The Bathroom Wall

With any tavern, one can expect that certain things that get said are out-of-place. But there is one place where almost any saying or scribble can find a home: the bathroom wall. This is where random thoughts and oddments that don’t follow the other entries at the Panda’s Thumb wind up. As with most bathroom walls, expect to sort through a lot of oyster guts before you locate any pearls of wisdom.

33536 Comments

There is a God!

And he is a plumber. The Bathroom has been flushed.

Thank you Reed.

Great!

Course, that still leaves what happens when the new plumbing acquires a big drip…

Wait, what am I saying?

Ingeborg Esbrandt said:

Hey, nice post :) - well, even though I came via Google searching for “justfaces spreadshirt” wondering why this post came up on top??? Greetings xoxo

Spammer alert!

To make one point about the previous thread. John Kwok wrote:

“Sorry Jim, but your invocation of the Ground Zero Mosque controversy is not helpful here. Incidentally there are many Muslims and Muslim Americans who oppose its construction, simply because they recognize that building it near Ground Zero is needlessly offensive to the families of the victims and the survivors of the 9/11 attack. Some of the most prominent critics - who are Muslim Americans - include Wall Street businessman Mansoor Ijaz (who tried to assist the Clinton administration in extraditing Osama bin Laden from the Sudan) and former United States Navy officer Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser.

[…]

If you are going to call Miss USA, a Muslim American, Rima Fakih, a bigot, then be my guest. Same is true for those two prominent Muslim Americans I had mentioned. Or other Muslim Americans who, like them, have spoken out against building the “Cordoba House” Islamic Center (Of course I am also against it, but am definitely not a bigot.).”

Unless YOU are a practicing Muslim your opposition to this cultural center is pure bigotry, so your saying that you’re “definitely not a bigot” is false. Your ruse of hiding behind the Muslim-Americans’ backs is the same as of the racists who think that using the n-word is OK because so many African-Americans use it. If you are a Muslim, well then, I find your views on the issue just silly, not bigoted.

Kris,

You can’t possibly know what I know.

mrg said:

DS said: Kris has certainly demonstrated that he doesn’t deserve anything more.

Actually, I was suggesting we all insult and abuse DH. If he wants to invite it, why not oblige?

We already tried that on Kris. You can only call someone an @$$hole, a bastard and crazy so many times before it gets tiresome. What’s the point of bashing me?

Kris has called me a liar for stating the obvious facts about him. We can all see what he has done, so why would he deny the stunts he has pulled? He is the one who invaded our space to attack the cause of the blog, yet he expects us to be tolerant and respectful of him no matter what he says? There is no law or principle I know that demands any such thing.

Kris said:

What you said about me is a complete lie. I didn’t start the insults and attacks. You and your asshole buddies here did. And trying to con FF with lies about me and that swill about respecting people you and they (“we”) don’t agree with is yet another one of your acts of deliberate dishonesty. You and most others here wouldn’t know what respect is if it hit you like a freight train going 60 miles per hour.

Since the statements you make about me are false, you’re a deliberate liar, according to your own standards for others. Of course your standards for yourself are completely different. How convenient for you.

The ONLY reason you and most others aren’t now viciously attacking FF is because she said she’s a woman. Even then, some of you have been pretty blunt to her, and especially rude before she said she’s a woman, even though she has been nice the whole time.

My questions to her are not an attack or a trap. They are sincere. You are grossly misrepresenting me and are just showing yourself to be the hypocritical, dishonest, delusional liar you are.

You are a seriously fucked up lunatic with delusions of godhood who needs a good ass kicking.

By the way, Mr. theological agnostic, unitarian, universalist, dis-honorable, bushido, liberal, un-scientific pseudo-skeptic, what are you going to add to or subtract from your self-created, self-serving, bogus religion tomorrow?

You just keep piling up your lies and hypocrisy Dale. You said “You do what you like, but I’m done with Kris for good.” yet you’re still bashing me and lying about me.

You also said you respect people with whom you disagree but then you say “I went after him anyway.” when you first saw me here. When I first came here I didn’t say anything that warranted you going after me.

Plus, you said you respect people with whom you disagree but then you say “I’d go after Ann Coulter if that bitch showed up here too.” So much for you respecting people you disagree with.

As usual the things you claim about yourself, and me, are false, which makes you a chronic LIAR, according to your standards for others.

