Atheism in the USVI
Linda From Michigan
Limited votings rights "on the floor of the committee of the whole" is not the same as a rep in congress. Nothing changed in 2009. Don't mean to be sarcastic but even Bulls have utters.
That's not the point is it. You corrected me on a statement I made that was correct. Now you're asking me about positive change. Well to answer your new question, I'm for any positive change. However my positive might not be the same as your positive. Again nothing has changed in 2009.
Maybe I'll rehearse this George Carlin routine and do it here on STX somewhere before going on SNL. BTW I am getting a jump on my Goofy dollars. Every time I go to the bank to get money I take it home and pull out my Sharpie. "In Goofy We Trust". Check your twenty dollar bills you may have one.
cut&paste into url pane.
I am finished (finally!) with my training sessions and quite anxious to continue our dialogue.
You said concerning our discussion of the stories you presented about Osiris and Dionysus:
“JG: You seem to think that I am the one who refers to the stories of Osiris and Dionysus and even Adonis as resurrections. That is not true. Every account that I have found referring to their mythology refers to them as resurrections. You seem to want to redefine the word resurrection to only mean the resurrection story of Jesus (excuse me, the bodily resurrection). The word resurrection simply means to rise from the dead. It has nothing to do with crucifixion or whether or not the body is whole or in pieces. There were stories of the resurrection of gods prior to the story of Jesus.”
First, you are quite wrong. I did not say in any post that these stories don’t qualify as “resurrections” because they don’t mention anything about crucifixion or because (in Osiris’ case) the resurrectee’s body was not completely assembled. What I clearly said was that your two stories do not qualify as “resurrections” because they describe (Osiris) a being whose body never came back to life, and who as a disembodied spirit became the ruler of the dead in the netherworld, and (Dionysus) a being who was “brought back to life” several times via a series of rebirths by assorted women (an idea now generally referred to as reincarnation).
Further, you don’t seem to realize that you are making my case for me here. You say that the word resurrection simply means to “rise from the dead”. However, you seem oblivious to the fact that Osiris not only is never said to “rise from the dead” in your story, but quite the contrary, he actually is described as descending as a disembodied spirit, into the realm of the dead to be the ruler there. His body is reassembled (for the most part), and he then is mentioned as being “alive” in the netherworld, the realm of the dead, while his body continued to be quite dead. What you have actually presented is a story that describes a “descent from the living” and not a “rise from the dead”.
Your Osiris story concludes with a recount of some hocus-pocus by Isis after which Osiris appears in the netherworld as its new ruler. Neither he nor his body can rationally be said to have “risen” at all based on this story.
Further, notice the concluding statements of the story you presented:
“Osiris was resurrected. So it was that Isis conceived Horus. Due to this experience, Osiris became Lord of the Dead, and the Afterlife.”
Ahh, here is where it says Osiris was “resurrected”, says Rotor. But not so fast. Look closely at the whole conclusion. He is said to have been “resurrected” through the conception and birth of Horus. It was in the birth of Horus that the life of Osiris is “resurrected”. Notice the backdrop of the conclusion of your story. Isis is said to be singing over the dead, partially reassembled body of Osiris with a golden phallus that she had fashioned. Next Osiris is said to “come back to life”, and then the concluding statement is made to explain exactly how Osiris “came back to life”. Isis conceived and gave birth to Osiris’ son Horus. Osiris himself gets only a seat in the underworld as its ruler. His body remains dead, and he forever is left to roam the realm of the dead. There is nothing parallel to the account claimed by the Church for the resurrection of Christ in the mythology of Osiris.
You also presented Dionysus as another mythological option for where the Christian claim of Jesus’ resurrection might have been “borrowed” from. I need say even little more than I already have in response to this story. Dionysus is clearly said to be resurrected (reincarnated / re-birthed) by a series of women. I presented in response a referenced statement that specifically described the “resurrection” of Dionysus as rebirth and not in any sense a “rising from the dead”:
“….he (now Dionysus) was resurrected by Zeus through Semele.”
