Quotes on TRUTH

neal · 07-13-09 8:17 am

... don't attack the messenger.... Devon You made the statement, then in the next post you put up somebody that was a long attack on the messenger. ? The Jesus Mysteries says right up front that it is a theory. The book has more footnotes than any book I have ever read. The NT has been translated in such a way as to hide the pagan terms used by Paul to explain "his Jesus". I would suggest reading the book for yourself and then showing Elaine and I where the errors are. I have found a few myself so its possible you can add to it. However, for the rational among us I would trust the writings of the half looney Freke much more than "JP Holding" and his Tektonic garbage site. At least Freke and Gandy write under their real name.

neal · 07-13-09 8:30 am

Elaine I am traveling and do not have The Jesus Mysteries in front of me but I have been curious about one statement in the book which you might be able to help with. In Acts there is a statement about Paul cutting his hair as he leaves a port on a ship. The footnote goes into detail about the custom of sailors to cut their hair at that place (there is a temple there to the goddess which remain as ruins) and offer it as a gift to the goddess for a safe journey across the sea. Some people try to say that he was taking some jewish vow but those had to be taken in Jerusalem, right? Have you come across this in your other studies? Thanks. (If you don't remember what I'm talking about when I am home I will look it up and give page and footnote. Sorry for the vagueness.)

don · 07-13-09 9:17 am

The Science of Bias (Just when you thought you really know, along comes this guy who knows you really don't.) <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/13/1593.jpg" alt=""> ON BEING CERTAIN: Believing You Are Right Even When You're Not <blockquote>ON BEING CERTAIN is a revolutionary look at how we know what we know. At stake is the commonly held belief that we can logically and reasonably determine when our thoughts are correct. If, after due rumination and deliberation, we decide that a thought must be correct, we presume that this conclusion is itself a conscious choice. ON BEING CERTAIN presents compelling evidence that this assumption is inconsistent with present-day understanding of basic brain function. Drawing from case studies and recent neuroscience advances, as well as such far-ranging subject material as the physics of baseball, high-stakes poker, and popular discussions of gut feelings and the nature of intuition, ON BEING CERTAIN systematically undermines certainty and conviction as products of reason. The central premise: Despite how certainty feels, it is neither a conscious choice nor even a thought process. Certainty and similar states of “knowing what we know” are sensations that feel like thoughts, but arise out of involuntary brain mechanisms that function independently of reason. </blockquote>Reviews<blockquote>ForbesLife March 10, 2008 The day after the space shuttle Challenger disaster, a psychology professor named Ulric Neisser had his students write precisely where they'd been when they heard about the explosion. Two-and-a-half years later, he asked them for the same information. While fewer than one in ten got the details right, almost all were certain that their memories were accurate, and many couldn't be dissuaded even after seeing their original notes. For neurologist Robert A. Burton, the Challenger study is emblematic of an essential quality of the human mind, and evocative of the psychology underlying everything from nationalism to fundamentalism. In his brilliant new book, Burton systematically and convincingly shows that certainty is a mental state, a feeling like anger or pride that can help guide us, but that doesn't dependably reflect objective truth. Evidence for Burton's fascinating insight is everywhere around us, and "On Being Certain" expertly weaves together studies from Science and The New England Journal of Medicine, as well as the front page of the New York Times, to consider the myriad ways in which the brain constructs a useful worldview -- often by manipulating details for the sake of consistency -- and sometimes, as in the case of schizophrenia, takes untenable liberties. Faced with the inherent unreliability of the human mind, a lesser author might become cynical. Burton, however, is able to appreciate the cultural worth of unjustified certainty, which fuels the impulsive creativity of scientists and artists alike. Equally important, he argues that, "if science can shame us into questioning the nature of conviction, we might develop some degree of tolerance and an increased willingness to consider alternative ideas." In the polarizing atmosphere of the 2008 election, "On Being Certain" ought to be required reading for every candidate -- and for every citizen. --Jonathon Keats <a href="http://www.rburton.com/_i_on_being_certain_i___believing_you_are_right_even_when_you_re_not_63166.htm" target=_top>http://www.rburton.com/_i_on_being_certain_i___believing_you_are_right_even_when_you_re_not_63166.htm</a> </blockquote>Robert A. Burton<blockquote><img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/13/1594.jpg" alt=""> ROBERT A. BURTON, M.D., graduated from Yale University and the University of California at San Francisco medical school, where he also completed his neurology residency. At age thirty-three, he was appointed chief of the Division of Neurology at Mt. Zion-UCSF Hospital, where he subsequently became Associate Chief of the Department of Neurosciences. His non-neurology writing career includes three critically acclaimed novels and a neuroscience and culture column at Salon.com-- Mind Reader. He lives in the San Francisco Bay Area. <a href="http://www.rburton.com/" target=_top>http://www.rburton.com/</a> </blockquote>