You admit to slamming me a lot but of course you try to make it look like you’re a saint for doing so. Whether you or anyone else here ever accepts it or not, I’m just giving you and others shit back because you and/or they started it, either with me or someone else who didn’t or doesn’t deserve it.

I didn’t escalate the situation. You and your fellow, lying, arrogant hypocrites did.

It really cracks me up to see you guys acting exactly like some of the creationists you hate and condemn so much. You accuse and attack them for not listening and having closed minds, and for playing what you think are ridiculous games, but you do the same thing. Congratulations, you have become your enemy.

FODS

I haven’t lied about anything, you jackass! The simple fact is that you have invaded Panda’s Thumb and have been a disruptive force from the beginning and have played us like suckers. I’m not fooled by you and no one else is. Even if you were insulted by one or two people in the beginning, you could have ignored it and just responded to the ones who were being positive to you, like flowersfriend has been, but instead you started throwing shit at everyone who dared to reject your tactics. We insulted you because that seemed to be what you liked, but I get tired of that after a while. You don’t, appearantly.

If you seriously think you have made ANY positive contributions to this community here, you are even more delusional than most Creationists!

Dale Husband said: What’s the point of bashing me?

None whatsoever, but since any comments to a troll are going to produce nothing but bashing in response, that leads to what the point of the comments was.

John often fails to read for comprehension. A poor highschool education , no doubt.

Ghrom said:

To make one point about the previous thread. John Kwok wrote:

“Sorry Jim, but your invocation of the Ground Zero Mosque controversy is not helpful here. Incidentally there are many Muslims and Muslim Americans who oppose its construction, simply because they recognize that building it near Ground Zero is needlessly offensive to the families of the victims and the survivors of the 9/11 attack. Some of the most prominent critics - who are Muslim Americans - include Wall Street businessman Mansoor Ijaz (who tried to assist the Clinton administration in extraditing Osama bin Laden from the Sudan) and former United States Navy officer Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser.

[…]

If you are going to call Miss USA, a Muslim American, Rima Fakih, a bigot, then be my guest. Same is true for those two prominent Muslim Americans I had mentioned. Or other Muslim Americans who, like them, have spoken out against building the “Cordoba House” Islamic Center (Of course I am also against it, but am definitely not a bigot.).”

Unless YOU are a practicing Muslim your opposition to this cultural center is pure bigotry, so your saying that you’re “definitely not a bigot” is false. Your ruse of hiding behind the Muslim-Americans’ backs is the same as of the racists who think that using the n-word is OK because so many African-Americans use it. If you are a Muslim, well then, I find your views on the issue just silly, not bigoted.

Malchus said: A poor highschool education , no doubt.

Oh Bob, I can hear the howls now: “Set phasers to SLAUGHTER!”

Kris said:

Mike Elzinga said:

With a troll’s profile ready at hand, and with sufficient discipline on the part of the regulars, that could be cut to zero.

Profile ready at hand? What exactly does that mean Mike? Ready for what or whom? Do you have printed profiles of all the people you’ve labeled as trolls and hand them out to passersby on street corners? Or, do you create a profile file in your computer containing your intricate and exhaustive (LMAO!) calculations and determinations about each alleged troll and somehow send a copy of it to everyone on Earth to warn them of impending doom? Or, do you only dispense it to other regulars here who are able to contact you personally and who request a copy because they let you do their thinking for them?

Or, do you just think that your stupid ‘profiles’ actually matter, when in reality they actually don’t? Do you really believe that what happens on this website, or your asinine profiles, or what you do with them, matters one iota to the vast majority of the people on Earth? Get over yourself Mike.

Hey, if you have my profile handy, why don’t you post it here? I could use a good laugh.

Your “profile” is a person who needs attention and does not even try to get it by behaving in any consistent or coherent fashion. You are a manipulative jerk who takes ANY response from others and uses it as an excuse to attack. You bash us for not being tolerant enough of Creationists, while stating Creationist fallacies yourself. Then you turn around and deny being religious and question why certain others who are Creationist take their religion so seriously. Such strange behavior is pathological in the extreme.

Gee, this website seems VERY important to you, considering how much time you spend here.

You are either crazy or a fraud, Kris.

