The "virgin birth" is not only associated woth the birth of Jesus of Narareth. It has been used as a heoric device to indicate a "man born of the spirit", from the heart and not the loins of mother.

quote:

---

Originally posted by eliza_nightvoice:
First, Mary was also of the line od David.

---

Apologists attempt to resolve this dilemma by alleging one of the genealogies (Luke 3) pertains to Mary, not Joseph. (See: Tough Questions Skeptics Ask by McDowell and Stewart). It allegedly shows he is a physical descendant of David, and since Jesus was from her flesh, he is also a physical descendant of David and can claim the Messiahship. However, there are several problems with this explanation. Although Joseph was from the house of David (Luke 1:27, 2:4), Mary appears to have been from the house of Judah since her cousin Elizabeth (Luke 1:36) was a daughter of Aaron, i.e. from the house of Judah (Luke 1:5). Moreover, Mary's name is never mentioned in the genealogy of Luke 3, and only arises incidentally in that of Matthew 1. Both genealogies clearly pertain to Joseph. Both clearly trace the descent of Joseph, not Mary. In fact, none of the genealogies in either the Old or New Testament trace the lineage of a woman. Women are never given a position of such importance in the Bible as to merit a genealogy, and there is no evidence Luke 3 provides an exception. The superiority granted men in the Bible would forestall any possibility of women being considered as equals.

quote:

---

Originally posted by eliza_nightvoice:

The current publicity of the burial box with the inscription "James, son of josepph, brother of Jesus" is a possible piece of physical evidence that will call for the re-evaluation (or confirmation) that Mary was not a perpetual virgin as some denominations claim as a matter of faith.

---

It's a FAKE, and a bad one at that! Only another in a long line of artifacts that is shown to be an obvious fraud.

http://www.bee.net/cardigan/attic/ossmirror.htm

http://www.truthbeknown.com/ossuary.htm

But, it occurs to me that your first post - starting this thread - has none of the earmarks of your usual writing style.

Are you quoting someone else without crediting the source? Or do you simply use different 'voices' for different types of communication? Cuz, I mean - not critiqing content, but rather style - damn, that's some spiffy prose!

------------------
-- dansgold
The avalanche has started, it is too late for the pebbles to vote.

quote:

---

Originally posted by dansgold:
Skeptician:
Are you quoting someone else without crediting the source?

---

The above is a collaborative effort by a group of skeptics of which I am a contributor. I was not the final editor.
I will retain a modicum of anonymity in this forum.

Also ... pardon my being a bit of a pill here. I love puzzles, and have a very active 'strange detector'. So, if I seem to be waxing a bit strange ... just humor me please.

Are you saying that you helped to compile, assemble or create the above material, and that someone else edited it? Or something else?

I mean, it's very good. Again, I don't agree withe the content so much, but it's very well written. I would be very pleasantly surprised to find that you were capable of putting something like that together.

... and thanks for entertaining this tangent.

------------------
-- dansgold
The avalanche has started, it is too late for the pebbles to vote.

quote:

---

Originally posted by dansgold:

I would be very pleasantly surprised to find that you were capable of putting something like that together.

---

It is also in the academic interest of several institutions to prove that this boxe is a "fake". It calls into doubt too many long standing deeply held traditions, like the perpetual virginity of Mary.

My opinion? this artifact will be relagated to the backwater of biblical archeology as "questionable."

quote:

---

Originally posted by maryals:
You see, the title of this Room is "Religion/Metaphysics" Logic debates don't really fit here.

---

Ha, Ha, Ha! Quite funny, but a load of CRAP!
There are only specific religions that require faith, I think you are familiar with at least one of them. It is unfortunate that you are unfamiliar with religious experience or thought that is not faith based. But your assertion that logic has no place in a religious discussion is rediculous.

quote:

---

Originally posted by maryals:

Religion and Metaphysics involve Faith.
People of Faith, any Faith, even (GASP!) Pagan Faith, have had to listen to folks like you, SKEPTICIAN, for a long long time and, frankly, I find you boring. Yup, boring.

---

I'm indifferent to whether you find me boring or not. Why in the world should I possibly care?

quote:

---

Originally posted by maryals:

Is there ANY Skeptic out there who can come up with an original, genuinly interesting, grist for the Discussion Mill?
No fair Mercury, no fair Ninerism......give somebody else a chance...we all know your stance and have had lively (!) fights....I I mean...discussions
'Skuse me while I look for a more interesting spot...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by eliza_nightvoice:
Skeptician, if you noticed I used the word "possible" in describing the artifacts link to a Jesus of Nazareth. Tere is the major difficulty that the names on the boc=x awere very common during the 1st centry C.E.