neal · 07-13-09 9:54 am

Just when you thought you really know, along comes this guy who knows you really don't. I have liked this saying: The more I learn the less I know. Not sure where its origin is. Saw a good bumper sticker the other day. Said: Don't believe everything you think. <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/happy.gif" border=0>

elaine · 07-13-09 12:56 pm

Everything we are so certain about today may be in the garbage bin of tomorrow's "certainty." Neal, I was unable to find in both Freke and my concordance the item you mentioned. For those who ridicule Freke and Gandy, I would only say: unless you've read their book and the many pages of documented notes, you have nothing but your own ignorance to show. If you disagree with their assessments, give refutation that is equally documented.

don · 07-13-09 1:39 pm

If you disagree with their assessments, give refutation that is equally documented. Now, we are making progress. Pretty soon, a mere BA such as yours truly will get a fair hearing. But, oh to be published. I think I would rather be laughing all the way to the bank. lol. On a more serious note, there is more than the citation of references which makes a sound study. There is the peer review process and the discipline of "higher" education. Unfortunately, or fortunately depending on your bias, only peers are interested in providing reviews. It seems to me that the appeal to bonafide experts has been made in the arena of Darwinian Evolution. Remember those "few" hundred scientists who signed that they did not believe the Darwinian party line? (Message edited by Don on July 13, 2009)

neal · 07-13-09 1:46 pm

I found their book online. Its chapter 8 of the Jesus Mysteries. Reference is footnote 40, found around page 225. The reference is to Paul cutting his hair "for he had made a vow" in Acts 18:18. The footnote states that sailors cut their hair at that port as a sacrifice to Isis. Her temple is there. Here is the link to the book online: <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/13074164/Timothy-Freke-Peter-Gandy-The-Jesus-Mysteries-Was-the-Original-Jesus-a-Pagan-God" target=_top>http://www.scribd.com/doc/13074164/Timothy-Freke-P eter-Gandy-The-Jesus-Mysteries-Was-the-Original-Je sus-a-Pagan-God</a>

don · 07-13-09 2:32 pm

If you disagree with their assessments, give refutation that is equally documented. Just don't operate on me. lol. We recognize the value of training in the fields of medicine, engineering, psychology, computers, etc. It is harder for us to see the value of doctoral training in the field of paleography. Since Freke and Gandy do not have the necessary credentials, I choose to consider them less than expert in this field. As I begin to examine their citations, I note that questions of chronology remain unaddressed, let alone unanswered. It seems that they have written for the masses, not the scholar. I submit that their citations impress the masses, not the seasoned scholars. .