The fun thing about the BW is that the trolls either have to cave in and respond on the BW – which they don’t want to do – or pass up responding – which they REALLY don’t want to do.

Kris said:

Whatever you do, don’t even consider that when people come here and sincerely want to ask, discuss, debate, learn, and/or contribute in some way, that when they’re mercilessly insulted and attacked and erroneously lumped into your hated group of ID/creationists, they just might not like it and may fight back, and especially when they offer reasonable explanations of their words and the explanations (and the person) are ignored, misinterpreted, misrepresented, slammed, bashed, and ridiculed by you and the rest of the mindless haters here. Yeah, don’t even consider that for a second. You and the other haters and bashers here are way too perfect to have to consider such things. It’s never your fault.

Your track record is too well known here for us to consider that you are sincere about anything. You are even WORSE than the average Creationist troll because you keep going back and forth between acting non-religious and acting like a Creationist. You cannot be both, so you must be bullshitting us. Nobody here can take that seriously.

Expressed violent thoughts a number of times?? Yeah Mike, I would thoroughly enjoy kicking your ass and the asses of anyone else who has called me a liar, but I haven’t “expressed violent thoughts a number of times” in the way you’re implying. You’re the one who needs a psychiatrist, along with some others here. If you’re considered sane, I’d rather be considered crazy. And comparing me or anyone else you simply don’t agree with to a serial killer just helps show how paranoid and delusional you are.

If you don’t like being called a liar, stop being one. At least I have ALWAYS told the truth about YOU.

DH, a very minor issue here: the first part you cited above was addressed to me, and personally I find it amusing to watch such comments fall into a hole of resounding silence.

However, as far as the rest goes, carry on.

mrg said:

DH, a very minor issue here: the first part you cited above was addressed to me, and personally I find it amusing to watch such comments fall into a hole of resounding silence.

However, as far as the rest goes, carry on.

Oh, did you want to answer him here first? Be my guest. But I figured I’d just make a note of ANY inappropriate thing Kris says elsewhere and post it here, answer it here, and wait for Kris to take the hint and stop attacking us everywhere else and just slam people here.

Dale Husband said: Oh, did you want to answer him here first? Be my guest.

Why would I want to do that? But if my own rejoinder is indifference, I can at least politely ask that the effect not be spoiled.

Kris threatens: “I would thoroughly enjoy kicking your ass and the asses of anyone else who has called me a liar,…”

Lotsa bluster; everybody’s collective asses are exposed right here.

Mike Elzinga said: … everybody’s collective asses are exposed right here.

AARGH! I am so outa here!

Kris said:

Mike Elzinga said:

mrg said:

Serial killers are maybe a bit much of a comparison.

The point was the sociopathic needs of such an individual. This troll has expressed violent thoughts a number of times. But a psychiatrist would have a better handle on this that I.

I think people like attention; it’s just a question of what kind of attention. When I was the factory contact guy in my corporate life, a colleague in marketing told me that it was true I put up with a lot of abuse – I did – but added: “People thank you sometimes.”

And they did. I get thanks on occasion for my current efforts as well – not often, and maybe thanks aren’t the be-all and end-all of the effort … but on the other side of the coin, if nobody ever thanks me, what reason would I have to honestly believe what I was doing actually did anyone good?

Now take the negative mentalities that show up here … does anyone ever thank them for what they’re doing? It’s obvious it never happens, and just as obvious that they haven’t any expectation that it will.

They still want attention, and lacking any concept that they will ever be praised, they have no alternative but to be disruptive. If one cannot build, then they can only take satisfaction in destruction.

Yeah; you are pointing out common desires that nearly everyone has. But sociopaths also know this and manipulate these.

But I suspect most of us can simply walk away from these kinds of manipulations when we have other things to do that are satisfying; and I suspect most of the moderators here on PT do in fact have other things vying for their attention.

Hell, I’m retired and I can’t get through everything I want to get through in a week. The only reason I even show up here is that the PT topics are often very interesting, and I have a high speed connection that allows me to look in from time to time when I happen to be working on my computer. So most of the time I’m multitasking up a storm when I’m here.

Expressed violent thoughts a number of times?? Yeah Mike, I would thoroughly enjoy kicking your ass and the asses of anyone else who has called me a liar, but I haven’t “expressed violent thoughts a number of times” in the way you’re implying. You’re the one who needs a psychiatrist, along with some others here. If you’re considered sane, I’d rather be considered crazy. And comparing me or anyone else you simply don’t agree with to a serial killer just helps show how paranoid and delusional you are.

