--------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F5G00050 Date: 04/13/98 From: FRANK MASINGILL Time: 07:54am \/To: BOB SEWELL (Read 0 times) Subj: ATHEISM v FIDEISM BS> Most, if not all, are born with a sense of the numinous. As the blank BS> mind gets filled with life experiences, even if no religious training is BS> part of those experiences, the numinous is expressed in the child as awe BS> and wonder of the world and the cosmos. I believe it is this that BS> creates a curiosity about where it all came from, and is probably the BS> initial source for religion, thousands of years ago. It also gives the BS> scientist the inspiration to work toward an understanding of the cosmos, BS> whether or not there are any religious overtones to the feeling. BS> Regardless of how it is expressed later in life, the numinous is an BS> inherent trait of humanity. The only question is that of whether it is BS> instilled by God, or a natural biological function instilled by BS> evolution as some necessary survival tool. I find your statement quite sensible, candid and honest. Does the "God" symbol HAVE to be separate from biological functions or the evolutionary process? Anaximander in his "undifferentiated" vocabulary just said, "all things come from the apeiron and pay one another penalty for existence according to the ordinance of time." Genuine mystics never were trapped by Fundamentalism relative to the Aristotle's "First Cause." Sincerely, Frank --- PPoint 2.05 * Origin: Maybe in 5,000 years - frankmas@juno.com (1:396/45.12) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F5G00051 Date: 04/13/98 From: BOB EYER Time: 07:44am \/To: FRANK MASINGILL (Read 0 times) Subj: SECRET MARK FM: -Smith, the historian who I heard and read and it IS speculation based -on his "beliefs" and his discovery of _The Secret Gospel of Mark_. -You can wow others here with it but not me. I retain my BE> Not quite speculation; there is more to it than that. > Bob, I don't dispute any of what you offer regarding the >douments found by Morton Smith OR their quite probably >authenticity but I am VERY curious about your rigging of this >response to me. > > First of all, you were careful NOT to quote the statement set >forth by Rice as a TRUTH (not a speculation) and THAT is what I >challenged and still challenge. If an historian wishes to >introduce evidence that might indicate the Jesus band as a >homosexual group, I have no objection to that as long as it is not >set forth as PROVEN which Rice's statements declared as though it >were proven fact. At the moment I could go back and quote it if >necessary but both he and you know that he offered no >qualification at all of what he stated flatly as the truth. Here's the original exchange: FR: -Some clues are in the Mithra rituals paralleled in the Christian -bible. The "rebirth" of Lazarus -- Jesus's homosexual lover -- -could very well be the Mithratic ritual of "rebirthing" a man by -placing him into the belly of an animal and "rebirthing" him. FM: - Another of the many, specialized Frederic Rice speculations not -related to scientific fact but stated as if it were. It comes -from the studies of Morton Smith, the historian who I heard and -read and it IS speculation based on his "beliefs" and his -discovery of _The Secret Gospel of Mark_. You can wow others here -with it but not me. I retain my integrity with regard to what is -KNOWN and what is merely speculation in ancient literature. This exchange does not show Rice (passage identified as "FR") using either the words "truth" or "proof". As a matter of fact, it does not even make any reference to the Secret Gospel of Mark. The first person in this forum to refer to the Secret Gospel of Mark is YOU, not Fredric Rice. And you are the one, not Rice, who claimed that Morton's work was "speculation". Okay? And that is the claim which I challenged by reporting the facts on the issue, as found in The Complete Gospels. > I have also read Thiering's study of the possibility that the >scene of the Jesus story is not Jerusalem but Qumran but simply >because she has put a lot scholarship into it does not make it a >proven fact - not yet, anyway. I'm not sure what you mean by a "proven fact". > You also did not mention something that Morton Smith gave a LOT >of emphasis and that is the betrayal scene where the young man >(Mark??) was wearing a linen cloth and when it was seized he "ran >away naked." I didn't quote Morton Smith. I quoted The Complete Gospels (the full citation is Robert