neal · 07-13-09 2:34 pm

Peer review. <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/13/1601.jpg" alt="">

neal · 07-13-09 2:37 pm

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Project Steve NCSE's "Project Steve" is a tongue-in-cheek parody of a long-standing creationist tradition of amassing lists of "scientists who doubt evolution" or "scientists who dissent from Darwinism." Creationists draw up these lists to try to convince the public that evolution is somehow being rejected by scientists, that it is a "theory in crisis." Not everyone realizes that this claim is unfounded. NCSE has been asked numerous times to compile a list of thousands of scientists affirming the validity of the theory of evolution. Although we easily could have done so, we have resisted. We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists! Project Steve pokes fun at this practice and, because "Steves" are only about 1% of scientists, it also makes the point that tens of thousands of scientists support evolution. And it honors the late Stephen Jay Gould, evolutionary biologist, NCSE supporter, and friend. We'd like to think that after Project Steve, we'll have seen the last of bogus "scientists doubting evolution" lists, but it's probably too much to ask. We hope that when such lists are proposed, reporters and other citizens will ask, "How many Steves are on your list!?" The statement: <blockquote> Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.</blockquote><!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <a href="http://ncseweb.org/taking-action/project-steve" target=_top>http://ncseweb.org/taking-action/project-steve</a>

don · 07-13-09 4:11 pm

Thanks, Neal. The "handful" of anti-darwinian scientists mean little to most. Experts are valued in the area of science and origins, why not in the area of history and paleography. Freke and Gandy can stir up a list of experts, but they aren't on that list. I do find their work helpful as a stepping stone to the issues. Thus, they have served my quest. . (Message edited by Don on July 13, 2009)

elaine · 07-13-09 7:16 pm

Pretty soon, a mere BA such as yours truly will get a fair hearing. I don't know to whom you are referring and if it was done tongue in cheek?? As for the Jesus Mysteries whether the authors' qualifications meet with what others identify as "peer reviewed" depends on whether they can be successfully refuted, doesn't it? If one doesn't agree with their positions, they should be willing to prove their errors rather than merely snipe. Having completed a 24-series lecture of The Teaching Company on Mythology, I can assure you that their findings are no different than what is recorded in history as the beliefs of ancient peoples. It is irrelevant whether or not people today believe these myths; but it is undisputed that they were believed in the past, and there is great similarity between all of them. Christianity incorporated much of these beliefs into their own religion; which is exactly what history demonstrates, like it or not. In the OT we find the names of many of these gods mentioned, so biblical history also agrees with Freke and Gandy as to their ancient roots.

pilgrim99 · 07-13-09 8:05 pm

It is irrelevant whether or not people today believe these myths; but it is undisputed that they were believed in the past, and there is great similarity between all of them. Christianity incorporated much of these beliefs into their own religion; which is exactly what history demonstrates, like it or not. It appears that your bias prevented you from reading the links that I posted. Had you done so, you would not have made the dogmatic statements in your last post. My bias prevents me from looking at some things also <IMG SRC="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/happy.gif" ALT=":-)" BORDER=0> including horror movies, and anything by Shelby Spong.

don · 07-13-09 8:14 pm

I don't know to whom you are referring and if it was done tongue in cheek?? "Yours truly" can only be one person, right? Yes, my tongue is in cheek. <IMG SRC="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/happy.gif" ALT=":-)" BORDER=0> Hear at atomorrow I have no problem getting a "fair hearing". Respect for scholarship doesn't seem to be evenly applied; Not that it matters to me. One of my brothers has a doctorate in Biology, molecular genetics. When we visit, I have a thousand questions for him. Freke and Gandy have studied the field and know who to cite for what they assert. They certainly cannot be viewed as unbiased. But, who can? If I start studying their assertions and their citations, my summer will be full. The subject matter is still quite new to me. The other day I dropped in on the Department and Centre for the Study of Religion at the University of Toronto. I met the Graduate Assistant in the Department for Jewish Studies. Her boss helped arrange for the Dead Sea Scrolls to come to Toronto. The assistant's specialty is the Wisdom of Solomon. We discussed the formation of the Jewish Canon. I felt somewhat at ease discussing things since we have done so here at atomorrow. She said that the Jewish and Christian canons were finalized about the same time. That was new information to me. I thought the Jewish Canon reached its final stages at the council of Jamnia about 100 A.D. Anyway, it was an interesting encounter; a moment. While we talked, an older man came in, a graduate student, with a question. I wanted to help, but just watched as she did so. <IMG SRC="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/happy.gif" ALT=":-)" BORDER=0> .