Whew! Glad I never called Kris a liar. I only called him a coward and a bully.

Mike Elzinga said: Lotsa bluster; everybody’s collective asses are exposed right here.

So it’s like “one of these days Alice, POW! To the mooning”?

Another collection of Kris’ delusional rants.

Kris said:

And of course your insulting comments, and the insulting comments by the other hypocrites here, don’t violate any of those rules you posted, eh?

Apparently, all that matters here is that any insults have to be aimed at creationists or anyone who doesn’t blindly and viciously attack them right along with you guys/gals.

Giving you back your own shit isn’t allowed. Questioning you isn’t allowed. Having a mind of my own isn’t allowed. Calling you on your bullshit isn’t allowed. Anything less than total devotion and obedience to you and your creationist hating ‘cause’ isn’t allowed. Hypocrisy, by you and your cohorts, is allowed, and encouraged.

Kris said:

And of course you and others going on and on about “trolls”, and repeatedly posting “DNFTT”, isn’t “SPAM”. Yeah, whatever.

Why do you think that a “dissenter” is automatically a “troll”? You’ve said you’re a Christian. Would your Christian God approve of your insulting, hypocritical, hateful behavior?

Kris said:

Maybe, just maybe the moderators are getting wise to the hypocrisy and other bullshit you and others are guilty of.

Now STFU spamming troll.

How do you like your own shit thrown back at you?

Panda’s Thumb is a blog made for defending evolution and promoting proper science education, and since Kris was the one who invaded the blog to spew both Creationist arguments that we were expected to “tolerate” (like we are supposed to tolerate falsehoods?) and then claim to be non-religious at other times, why shouldn’t we regard him as unwelcome, inconsistent and disruptive? Why shouldn’t we treat him like he is the enemy, when that’s all he has ever acted like since he arrived here?

An example of hypocrisy would be us invading and attacking ID promoters on Uncommon Descent. I’ve never done that, and never will. Maybe Kris can go over there and drive the ID people crazy for a while, to prove to us once and for all that he is an equal-opportunity critic, and not a bigoted Creationist concern troll.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/

Kris the creationist wrote:

“If, however, “descent with modification” is defined as showing that speciation (evolution) occurs and/or occurred, then that’s a different ballgame, and requires greater evidence. While a lot of evidence points to a persuasive probability that descent with modification, including divergence/speciation, occurred throughout(?) the history of life, there’s a lot more work to do to before it can reasonably be said that it has been established close to 100%, and I’m not sure it can be reasonably said that it can be established ‘empirically’. Many inferences have been and have to be made, and inferences are a matter of opinion.”

This is of course incorrect. I already posted a link to a web page entitled:

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

If Kris wants to discuss the point, he can do so here. Maybe someone will want to discuss it with him. Unless of course he is just plain chicken shit.

DS said: Kris the creationist wrote:

You might just leave a short bland note on the original thread to invite him to come to the BW for discussion. He’ll ignore it, of course, but that works too.

Yawn.

(Bored.)

All the spamming at The Immune System Cross-examination Still Burns, and other forums, is very unChristlike, don’t you think?

Makes you wonder if these anti-science creation-supporters are Christians? (Never known a real creationist who wasn’t.)

It’s funny how trolls stubbornly resist being prodded to direct their comments to the BW. They know that once they do, they don’t have any real nuisance value any more: “What’s the point of trolling, then?”

Kris huffs and puffs and squeaks “What are you afraid of?” hiding behind his mommy’s apron. Afraid to mix it up on the big kid’s playground, he’ll sit in the sandbox and cry.

Poor widdle Kwis! Mean old scientists call you out on your stupid shit? Maybe if we ignore the little wanker he’ll go back into the closet and play with himself.

Geeze, I’m beginning to miss FL! I tell you, the neighborhood is going to hell.

I knew the asshole was chicken shit. All he haas to do is come here and provide a better explanation for the 29 different independent data sets that are all consistent with common descent. Until he does, I guess he will just be someone who believes in evolution but not in common descent. Yea right.