J. Miller, ed., The Complete Gospels, New York: HarperCollins, 1994, p.411), and only verses 8-9 of chapter 1. You want the linen cloth lines? Here they are: Six days later Jesus gave him an order; and when evening had come, the young man went to him, dressed only in a linen cloth. [Secret Mk 1.10-11, in The Complete Gospels, 411] >Smith placed a great deal of emphasis on this in his >homosexual speculations. Frankly, I would have thought SMk 1.8-9 and 2.1 (which I previously quoted) are more decisive on the homosexual issue than SMk 1.10-11. Why would Smith have thought the 'linen-cloth' lines to be more decisive? >But it is still ONLY something in study >and by NO MEANS PROVEN. It does NOT give Frederic Rice or anybody >else the right to state it as fact that Jesus was part of a >homosexual band. I'm not defending either Jesus OR Christianity >here - I'm defending the integrity of history. Now waitasec here. Nobody has any way, strictly speaking, of "proving" facts about texts. Such facts are always empirical. They or their negations are established by examining evidence. The result is a judgment. This judgment is empirical and synthetic. Empirical judgments can never be known with certainty. They are only more or less probable. The only facts which can be proven are facts about our determination to use language in a certain fashion, such as in purely mathematical statements like '2 + 2 = 4' and logical tautologies like 'p v -p'. Only these kinds of facts can be known with certainty. The kinds of facts we're talking about here don't fall into these categories, because they are EMPIRICAL facts. They are not analytic. It is a mistake to apply the notion of proof to them. BE: -Morton Smith published this stuff in 1973, the received view was -that it was fraudulent. More recently, however, nearly all -Clement scholars believe that the fragment is authentic; that is, -that it really did appear in letters written by Clement of -Alexandria (ca.150-215 A.D.). > It was along about then that Smith was invited to our campus to >speak on this topic and his book and the burden of much of his >lecture was simply the asking of questions like "what was they >doing under those sheets, etc." Sounds like he was trying to appeal to the prurient proclivities of college students (many scholars, when speaking to students, assume that they are more interested in sex than would be an audience of professors). But this is only commentary on Smith's style when speaking to students. It doesn't go to the substance of his findings. >That is when I first became >acquainted with his work. I still have a review of his book >published at that time. Well, you might check out some more recent evidence on the issue, such as the text and commentary found in The Complete Gospels, cited above (You can buy a copy in any good bookstore today), and published a generation AFTER Smith's original paper. When Smith's findings were originally published they were indeed regarded as speculative. After Clement scholars had a chance to review his evidence, however, nearly all of them came to the conclusion that Smith's findings were not speculative at all but were genuine evidence of a letter written by Clement of Alexandria some 1800 years ago. The Secret Gospel of Mark therefore really did exist. And it really did contain sentences about Jesus which suggest that the author of Mark thought that Jesus was a homosexual. Bob --- PCBoard (R) v15.3 (OS/2) 5 * Origin: FidoNet: CAP/CANADA Support BBS : 416 287-0234 (1:250/710) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F5G00052 Date: 04/13/98 From: KARL SCHNEIDER Time: 08:57am \/To: ANDREW CUMMINS (Read 0 times) Subj: ORDER! On (12 Apr 98) Andrew Cummins wrote to Richard Meic... AC> Let us measure your ignorance (and Tuinn's too). AC> For starters, I *prove* that God exists! You two chimps AC> remain in ignorance not aware that such proof was given. Off your medication again, Andrew? ... Fundies are like mushrooms, they like to be fed shit in the dark. --- PPoint 2.05 * Origin: Green Country (1:170/170.6) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F5G00053 Date: 04/13/98 From: FRANK MASINGILL Time: 02:50pm \/To: BOB EYER (Read 0 times) Subj: SECRET MARK 14:50:1104/13/98 BE> Here's the original exchange: BE> FR: -Some clues are in the Mithra rituals paralleled in the Christian BE> -bible. The "rebirth" of Lazarus -- Jesus's homosexual lover -- -could BE> very well be the Mithratic ritual of "rebirthing" a man by -placing him BE> into the