possible to have an ancient story which hasn't been greatly embellished, which people seem to be denying here.

You're not doing a great job of refuting his argument when your argument has historical holes like that. Your argument was: They didn't embellish it like the Ulster and Fenian cycles because they're not warriors, they're dull people afraid to do anything. In fact they were perfectly capable of waging war, massacring, and expanding their territory right up to New Testament times. You were also trying to insinuate that they wouldn't veer off the truth due to fear of being sinful as if there was no such thing as a secular Jew.

[John83]

And I'm getting criticised for making sweeping statements.

My Biblical scholarship is a bit thin on the ground, but let's try this one: when did Jesus kick the traders out of the temple? Support your argument with all four gospels.

[BohsPartisan]

From WIKI:

The first intervention of Rome in the region dates from 63 BC, following the end of the Third Mithridatic War, when Rome made a province of Syria. After the defeat of Mithridates VI of Pontus, general Pompeius Magnus (Pompey the Great) remained there to secure the area.

Judea at the time was not a peaceful place. Queen Salome Alexandra had recently died and her sons, Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II, divided against each other in a civil war. In 63 BC, Aristobulus was besieged in Jerusalem by his brother's armies. He sent an envoy to Marcus Aemilius Scaurus, Pompey's representative in the area. Aristobulus offered a massive bribe to be rescued, which Pompey promptly accepted. Afterwards, Aristobulus accused Scaurus of extortion. Since Scaurus was Pompey's brother in law and protégée, the general retaliated by putting Hyrcanus in charge of the kingdom as Prince and High Priest.

[Lionel Ritchie]

His claim appeared clear enough. He said it "wasn't at all uncommon" to survive crucifixion, and used this as the basis for a theory on the resurrection (i.e. that he was around for 40 days afterwards because he never died on the cross in the first place). This appears to be groundless in the absence of any more evidence of people not dying on the cross.

However, I agree we should wait for his answer. That's my context anyway.

Sorry -my language was strong. I shouldn't have said "wasn't at all uncommon" as it's virtually impossible to back such a statement up* I'd have been better saying "wasn't unheard of" or something similar.
There is some archaeological evidence of a case mentioned earlier of a person who survived crucifixion where there was evidence of growth tissue on the bones puntures post crucifixion.
There is also -pertinent to the chap we're discussing -in Kashmiri folklore a grave of a Judean holy man called Iosa who arrived in Kashmir in his teens, hung around there for some time doing whatever before returning to Judea/Palestine years later as an adult. Story goes he came back to Kashmir as a fugitive having survived crucifixion. He married, had a family, lived to a grand old age and is buried in kashmir. Trouble is theirs now a Muslim holy man buried on top of his grave. I didn't open TOMB OF JESUS link but I'm fairly certain this is the story it'll point to.

*It's difficult to find hard and fast evidence of crucifixion survivors for a few reasons. For starters there is very little archaelogical evidence of any person who underwent crucifixion -survivor or not -as they were frequently left up on the crosses, T's, X's, Trees and whatever else was handy to nail/tie them upon to be scavenged.

There's also the fact that if someone rescued you and you recovered it's not something you'd boast about unless the political climate changed such as to render it safe for you to be out in the open. You'd still be a fugitive -no more likely to brag about surviving than you would be to mouth off about escaping prison having been put away for 20 to life. There's also the fact that anyone within an asses roar of you would end on the cross next to you if you were re-apprehended.

So why would I think it possible that people survived crucifixion? Well -opportunity. Crucifixion was as much a spectator sport and an advertisment for the rule of law as a punishment. The idea wasn't to just kill you -but kill you as slowly and painfully as possible. You could live for days up on one of those things ...and the romans or whoever is guarding you have to sleep sometime (or lose interest more likely ...the romans used their preferred methods of execution -beheading on anyone who fell asleep on duty) which presents one opportunity for a rescuer to have a go.

You needn't even be under guard. If you're up for some time it'll be assumed you're dead. Now if they're thorough they'll break your legs or spear you to make sure before going off duty -but they probably weren't always thorough.

They used break the victims legs to stop them supporting themselves and thus induce suffocation. That wikipedia article is incorrect when it refers to a footrest to take the weight off the arms. The slanted block of wood was a seat not a footrest. As you suffocated you could push your ass back up the seat for a bit of temporary relief from dying -and prolong your tormentors enjoyment at the same time.

So they'd break your legs when they decided you'd had enough ...but I don't doubt that sometimes they didn't break legs -out of malice rather than mercy -and said " ah let the fcuker clock out at his own pace".

[jebus]

That said had Jesus been crucified as 'the King of the Jews' he probably would have been subjected to the scourging that is talked about in the Bible, and anyone of human flesh, mortal or Son of God, would have very, very little chance of surviving that and a crucifixtion.

On another point I laughed at James Cameron stating he had found the remains of Jesus and Mary Magdelene, simply because he had found a tomb with Mary known as the Master and Jesus, son of Joseph on it. Fair enough saying it might be, but saying that it is is as ridiculous as the Turin Shroud if you ask me

[John83]

On another point I laughed at James Cameron stating he had found the remains of Jesus and Mary Magdelene, simply because he had found a tomb with Mary known as the Master and Jesus, son of Joseph on it. Fair enough saying it might be, but saying that it is is as ridiculous as the Turin Shroud if you ask me

He stated his reasons for believing them. I'm not about to accept them uncritically, but they aren't obviously wrong:

...statistical analysis shows the odds are at the 600-1 in favour of the tomb being that of Jesus’s family...

...The Lost Tomb of Jesus argued that although the names inscribed in Hebrew and Greek were common in the 1st century, one thought to represent Mary Magdalene is the clincher that sets them apart as a group.
It reads “Mariamene e Mara”, an unusual Greek version of the name which can be translated as “Mary known as the Master”.
The film cites recent scholarly research revealing that Mariamene was the particular variation used by Mary Magdalene.
Finding that name along with the others was the equivalent of discovering a grave marked Ringo alongside a John, Paul and George, Cameron said...

Now, maybe you can argue with the statistics of how uncommon that combination is, or with some of the research attributing that name to Magdalene, but I really doubt you even read that far.

[strangeirish]

Anyone ever had a word with this crew on Grafton St on a Friday night? Testimonies start about 2.09 into it.

[finlma]

Anyone ever had a word with this crew on Grafton St on a Friday night? Testimonies start about 2.09 into it.

I found it hard not to laugh. "The Lord made me go to Tralee."

[strangeirish]

I found it hard not to laugh. "The Lord made me go to Tralee."

I've been putting up with this type of stuff in the US for the last twenty odd years. Is it more prevalent in Ireland nowadays? The only thing I remember at home was some auld one on O'Connell Street, dressed in black, holding a cross and bible aloft, with a sign saying "The end is nigh".

As for the crew in the video, I think they are trying to predict our next home defeat. Nice yellow T-Shirts with John, 3:7

[Raheny Red]

Got this essay today

Offer a critical assessment of Richard Dawkin's rejection of theist truth claims.

[sonofstan]

Got this essay today

Offer a critical assessment of Richard Dawkin's rejection of theist truth claims.

Cut and paste this thread and tell us what mark you get!

[jebus]

Anyone read about Dawkins attacking Peter Kay for referring to God in one of his sketches in the Guardian yesterday, he came across as being terribly petty to be honest, as my flatmate (who has no interest in God or Dawkins) said

'What the **** does it matter to Dawkins if Peter Kay does or does not believe in God?'