Everyone should remember, he had his chance to discuss science, he chose to quote mine and insult instead. He can cry all he wants to now, but everyone is wise to his crap.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/[…]zWpyVj8bds_Q said:

Well Dave - seems like you are the one buying the Christian story all the way down.

I’m not. I thought I made that quite clear.

I love the idea that there are things in the story that Christians wouldn’t “want” included - so it must be true! What a hoot - you really think so?

Do I think the Evangelists wouldn’t want to admit that Jesus was in fact challenging Roman rule by claiming to be Messiah? Yes, I really think that’s so. That much is obvious from the Gospels, which are concerned to blame the Temple authorities for his death, but don’t quite suppress all reference to the claim that he was the Messiah, which does actually imply “King”.

Do I think it must be true? What do you mean by “it”? That he was killed for making that challenge? Or for threatening the Jewish priesthood’s position? I think either is possible, and a bit of both is likely. That he was the Messiah? Or rose from the dead? Or was God? No, I don’t think so.

Perhaps you just don’t understand why Christians in 1st c. Palestine might want those claims in the story? The whole idea that another sect of Jews was behind the plot is all hearsay -what better way to slander your religious rivals. You do realize that even at the time of Gospel writing Christianity was monolithic and competing views were held.

I’m afraid I don’t follow you. Do you mean that Christianity was NOT monolithic and competing views were held? If you mean that, of course I am aware of it - anyone who reads Galatians, where Paul complains about the original apostles, knows that. However, I wonder what your point is, because I’m actually agreeing with you. The Gospels are at pains to imply that Jesus was innocent of revolt, but was killed because he aroused the jealousy of the Temple priesthood, so this does look like a case of slandering your religious rivals.

As you say, there may have been first century Christians in Palestine who wanted the claim of Jesus to be the Messiah included in the story. If so, they got their wish. The claim is there, it’s just that exactly what it means is discreetly not said. Because what it means is that he was claiming to be a King, a ruler, a governor. If that was his claim - and I think it was - then the Romans were, by their lights, perfectly justified in crucifying him.

That is crazy thing about religion - when you are making everything up it is so easy to disagree.

That is an observation that applies not only to religion, and not only to when you’re making everything up.

Given that Islam with 1.6 billion followers and Mormonism with 15 million were both made up by mixing and matching other religions into something new, why would not Christianity’s origin be similar?

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/[…]zWpyVj8bds_Q said:

Given that Islam with 1.6 billion followers and Mormonism with 15 million were both made up by mixing and matching other religions into something new, why would not Christianity’s origin be similar?

Given that Hesiod’s explanation for the cosmos was made up by mixing and matching mythic claims, and Epicurean (basically godless) explanations for how the cosmos came to be were similarly wrong (albeit in quite a different manner), why would not present-day Big Bang cosmology also be incorrect?

Not disputing that Xianity is a kind of collage, along with the effects of some specific historic causes, I just don’t think the logic is valid.

Glen Davidson

phhht said:

A Grand Ayatollah in Iran has determined that access to high-speed and 3G Internet is “against Sharia” and “against moral standards.” In answer to a question published on his website…

Um… so let me get this right. Some religious dude decided using the Internet is immoral… so he posted his decision on his website.

stevaroni said:

phhht said:

A Grand Ayatollah in Iran has determined that access to high-speed and 3G Internet is “against Sharia” and “against moral standards.” In answer to a question published on his website…

Um… so let me get this right. Some religious dude decided using the Internet is immoral… so he posted his decision on his website.

Not quite. Internet is fine. High-speed internet is immoral. God can’t keep up with 3G!

Further Book Notes: The Library of Congress still classifies A Million Little Pieces under “HV5800-5840 Drug habits. Drug abuse”. Their ‘notes’ about it contains only Oprah’s Book Club disclaimer that essentially parts are lies. But apparently the LoC’s position is that it’s still nonfiction, regardless of whether the author made up parts. For the LoC, the author’s original intention – to present it as nonfiction – trumps the truthfulness of the actual contents. So they did not change it from ‘nonfiction’ to ‘fiction’, let alone bouncing back and forth between them.

As the SCOTUS is the final arbiter of what is American law, I would submit that the LoC has to qualify as the final arbiter on the correct classification or works of literature. If not the frigging Library of Congress, then who?