belly of an animal and "rebirthing" him. Bob, look at Rice's sentence above which reads: "The "rebirth of Lasarus - Jesus's [sic] homosexual lover...." Rice does not qualify that statement in any way as you surely would have o admit. HE STATES IT AS A FACT - A GIVEN. It is true that I brought up Morton Smith as the source because that is really where this speculation was first dealt with in a historical enterprise as far as I know. But getting into Smith and the rest is NOT the central point. If the above does not show Rice setting forth something as a fact hen it really IS only speculation then I'm missing SOMETHING would you not agree. There is not sufficient evidence for ANYBODY to assert that Lazarus was esus' homosexual lover. He might well have been but then I go further in my skepticism than Rice even thinks of going. I do not, as he does, take the fundamentalist position that things written in the "bible" are LITERALLY TRUE and if I wanted to study any part of it I'd go to the genuine bible scholars who spend lifetimes doing so. "Proof-texting" the "bible" is a undamentalist ploy. I hope this is clear enough. Sincerely, Frank --- PPoint 2.05 * Origin: Maybe in 5,000 years - frankmas@juno.com (1:396/45.12) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F5G00054 Date: 04/13/98 From: FRANK MASINGILL Time: 03:01pm \/To: BOB EYER (Read 0 times) Subj: SECRET MARK 15:01:3904/13/98 BE> and published a generation AFTER Smith's original paper. BE> When Smith's findings were originally published they were indeed BE> regarded as speculative. After Clement scholars had a chance to review BE> his evidence, however, nearly all of them came to the conclusion that BE> Smith's findings were not speculative at all but were genuine evidence BE> of a letter written by Clement of Alexandria some 1800 years ago. BE> The Secret Gospel of Mark therefore really did exist. And it really did BE> contain sentences about Jesus which suggest that the author of Mark BE> thought that Jesus was a homosexual. I know that but note the word SUGGEST. Read my previous post in which I show you the quote in which Rice DID NOT SAY "Lazarus, Jesus' SUGGESTED over. He did not qualify it in any way. He set it forth as INDUBITABLE TRUTH. BTW, YOU seem to be more cautious in your statements and I admire intellecltual honesty. Sincerely, Frank --- PPoint 2.05 * Origin: Maybe in 5,000 years - frankmas@juno.com (1:396/45.12) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F5G00055 Date: 04/13/98 From: DAVID MARTORANA Time: 09:44pm \/To: WILLIAM ELLIOT (Read 0 times) Subj: "Biological Consciousness" @@> On Apr-13-98 William Elliot wrote to David Martorana @@> on "Biological Morality" DM>>> We are actually addressing an "ONLY-PHYSICAL" basis of being!?. WE>> Consciousness is counter example. DM>> As "consciousness" is presently unexplained and *not* known to DM>> exist beyond its fleshy container, your "counter example" DM>> comment is beyond my understanding to be your response. WE> What are you saying? If it's merely human, it's not real? Sorry my explanation was unclear....... What I meant was that "merely human" consciousness is physical ...(likely) of no more meaning (though more interesting) than any other organ talents. Whatever specialized functions it was developed to satisfy, there is no information in my database to indicate an any "MORE-OR-LESS- OF-IT. I "think" our differences are (perhaps) those of how we measure it's IMPORTANCE. Your yardstick (seems so?) indicates a value for consciousness that my yardstick is not yet long enough to measure. I enjoy consciousness, and wonder about it. You do the same but add other more epic extensions of meaning/importance to it. I have no wish to assume what you think, beyond hoping to use such speculations to clarify position/views. If wrong, I'm sure you will so advise! Consciousness is some fuzzy for me to nail down, but as I said originally, it does not "knowingly" exist beyond the life of its container, and so would suggest reasonable assumptions. If you have other exhibits of evidence, or good reasoning, for a MORE-OF-IT, my attention is lively. | |.....