Remember, tho, that I wrote: "But here's the deal that hopefully will make you happy: I will no longer state categorically that from 1975 to 2000 Christianity experienced explosive growth as a whole but only in the Southern Hemisphere since I can't prove my point but can only draw it inferentially." That's pretty good, don't you think? I've never seen Axe for example admit that the other person has a decent point...
i'm not making my point. so what if jesus is or isn't mentioned in other texts? do you see moses mentioned in any historical documents? why do you think Jews don't worry about that? just as axe will never be able to prove jesus *didn't* exist, you will never be able to prove jesus lived. all you will ever be able to prove is that he might have lived. which means everytime you delve into the historical nature of jesus, you yourself are highlighting the lack of proof for your case for everybody in the "cultural middle ground" to see. don't highlight the historical weaknesses of your case, emphasize the allegorical strengths of your beliefs. abraham never existed - yet that doesn't prevent him from being the first link in the chain that leads to your jesus - because myth is more powerful than history.
Well, first of all I entirely agree with the following: "In the absence of the supernatural and faith, the only rational position is agnosticism." By that I mean that you cannot absolutely prove or disprove God with apologetic arguments. And I think that virtually every human being knows that one cannot prove, esp. in the mathematical sense of the word, matters of faith. But I think it is dangerous to leapfrog to "which means everytime you delve into the historical nature of jesus, you yourself are highlighting the lack of proof for your case". I think you are not giving people enough credit. The danger is never in giving out information. I'm a firm believer in discussing the truth wherever it leads. I think the danger is when someone believes a half or non truth such as "there is no historical evidence for Jesus". Think of how strong of an argument this was in Axe's mind. He considered this of paramount importance. If Axe thinks that, so will others...
Now this seems uncharacteristic: you are making an incredibly bold assertion here on something that is unprovable, are you not?
You are right, there IS nothing wrong with your argument, however you are not making the same argument at Shoe. Shoe had no *proof* of future christian growth...only *projection*. There is a dramatic difference between the two. But, the comment was meant only in humor and Shoe admirably took it as such. JB
they're my stories, who better to know if they're historical or not? adam -> hebrew word for "dirt" noach -> anagram of "grace" avraham -> anagram of "where it begins" throw in the most important story in all judaism - the one that defines our very purpose in this life - the meeting between Adam and Avraham which isn't even in Torah - and there is very little doubt the stories are all allegorical. but it doesn't matter. i'm really having a hard time making my point. notice that Axe is going after your goat, not mine. this is because he knows he can get yours - he cannot get mine. he can get your c'ianity in a knot, yet he says "i'm liking jews more and more". if this were a proselytizing contest, Judaism would be kicking c'ianity's ass right now.
Where there is no claim, there is nothing to be agnostic about. When the extraordinary God Claim is made, it is usually made as True, but the claim cannot be shown True. Agnosticism is NOT the only rational position where there is nothing to be agnostic for. There is no need to be agnostic about Robin Hood or Zeus. But I think it is dangerous to leapfrog to "which means everytime you delve into the historical nature of jesus, you yourself are highlighting the lack of proof for your case". I think you are not giving people enough credit. The danger is never in giving out information. On this I agree with daimir00. In practice, that is what happens. But the danger from that is often the issuing forth of incomplete, misleading or unclear religious information, as the substantiation of a proclaimed truth. I'm a firm believer in discussing the truth wherever it leads. First off you would have to establish what you are discussing is the truth. I think the danger is when someone believes a half or non truth such as "there is no historical evidence for Jesus". A half truth, for example, could be on the lines of 'there is historical evidence for Jesus" when forged, plagerized and copied documents are put forward as historical evidence. Or a proclaimed truth such as "God is the creator of heaven and earth" or ,"Jesus the son of God lived on earth", especially when there is no evidence commensurate with such extraordinary claims, historical or otherwise.