Dave Luckett said:

As you say, there may have been first century Christians in Palestine who wanted the claim of Jesus to be the Messiah included in the story. If so, they got their wish. The claim is there, it’s just that exactly what it means is discreetly not said. Because what it means is that he was claiming to be a King, a ruler, a governor. If that was his claim - and I think it was - then the Romans were, by their lights, perfectly justified in crucifying him.

Ah! Perhaps you may have hit the nail on the head there. IIRC, the theological point of crucifying “The Lamb of God” was that he was an “innocent”, taking on the “sins of the world.” But, if he was not, in fact, “innocent”, that we was (according to the laws/mores of the time) guilty of some crime or incitement, such that the Romans were justified in crucifying him, then perhaps the claim of “innocence” would be lost.

It’s an interesting perspective I hadn’t considered before. The gospel writers may have thought it was unfair, they may not have liked it, but I’m sure that they, as contemporaneous citizens of the state, understood perfectly what Rome’s rules and laws meant and implied. The Roman state would be foolish if it did not make clear what their laws allowed their people to do and not do.

Thus, the Gospels may imply, but can’t explicitly state an earthly messiah-wanna-be, otherwise they’d lose the claim of innocence under the law as it was at the time.

Perhaps.

Dave Lovell said:

stevaroni said:

phhht said:

A Grand Ayatollah in Iran has determined that access to high-speed and 3G Internet is “against Sharia” and “against moral standards.” In answer to a question published on his website…

Um… so let me get this right. Some religious dude decided using the Internet is immoral… so he posted his decision on his website.

Not quite. Internet is fine. High-speed internet is immoral. God can’t keep up with 3G!

Is he implying he thinks Muslims are slow?

Yardbird said:

Dave Lovell said:

stevaroni said:

phhht said:

A Grand Ayatollah in Iran has determined that access to high-speed and 3G Internet is “against Sharia” and “against moral standards.” In answer to a question published on his website…

Um… so let me get this right. Some religious dude decided using the Internet is immoral… so he posted his decision on his website.

Not quite. Internet is fine. High-speed internet is immoral. God can’t keep up with 3G!

Is he implying he thinks Muslims are slow?

Well, it’s too fast for HIM.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/[…]zWpyVj8bds_Q said:

Given that Islam with 1.6 billion followers and Mormonism with 15 million were both made up by mixing and matching other religions into something new, why would not Christianity’s origin be similar?

Cripes, where have you been? That’s been a standard explanation for a number of features of Christian belief for centuries. Sons of god? Pagan myth is full of them. Triune Gods? Hinduism has one, too. Dead gods being resurrected? Have a look at the Horus-Isis-Osiris legend. Afterlife? Plenty of those. (Mind you, Christianity seems to have added some features - eternal bliss or eternal torment, for instance.)

Christian eschatology? (That is, accounts of the end of the world.) Well, that seems to be a development of some ideas in Judaism, but it runs an awfully long way with them.

(Of recent years, scholars have resiled from earlier ideas of the similarity between Christianity and (Roman) Mithraism. There’s not so much in common as was earlier thought, and Mithraism appears to be actually later - end of the first century CE - and hence less likely to be borrowed from.)

But yeah, anyone looking for possible borrowings by Christianity from other religions - mixing and matching, as you say - will easily find them. It’s much more difficult to demonstrate that these possible borrowings actually happened that way.

Just Bob said:

As the SCOTUS is the final arbiter of what is American law, I would submit that the LoC has to qualify as the final arbiter on the correct classification or works of literature. If not the frigging Library of Congress, then who?

Me.

I get to say what I mean by fiction.

And what I mean is invention or fabrication, as opposed to fact.

Usually.

Dave Luckett said:

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/[…]zWpyVj8bds_Q said:

Given that Islam with 1.6 billion followers and Mormonism with 15 million were both made up by mixing and matching other religions into something new, why would not Christianity’s origin be similar?

Cripes, where have you been? That’s been a standard explanation for a number of features of Christian belief for centuries. Sons of god? Pagan myth is full of them. Triune Gods? Hinduism has one, too. Dead gods being resurrected? Have a look at the Horus-Isis-Osiris legend. Afterlife? Plenty of those. (Mind you, Christianity seems to have added some features - eternal bliss or eternal torment, for instance.)

Christian eschatology? (That is, accounts of the end of the world.) Well, that seems to be a development of some ideas in Judaism, but it runs an awfully long way with them.