---

Yes, I did notice that you said possible. I posted the link because there is an actual picture of the ossuary. The article is by an expert that explains why it is an obvious fake by describing the inscription. It is very plain to see exactly what she is talking about when you can look at the lid for yourself. There are a lot more problems with this discovery than just the commonality of names. The second link discusses the implications of the discovery and analyzes multiple news reports and articles written about it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by eliza_nightvoice:

BTW. What is your opinion on the historic viability of the existance of Buddha?

---

I know this may seem like I'm avoiding the question but it doesn't matter if Buddha was a real person or not and Buddhism does not live or die on whether Buddha was real or not. In fact there are quite a few Buddhas in Buddhism. Buddha is more of a title than a specific name of one specific person. Just like the title Bodhisattva, it is a state of attainment. Buddha (as the story goes) was also born of a Virgin. This, of course is a metaphor and even Buddhists do not believe this is a literal concrete fact. If you are a Buddhist student stuck on the idea of whether this story is real you have missed the point and any low level teacher of the Dharma will tell you that. In like fashion if you are asking the question if Buddha really existed you will get the same treatment, pretty much a non answer.

I want to wade into this carefully, as I don't have enough information to come to a complete conclusion.

Something about your first two posts has been bugging me, which is why I asked you to to explain the source.

Having done a very small amount of research, and having actually spoken with the actual author of that material this evening... it is fair to conclude - at the very least - that it is not the

quote:

---

as stated by Skeptician earlier in this thread:
... collaborative effort by a group of skeptics of which I am a contributor

---

I don't want to jump to hasty conclusions here. Can you shed some light on this?

------------------
-- dansgold
The avalanche has started, it is too late for the pebbles to vote.

quote:

---

Originally posted by dansgold:
Skep:

I want to wade into this carefully, as I don't have enough information to come to a complete conclusion.

I don't want to jump to hasty conclusions here. Can you shed some light on this?

---

Yep, You don't have enough information, and you are jumping to conclusions. Considering you do not even know my name let alone my contributions to the previous material, its source, the editor or my rights pertaining the use of this material with or without quoting the source you are out of line.

Why don't you stick to the topic and stop butting your nose in where it doesn't belong? This must be the "Forensic Debate" skills you were taught, avoid the discussion and run around pretending you have a right to judge and interrogate others at your discretion.

Your first two posts in this thread are directly lifted from C. Dennis McKinsey's "Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy". Anyone interested in the book can see the listing on amazon.com linked here: Link to Amazon listing

The material in question is widely circulated on the internet on various sites.

One of them is linked here: Link to Site

... with the specific sections in question linked here: Link to Specific Reference

So ...
Point #1: You are not C. Dennis McKinsey., and you posted his material without crediting him. The mysterious assertion that you " ... will retain a modicum of anonymity in this forum" has nothing to do with this. Simply stating - when I first asked - that this material was quoted from Dennis' book or one of those websites would not reveal your identity in any way. Even if you created a website using Dennis' material, you could have "quoted" it from a another site, or made no mention of whether the site was yours or not.

I spoke with Dennis earlier this week. He had no knowledge of you, had no idea who you might be, and was pretty certain at that time that nobody "co-authored" his material or that it was authored as some kind of "collaborative effort by a group of skeptics", the kind of which you claim to be a member.

Therefore ...
Point #2: Your statements about "contributing" on the creation of the posted material as part of a "collaborative effort" are false on their face.

Dennis was a pretty nice guy ... at least after he was certain that I was not a telemarketer! We agreed to talk later in the week, after he might have a better idea who this "Skeptician" might be.

We spoke less than an hour ago (from the time of this posting). He indicated that he had traded dome email with you recently, and that you were welcome to post his material on the web or anywhere else - provided that you credit him or his book as the source. He added that he had no other knowledge of you otherwise, and that there was no way in which you were a "contributor" to his work. He offered (charitably, I think) that perhaps you might have been one of a group of people who had helped proofread his stuff for spelling, etc. several years ago, but that he no specific memory of you one way or the other.

Ergo ...
Point #3: This flies in the face of your contention that I don't have any idea regarding your "contributions to the previous material, its source, the editor or my rights pertaining the use of this material with or without quoting the source." I have verified my suspicions with the author of the material. It also puts the nail in the coffin of your false statements to the effect that you somehow "contributed" in a "collaborative effort" to create the material you posted.

Sounds awefully to me as though your are "making it up as you go along". The evidence - the facts - bear witness that you have been dishonest about all of this matter.

In a word,Skep ... you've been "busted".