As was clear from both our quotes, Semele was a woman. What is being described here is what we now call reincarnation. Again there is nothing here that even remotely resembles the Christian account of Christ’s resurrection.
It is true that both your stories have the word “resurrection” in them and here is where you have hung your hat. However, you need to realize who it was that actually used this term and of equal importance when they wrote it.
In the case of Osiris, for example, most of what we know of his story comes from the writings of Plutarch who penned his descriptions of the Egyptian myth in the early part of the second century (circa 100-115 A.D.). There is no evidence that anyone else had ever used the word “resurrection” in connection with Osiris until Plutarch did some 70+ years after the Church had already made its claim that Christ had been resurrected. In Plutarch’s descriptions of Egyptian mythology, you should be aware that he is not translating the myths word for word from one language to another, but rather, he is re-telling the mythical stories in his own words. It would be quite difficult for the early church to “borrow” the “resurrection story” from the Egyptian myth of Osiris without Plutarch’s writings to inform them that the account of Osiris descending into the underworld and the birth of his son, Horus, was really describing a “resurrection”, now wouldn't’t it? After all, that’s the only reason (the fact that Plutarch has labeled it as a “resurrection”) that you think this story is a resurrection, Rotor, isn't’t it?
No, the mythology of Osiris no more inspired the story of Christ’s resurrection than it did the nursery rhyme of Humpty Dumpty.
The bottom line is this: if you are going to attempt to offer supposed pre-Christian sources for the “resurrection story” as proclaimed by the early Church, then it’s not up to you to define for Christians what their own resurrection story is. What you think the word “resurrection” means really doesn’t matter (unless, of course, it’s your resurrection story that you prefer to disprove). It’s what Christians mean when they use the word “resurrection” that counts here. The problem for you is that the Christian story is and has always been of a literal bodily resurrection of Jesus, not a descent into the underworld as its new ruler or of a reincarnation. Don’t fault me for not wanting to redefine that story to better fit the alleged sources that you have put forward.
If we really want to look for the source of the Christian concept of resurrection, we need look no further than the Judaism in which the early church had its roots. The Old Testament is clear that Judaism understood the word “resurrection” to be an event that intimately involved the body. When the early Christians (believing Jews) communicated to their Jewish neighbors that Jesus had been “resurrected”, they fully expected them to know exactly what they were talking about. And they did, indeed.
I must say in concluding this post that this avenue of discussion has been most enjoyable. It’s been enjoyable because it puts right out there in front of all readers of this thread the fact that this argument against the authenticity of the Christian resurrection fails miserably. The truth is that this idea that the resurrection story of Jesus had its roots in some ancient mythology was suggested by some people years ago, but that it has long since been abandoned by virtually all scholars, even those skeptical to the claims of Christianity itself. It is only now by virtue of the Internet that the idea has been, like so many other urban legends, “resurrected” (I’m using the word according to your understanding of it here, Rotor) in the pop electronic literature of those who are unaware that it is no longer even suggested by any but the fringe element of historical scholarship.
Next, we return for a moment to Tacitus, and then we will move on.
Let me address one final comment that you made following my last post:
Rotor to me:
“JG, I can hardly wait to hear from you. Hurry back. And BTW, I usually read science and technical books, you are the one who is into mythology.”
It was in fact you that brought up Osiris and Dionysus as your “proof” that the resurrection story was “borrowed”, not me. I simply took the time to actually read your stories and to explain to you why they in fact provide no such evidence. In the future, can you please “read” (and actually understand) the things that you want to present as proof. It would definitely allow me to keep my post much shorter if I don't need to laboriously explain to you the actual bent of your own submissions, not to mention having to point out that you don't seem to have taken sufficient time to quote correctly what I have actually said in my replies. (I suggest we put speed of response in a place of secondary importance to accuracy of thought in our discussion.) I think we should both be able to reasonably expect honest dealings with one another's comments/references in our replies.
I saw on the news last night something about the 20th anniversary of hurricane Hugo. And I got me thinking.