@@>--- Dave P.S. I very much enjoy speculation so long as we BOTH know the stage. --- Maximus/2 3.01 * Origin: America's favorite whine - it's your fault! (1:261/1000) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F5G00056 Date: 04/13/98 From: DAVID MARTORANA Time: 09:47pm \/To: FRANK MASINGILL (Read 0 times) Subj: "Infinity" @@> Intercept between Frank Masingill @@> Keith Knapp on "Infinity" BS> I don't know any more. It all gets fuzzy in my brain when we BS> define infinity as an endless set, then define a set larger than BS> that. How can you have something bigger than something that BS> never ends? I don't actually believe it; I got most of this from BS> a book called Infinity and the Mind by Rudy Rucker. KK> If you push any logical system far enough, it ends in contradiction, KK> paradox, or fuzziness. It may be that there is some rational solution KK> within that system, but it's also true that first-rate thinking often KK> requires you to relax and learn to live with the fuzziness of human KK> models. FM> Very well said. ........yes! both question AND answer..... @@>---Dave P.S. Still working my way through "Gorgias" --- Maximus/2 3.01 * Origin: America's favorite whine - it's your fault! (1:261/1000) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F5G00057 Date: 04/13/98 From: DAVID MARTORANA Time: 09:49pm \/To: FRANK MASINGILL (Read 0 times) Subj: "Roman Religion" @@> From intercept between Frank Masingill & Keith Knapp @@> om "Roman Religion" KK> I think we can see an analogy with our own century. During the Roman KK> Republic, deeply held tribal beliefs were acted out in concert by large KK> numbers of people who needed no prompting to do so. During the Empire KK> period much of this came apart at the seams. Spengler had a lot to say KK> about this transition, rightly or wrongly. He pointed out that although KK> the Roman religion became decadent during the Empire period, the temples KK> kept getting bigger and more grandiose. FM> Yes, no matter how vital the impetus (Bergson) every movement on FM> the forward axis ultimately seems destined to institutionalization FM> from a variety of motives and then it becomes a dead shell attempting FM> to protect something that was once white hot and glowing. It seems a natural enough sequence ....what unnatural sequence might be recommended? FM> I've noticed that university presidents and preachers share a decided FM> propensity to make there marks on an institution through some kind of FM> building program!! Politicians who are supposed to be guardians of FM> the best values of the State succumb to the "will of the people" and FM> become mere purveyors of pork. Before we condemn them too heartily FM> we need a sharp, focused look within ourselves. .......to see what? ?? .......QQ ... Dave- --- Maximus/2 3.01 * Origin: America's favorite whine - it's your fault! (1:261/1000) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F5G00058 Date: 04/13/98 From: KARL SCHNEIDER Time: 02:37pm \/To: BOB EYER (Read 0 times) Subj: SECRET MARK 14:37:0504/13/98 On (13 Apr 98) Bob Eyer wrote to Frank Masingill... BE> > You also did not mention something that Morton Smith gave a LOT BE> >of emphasis and that is the betrayal scene where the young man BE> >(Mark??) was wearing a linen cloth and when it was seized he "ran BE> >away naked." BE> I didn't quote Morton Smith. I quoted The Complete Gospels (the BE> full citation is Robert J. Miller, ed., The Complete Gospels, BE> New York: HarperCollins, 1994, p.411), and only verses 8-9 of BE> chapter 1. BE> You want the linen cloth lines? Here they are: BE> Six days later Jesus gave him an order; and when evening had BE> come, the young man went to him, dressed only in a linen cloth. BE> [Secret Mk 1.10-11, in The Complete Gospels, 411] FWIW, the passage is included as 14:51 in my copy The Complete Bible, an American Translation, first copyright 1928, rev. 1948, translated by Edgar Goodspeed & published by the Chicago University Press. ... It's like a velvet picture of Elvis coming to life --- PPoint 2.05 * Origin: Green Country (1:170/170.6) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F5G00059 Date: 04/13/98 From: KARL SCHNEIDER Time: 06:53pm \/To: KEITH KNAPP (Read 0 times) Subj: "Existence Exists" On (12 Apr 98) Keith Knapp wrote to Andrew Cummins... KK> AC>Shame on me! My offer of annoyance is politically incorrect KK> AC>unlike your offer of annoyance. Hmmm, I only ask a question, KK> AC>you make a dubious assertion, yet clearly I'm the bad guy. So KK> AC>much for fairness. KK> Would you mind pointing out where in the above paragraph I can find KK> a scientific argument. Keep in mind you're posting to a guy who babbles about 'native American Blacks' and then wonders why nobody can figure out what the hell he's talking about. ... Read the docs?? Wow, what a RADICAL concept !! --- PPoint 2.05 * Origin: Green Country (1:170/170.6)