bob_2 · 07-13-09 8:34 pm

Isn't a footnote sort of a "cut and paste"? It doesn't mean that the source proves anything! If the footnote is of the same bias or view as the writer, what does a footnote prove, that others think like he does, but not that it is a truthful premise, just that more people think like he does, right???

don · 07-13-09 9:33 pm

If the footnote is of the same bias or view as the writer, Yes, that would be a problem, but usually the footnotes are rallied to add strength to what one asserts. For me, well-placed footnotes guide me to further study. I don't see the value of footnotes as mainly proving one's point but rather providing the source for the document one has used. Here is an example of information which, if footnoted, would lead to further study. (I have put numbers in red to indicate where footnotes would be very useful, though lacking in this source.)<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Justin records (1) that on the occasion of the meal the participants used certain formulae comparable with the ritual of the Eucharist, and in this connection mention may be made of a medieval text (2), published by Cumont, in which of Christ is set beside the sayings of Zarathushtra. The Zardusht speaks to his pupils in these words: 'He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation....' (3) Compare this with Christ's words to his disciples: 'He who eats of my body and drinks of my blood shall have eternal life.' (4) In this important Persian text lies the source of the conflict between the Christians and their opponents, and though of later date it seems to confirm Justin's assertion. Source: Mithraism <a href="http://www.farvardyn.com/mithras4.php" target=_top>http://www.farvardyn.com/mithras4.php</a> <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>Notice that this author fails to give footnotes but enters into the scholarly issues of when manuscripts were written. When studying the origins of Christianity, the date of a manuscript plays a very important role. It helps answer who copied whom? I submit, that a bonafide scholar knows the value of footnotes to his peers and will provide them in the spirit of continued study. It is kind of like here at atomorrow. If we take the "scholarship" of each other seriously, we will provide a source link to quotes we provide. The footnotes in the above quote would answer specific questions: (1) Where does Justin Martyr record this information? (2) Where can this medieval text be found? (3) Where can This persian text be found. Can it be found earlier than Justin's record? If not, then there is trouble with how sure we can be that the Persian's really did have this in their writings. (4) Of course, this is Bible reference found in the Gospel of John. (Message edited by Don on July 13, 2009)

elaine · 07-13-09 10:24 pm

Many books also contain a bibliography in addition to footnotes (or end notes). There are three approved methods of using such documentation: M.L.A. (used by the humanities). A.P.A. (used in psychology papers Chicago Manual of Style--chosen by many journals (Spectrum specifies this). Many book publishers today elect to have endnotes rather than footnotes which takes excessive space on each page rather than in a separate location in the end of the book. Each professor instructs the students of the preferred method when writing papers, and they are VERY specific as to the order of information as well as periods, commas, etc.

elaine · 07-13-09 10:31 pm

Scholastic degrees do NOT make anyone smarter; but they do demonstrate a certain rigor of study and the ability to write research papers that meet the demands of the particular college. In most states, all school teachers (K-12) must have a minimum of a college degree and an extra year to gain state credentials. Community (junior colleges) require minimum of Master's degree. Universities almost always require minimum of Master's and the A.B.D. (all but dissertation for doctorate degree). The continuing requirement for a four-year degree (for such professions as nursing) are essentially pushed by colleges for more tuition. Soon, it will be almost impossible to get a job with less than a four-year degree. Community colleges are being filled because of the lower tuition as four-year schools are raising tuition and cutting enrollment.