For you that were here for Hugo, or Marilyn. Do you remember who came here to help us out. I am not talking fema that stayed in luxury resorts, , made fat money, and 125 buck a day per Diem. all they do is office work and paper shuffuling. big waste of tax $
I am talking the church groups, The Amish, Mennonites, red cross. They are the ones that. Chiped in and helped put up the tarps, helped geting homes back in order. maned the water and mre lines. They did it for free, out of the goodness of there hearts. many of them came here out of there own pokets, for 2-3 weeks of ther own vacation time. slept in tents or on the high school gym floor. to help us who they do not even know. I never heard any off them preach to anyone
Something to think about
Thanks for your very conciliatory post.
I am just glad that you are aware now that there are Christians who have rational reasons for holding to the claims that they do. Folks like Rotor would prefer everyone to believe that we don't exist, but I am proof positive that we do.
All the best to you in your NJ trip and all the dealings with your in-laws. I am a married guy, too, so I can relate.
I am talking the church groups, The Amish, Mennonites, red cross....I never heard any off them preach to anyone
The church groups you mention do not preach because they have no interest in converting non-believers. The Red Cross, which in some countries is the Red Crescent because of the cross' religious connotations, is not affiliated with any church or religion.
No "common era" exists!
The year numbering system used with Common Era notation was devised in the year 525.
The First Amendment clearly places the Church outside the jurisdiction of the Civil Government: "Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of Religion, nor prohibiting the FREE exercise thereof". religion cannot be FREE if you have to pay the Government, through Taxation, to exercise it.
So if I murder in the name of God I can't be prosecuted invoking the first amendment? To suggest that the first amendment puts Religious institutions above the law is an interesting, often scary reading of the Constitution of the US. The court's have not agreed with this in numerous cases, for instance the Catholic church tried to protect it's pedophile priests from prosecution by invoking this same argument and failed: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-100545282.html
Your hypothetical assumption that the First Amendment entertains murder only enforces your lack of comprehension on the subject to taxation. Please try to keep up. You're another one that is not good with smoke and mirrors.
Ignoring you're patronizing tone I will civilly try to discuss what you claimed...hopefully you will show me the same respect.
You said "The First Amendment clearly places the Church outside the jurisdiction of the Civil Government." I stated that I thought this was an interesting reading of the Constitution, one that could be used as a murder defense, and one that the courts have disagreed with in the case of pedophile priests. This seems to me to prove that you're reading of the first amendment is not supported by the courts. The church is most definitely under the jurisdiction of Civil Government and not outside it.
Second, my research indicates that the First Amendment has not been the basis for the tax exemptions enjoyed by the churches. They were codified by Congress as part of the tax code as specific exemptions. http://www.churchsolutionsmag.com/articles/951Fina1.html. So again, it appears that you're reading is not supported by the courts.
Well According to IRS code 508(c)(1)(A) In IRS own words Churches are "Automatically Tax-Deductible and Exempt" Churches need not apply for 501(c)3 status. Google IRS Publication 526. Churches and the USA have been around a little Longer than the IRS. The First Amendment guarantees ( NO Tax) for religion, did it before the IRS. The Church is outside jurisdiction of the Civil Government as related to taxation. Your analogy of taxation with murder and pedophile Priests is a little over the top to say the least. Superior Court Constance Sweeny said no interpretation of the First Amendment grants houses of worship "unqualified immunity from prosecution". Again try to keep up. Congress did codify the Tax issue which only means to reduce to a code, that would be the IRS Code.
Common Era is a designation for a calender "only" common era doesn't exist. It was a way to keep the non believers "Happy" didn't work !they still appear unhappy.
You construe the BCE/CE calendar designation as a means to "keep non-believers happy", but the fact is that the vast majority of people in the world are believers, just not in Christianity. Both BCE/CE and BC/AD are "only" calendar notations, but only the former is religiously neutral notation and thus better suited for communication among religiously diverse people.
married to a non believer...............and he is quite happy! to assume a non believer isn't happy is silly.
So I guess all fat people are jolly
all skinny people are vegans
blonds are dumb..........
As a believer married to a non we have great conversations and debates.........with out it getting personal.
this has been a very informational thread......who is right, who is wrong? Depends on the reader...............