Now, why not just do the adult thing: admit it, apologize, don't do it again. Then we can go on to discuss these matters honestly.

------------------
-- dansgold
The avalanche has started, it is too late for the pebbles to vote.

In all fairness though ... just because the Skepster wasn't exactly "forthcoming" regarding all of this doesn't mean that those posts should be ignored. I meant what I said - I disagree with the content of Dennis McKinsey's material, but is extremely well written.

So, while I think it's all a side issue - albeit an important one - I hope 'ol Skeppy "does the right thing". I certainly will not hold all of this against him for for than about 5 minutes after he fesses up. People do stupid things for stupid reasons - I'm no different, and I'm certainly not going to take the approach that the Skepmesiter is somehow "beneath me" or anything dumb like that. A wise man once said "For all have sinned ..."

I don't think it's fair to discuss someone's topic if they aren't around to respond, though. So, I'm kind of in a holding pattern waiting to see ...

------------------
-- dansgold
The avalanche has started, it is too late for the pebbles to vote.

quote:

---

Originally posted by dansgold:
Skeptician:

Your first two posts in this thread are directly lifted from C. Dennis McKinsey's "Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy". Anyone interested in the book can see the listing on amazon.com linked here:

---

I don't have time to deal with your want-to-be a narco crap. You think your are some kind of snitch that has "busted" me, you don't even know who I am, you must be some kind of freak. FYI I do have permission from Dennis to post ANY of the material from the Magazine (or even his book) that I want anywhere I want, whenever I want and with or without posting the magazine, name of the magazine or anyone involved in the magazine including Dennis. You are putting your suspicious predjudices and want-to be a commander-in-chief attitude right in the middle of something you have no business being involved in. I will post who, what and why when I see fit to do so, not when you decide to try to force me to do so with suspicious disingenuous foolishness. As I stated, and quite clearly "I do have permission from Dennis to post ANY of the material from the Magazine that I want anywhere I want and with or without posting the magazine, name of the magazine or anyone involved in the magazine including Dennis." Your demands that I post the source are invalid, your interrogation of me, my posts, or anything else are not only out of line but totally invalid. You know nothing about the magazine, yes it was later put into book form. I am a contributor to both the Magazine and Dennis' book as well as his ongoing efforts. NONE OF THIS IS ANY OF YOUR BUSINESS. My posts are not open for your scrutiny and it is you who owes me an apology.

So, again, Why the hell don't you respond to the subject? Keep your false accusations and suspicious judgements where they belong.

quote:

---

Originally posted by eliza_nightvoice:
Will someone please remind me not to tangle with dansgold? In case I ever try to.

Good sleuthing, sir.

---

At any rate, the following applies:

quote:

---

From Websters:
plagiarism
n 1: a piece of writing that has been copied from someone else and is presented as being your own work 2: the act of plagiarizing; taking someone's words or ideas as if they were your own

---

I will happily apologize for anything I've stated which is incorrect, but not if you simply demand that I do so without any evidence that I am actually incorrect.

I'd rather be discussing the topic of this thread. But, I have no intention of doing so with persons who will not deal honestly.

Linnea's pithy comment is particularly applicable. I'd like to think you are not just "trolling" however.

------------------
-- dansgold
The avalanche has started, it is too late for the pebbles to vote.

As to this debate, what are we trying to debate? Is it that Christianity is not a valid belief system because it contains myths? Name one belief system that doesn't. Is the presence of myth patterns a valid reason for ignoring the message of "love thy neighbor as thyself." "If you see a speck in your brother's eye, first remove the plank in your own." "Blessed are the peacemakers."

I admit, there has been much corruption done to the originally recorded message (as little as exists). But the corruption was introduced by the need for power and control (aka politics). And there has been mush suffering caused in the name of "god", just as there has been much suffering caused in the name of "freedom" and "justice." Most of us who profess Christianity are not the rabid followers of the hate-mongering, power- hungry "Christian fundamentalists" whose first love is power, money and media exposure. I just wanted to make that clarification so you know where I'm coming from.

quote:

---

Originally posted by eliza_nightvoice:
THe virgin birth was not one of the initial core beliefs of Christianity nor was it a requirement for induction into the sect of the followers of the Jesus of Nazareth. It did not emerge as a belief tennant until the 3rd century C.E. and only then as a solution to the devistating results of infighting due to the controversy over the nature of the person Jesus of Nazareth.

---

As Skep noted in one of the sections quoted, the confusion over 'virgin' vs. 'maiden' (or 'young girl') makes the topic at the very least open to honest differences of opinion.
------------------
-- dansgold
The avalanche has started, it is too late for the pebbles to vote.