don · 07-13-09 10:44 pm

Scholastic degrees do NOT make anyone smarter; The experience does refine, I believe. When a pastor of mine began working on his doctorate, I noticed his sermons took on more depth of thought. It does not always work out. An employer of mine was at the A. B. D. stage. I read some of his work and was quite appalled at his intentional use of big words and difficulty in making things understandable. I have some tolerance for mathematicians, physicists, and abstract philosophers being difficult but not in the field of psychology and education. .

neal · 07-14-09 9:01 am

It appears that your bias prevented you from reading the links that I posted Devon I read the links. Maybe Elaine did also. Maybe not. Now, tell me why I should believe anything the person who writes under the pseudonym J.P. Holding says? Over the years all I've seen is other apologists refusing to back up his brand of incoherence. A 3 year old is more honest than Holding IMO.

neal · 07-14-09 9:26 am

Don I agree that educations "refines". I have told our children that it teaches you how to think. Its not necessarily the degree you receive at the end, but the lessons learned that will last a lifetime in thinking. One PhD that was awarded when I graduated from CU had, as her dissertation title, something about dirt in a cave in Wyoming. Now, some here (not yourself) would appeal to her as an authority if she agreed that Noah made a boat. Advanced degrees only show that you are an expert about a microscopic area of philosophy, or math, or astronomy, or geology, etc. Freke & Gandy have PhD equivalents in ancient belief systems, IMO. Not sure where they could go to get a doctorate in it. There is not much $ in mythology. There is lots to be had in a wide variety of institutions if you study Jesus & Paul and generate confirming reports. I was reading a forum a few years ago where a translator who had worked on one of the recent Bible translations stated that the translators would have preferred to use a certain word but were overridden because christians wouldn't buy the Bible if they had used the most appropriate word. The level of evidence seems to be stronger that Paul's Jesus was mythological. Whether the synoptic Gospels have an element of truth based on an historical figure is debatable, even in the days of the church Fathers.

neal · 07-14-09 10:39 am

<blockquote>And isn't it a bad thing to be deceived about the truth, and a good thing to know what the truth is? For I assume that by knowing the truth you mean knowing things as they really are. (Plato) The philosopher is in love with truth, that is, not with the changing world of sensation, which is the object of opinion, but with the unchanging reality which is the object of knowledge. (Plato) Truthfulness. He will never willingly tolerate an untruth, but will hate it as much as he loves truth. ... And is there anything more closely connected with wisdom than truth? (Plato) What is at issue is the conversion of the mind from the twilight of error to the truth, that climb up into the real world which we shall call true philosophy. (Plato) The object of knowledge is what exists and its [knowledge's] function to know about reality. (Plato)</blockquote>

pilgrim99 · 07-14-09 11:19 am

Neal, Hello, hopefully your travels were enjoyable and productive. Thanks for reading the links, your concerns are duly noted. Were there any particular statements in the linked articles that you specifically took issue with?