(Of recent years, scholars have resiled from earlier ideas of the similarity between Christianity and (Roman) Mithraism. There’s not so much in common as was earlier thought, and Mithraism appears to be actually later - end of the first century CE - and hence less likely to be borrowed from.)

But yeah, anyone looking for possible borrowings by Christianity from other religions - mixing and matching, as you say - will easily find them. It’s much more difficult to demonstrate that these possible borrowings actually happened that way.

I have absolutely no support for this and there may be no evidence at all, but I recall hearing speculation that Buddhist monks had migrated to the middle east and lived in the dessert areas near the Holy Land. The speculation was that Jesus could have encountered Buddhist thought through these monks and incorporated some of it into his teaching. Yeah, there are a million problems with that and I don’t know enough history to judge the probability. It’s curious that, at least to my knowledge, both Christianity and Buddhism proselytize most of the other major religions

Yeah, that’s sort of up there with “the Norse penetrated as far as Minnesota”, or “a Roman legion marched to China”. Maybe, looks physically possible, but show me the money.

And “dessert areas near the Holy Land”. That would be Turkey, I guess, famous for Turkish delight and baklava.

Did you have a point Dave? Or are you just blowing steam? Christianity is pure and based on fact while all the other religions aren’t - that’s likely. Like I said before want to buy a bridge, cheap?

But seriously, it looks very much to me like the central ideas of Jesus’s words in the Gospels - as opposed to what later Christians believed as doctrine - are strongly antithetical to Buddhist teachings.

Jesus taught that suffering would always be present, (“the poor will always be with you”) but that it was required of his followers to give everything to relieve it. It was required of them to give to the poor, to nurse the sick, to shelter the homeless, to clothe the naked, to feed the hungry, to comfort the afflicted, to champion the oppressed.

The Buddhist teaching on suffering is also that it is always present, and forms the central problem of the human condition - but that the anwer is to rise above it; in effect, to learn to ignore it. Apart from personal asceticism, there is no committment in Buddhist teaching to relieve suffering. In fact, there is a fairly strong implication that by attempting its relief, you become involved with it, which is an error.

I think the two are pretty clearly opposed.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/[…]zWpyVj8bds_Q said:

Did you have a point Dave? Or are you just blowing steam? Christianity is pure and based on fact while all the other religions aren’t - that’s likely. Like I said before want to buy a bridge, cheap?

That is so gross a distortion of what I’ve written as to go beyond my doubts of your ability to understand plain English, and to confirm my further doubts of your goodwill. I’ve done with you.

There would certainly be nothing odd about eastern influences affecting the mideast at that time. The Greeks appear to have gotten ideas from India well before the time of Jesus, and in Roman times not only was India (where the Buddha was born) regularly visited (St. Thomas reportedly went there, and clearly Xianity has existed there from early Xian times), but China was providing silks and other products.

Buddhist monks could have gone to Palestine by paying the required fee, but various eastern ideas could readily travel to the West without the need for any “holy men” to accompany them.

On the whole, though, Xianity itself seems largely to take from Semitic and Greek ideas of the time, regardless of what Jesus might have taught–who’s sure of what that was anyway, especially with hints of “hidden knowledge” suggested in, as I recall, Matthew? New religions almost always have to largely reflect what the converts already know, after all, even if there are some shifts in meaning and thought.

Glen Davidson

It’s much more difficult to demonstrate that these possible borrowings actually happened that way.

Why? The Middle East was a mishmash of cultures and religions. Religions try to answer a few universal questions - questions of interest to all humans. It is likely they borrowed from each other - much more so than not.

You guys remind me of my Southern Baptist grandmother who the last time I visited was bitching and moaning that she could not visit her brother’s grave because he had converted to Catholicism and was buried in a Catholic cemetery. I mentioned the reformation while my father is deparately trying to cut me off. My grandmother replies that the Baptists were never an offshoot of Catholicism, but can traced right back to John the Baptist with no papist taint whatsover. That is just as believable as the line you are trying to shove down my throat.

Yes, how dare someone suggest that Christianity was a farce.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmg[…]X_Zhn8#57cad said:

There would certainly be nothing odd about eastern influences affecting the mideast at that time. The Greeks appear to have gotten ideas from India well before the time of Jesus, and in Roman times not only was India (where the Buddha was born) regularly visited (St. Thomas reportedly went there, and clearly Xianity has existed there from early Xian times), but China was providing silks and other products.