elaine · 07-14-09 12:50 pm

There is nothing new under the sun. No religions and beliefs have emerged alone, uninfluenced by any previous ones. The extent of influence cannot always be identified, but when there are similarities, there is at least reasonable belief that they had been adopted and accepted previously. The Christian religion is no different. It emerged from Judaism; and Judaism was a very long and gradual evolution over many centuries, beginning with the slaves in Egypt and Moses saving them and the stories of miraculous deliverance and subsistence in a barren desert for 40 years; all the time the wanderers wishing to return to the "fleshpots" of Egypt and forever worshiping other gods. The worship of other gods continued throughout the entire history of Jewry. Other gods were acknowledged in the Ten: "Thou shalt have no OTHER gods..." Yahaweh was to be the greatest, but other gods were consistently worshiped throughout their history. During and before the birth of Christianity, there was knowledge of other gods and goddesses and virginal conceptions and births; miraculous events that everyone was familiar with. It was not at all an original idea, but was evidence of higher authority. Not until Matthew was written, was the virginal birth of Jesus ever mntioned. Paul and Mark, the earliest NT writers never tell him about the miraculous events surrounding his birth. Paul was told of the Crucifixion and Resurrection by others, so he, too, only knew second or third-hand. Each successive Gospel writer elaborated the story, but with very contradictory accounts. The genealogies of Matthew and Luke are hopelessly unintelligible and inaccurate; the numerous contradictions are impossible to correlate; and John, the latest Gospel, is totally a symbolic and theological treatise with no semblance of biography. His story covers three Passovers (a minimum of two plus years) while the Synoptics are no more than a year's ministry. Where did John get all the additional information which he included? Did he have access to hidden records unavailable to the other three? With the passing of centuries, legends become more elaborate and creative imagination begins. Think of how the many world religions began: Buddhism, Jainism, Hindism, Judiasm, Christianity, Protestantism; all with an individual and his teachings and actions developed accretions far beyond the original intent into something almost unrecognizable centuries and millennia later. Nothing in this world is static. To compare a modern phenomenon: Mormonism. It began with one individual, not quite 200 years ago who claimed to have discovered some golden tablets (that no one else has ever seen); interpreted them from an extinct language, wrote the entire Book of Mormon containing a unique history of the settling of America with Jesus' followers several millennia ago, and it now has more than 15 million believers!! None of the claims have ever been scrutinized, even seen by anyone other than one man, Joseph Smith! Yet, this new belief was created out of whole cloth and has millions of believers around the world. So never underestimate the power of creative imagination in creating a new religion or belief that captures gullible and unquestioning people who are so eager to believe that they require no evidence, nothing but a strong urge to believe--they know not what.

don · 07-14-09 1:07 pm

Yet, this new belief was created out of whole cloth and has millions of believers around the world. Actually, Joseph Smith was only the beginning. Brigham Young brought about significant development for the group. Also, each sitting president speaks as a living prophet. So, what began in secrecy quickly developed into a socially satisfying and cohesive community, essentially built by the ongoing creative minds of various levels of leadership. I once attended, upon invitation, a Mormon lecture on the indigenous peoples of Central America. I was impressed with how Joseph Smith's plates have been the inspiration for scientific exploration. .

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#51 07-13-09 8:17 am

Re: Quotes on TRUTH

#52 07-13-09 8:30 am

Re: Quotes on TRUTH

#53 07-13-09 9:17 am

Re: Quotes on TRUTH

#54 07-13-09 9:54 am

Re: Quotes on TRUTH

#55 07-13-09 12:56 pm

Re: Quotes on TRUTH

#56 07-13-09 1:39 pm

Re: Quotes on TRUTH

#57 07-13-09 1:46 pm

Re: Quotes on TRUTH

#58 07-13-09 2:32 pm

Re: Quotes on TRUTH

#59 07-13-09 2:34 pm

Re: Quotes on TRUTH

#60 07-13-09 2:37 pm

Re: Quotes on TRUTH

#61 07-13-09 4:11 pm

Re: Quotes on TRUTH

#62 07-13-09 7:16 pm

Re: Quotes on TRUTH

#63 07-13-09 8:05 pm

Re: Quotes on TRUTH

#64 07-13-09 8:14 pm

Re: Quotes on TRUTH

#65 07-13-09 8:34 pm

Re: Quotes on TRUTH

#66 07-13-09 9:33 pm

Re: Quotes on TRUTH

#67 07-13-09 10:24 pm

Re: Quotes on TRUTH

#68 07-13-09 10:31 pm

Re: Quotes on TRUTH

#69 07-13-09 10:44 pm

Re: Quotes on TRUTH

#70 07-14-09 9:01 am

Re: Quotes on TRUTH

#71 07-14-09 9:26 am

Re: Quotes on TRUTH

#72 07-14-09 10:39 am

Re: Quotes on TRUTH

#73 07-14-09 11:19 am

Re: Quotes on TRUTH

#74 07-14-09 12:50 pm

Re: Quotes on TRUTH

#75 07-14-09 1:07 pm

Re: Quotes on TRUTH

Board footer