Buddhist monks could have gone to Palestine by paying the required fee, but various eastern ideas could readily travel to the West without the need for any “holy men” to accompany them.

On the whole, though, Xianity itself seems largely to take from Semitic and Greek ideas of the time, regardless of what Jesus might have taught–who’s sure of what that was anyway, especially with hints of “hidden knowledge” suggested in, as I recall, Matthew? New religions almost always have to largely reflect what the converts already know, after all, even if there are some shifts in meaning and thought.

Glen Davidson

Quite so. I agree, there would have been nothing odd about Buddhist influences reaching Palestine, and it was perfectly physically possible. The difficulty is finding the smoking gun - the actual evidence for that influence on Christianity.

On the other hand, maybe gnostic Christianity, with its emphasis on asceticism, withdrawal, and secret knowledge from personal revelation, would be a better match to Buddhist ideas - and gnosticism did largely bequeath monasticism to Christianity, even though it was itself abjured. But still no smoking gun that I can find. That is, I know of no specific reference to Buddhism anywhere in the west until much later.

I would think that the evolution of language is a good parallel to the evolution of religion. If a word shows up in two different languages with the same meaning, then it is much more likely they either share a common ancestor or one was borrowed from the other, no?

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/[…]zWpyVj8bds_Q said:

I would think that the evolution of language is a good parallel to the evolution of religion. If a word shows up in two different languages with the same meaning, then it is much more likely they either share a common ancestor or one was borrowed from the other, no?

I have always been puzzled by the Greek letter “psi”, and the Japanese gardening implement “sai”, which is shaped like the Greek letter. It can not believe it is a coincidence, but I can not come up with a plausible connection, even taking Portugese traders into account. I have tried to look up the etymology, but found no connection.

KlausH said:

I have always been puzzled by the Greek letter “psi”, and the Japanese gardening implement “sai”, which is shaped like the Greek letter. It can not believe it is a coincidence, but I can not come up with a plausible connection, even taking Portugese traders into account. I have tried to look up the etymology, but found no connection.

I don’t see how you rule out coincidence. I have never seen the garden tool, but many letters in Roman and Greek alphabets could be imagined to look like some common object. Over that set of correspondences, the pronunciations usually differ, but there are enough of them that it is not too surprising to find a case in which the letter and the tool are pronounced roughly the same.

This doesn’t rule out a connection either, but the burden of proof is on claiming it is not coincidence.

I’m sure I’m not the first person to notice that the Chinese character 十 (shi) for the number ten looks like a Roman cross (and not a plus sign, for example). That’s a coincidence, but I did find it striking when I first noticed it.

The unicode mangler strikes again. Anyway, this page shows Chinese numbers up to ten.

http://quizlet.com/31214/chinese-nu[…]flash-cards/

phhht said:

Just Bob said:

As the SCOTUS is the final arbiter of what is American law, I would submit that the LoC has to qualify as the final arbiter on the correct classification or works of literature. If not the frigging Library of Congress, then who?

Me.

I get to say what I mean by fiction.

And what I mean is invention or fabrication, as opposed to fact.

Usually.

OK. The Language Police grant you a special dispensation. However, be aware that when you’re referring to a work of literature, your idiosyncratic use of ‘fiction’ for what most readers, writers, publishers, critics, and librarians would classify as nonfiction will confuse your audience and perhaps lead to some major misunderstandings.

Just Bob said:

phhht said:

Just Bob said:

As the SCOTUS is the final arbiter of what is American law, I would submit that the LoC has to qualify as the final arbiter on the correct classification or works of literature. If not the frigging Library of Congress, then who?

Me.

I get to say what I mean by fiction.

And what I mean is invention or fabrication, as opposed to fact.

Usually.

OK. The Language Police grant you a special dispensation. However, be aware that when you’re referring to a work of literature, your idiosyncratic use of ‘fiction’ for what most readers, writers, publishers, critics, and librarians would classify as nonfiction will confuse your audience and perhaps lead to some major misunderstandings.

If the Language Police withdraw their special dispensation, Humpty Dumpty is available to testify on phhht’s behalf.

Leave a comment

About this Archive

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter