Who was Lazarus?

[Medicine*Woman]

But you went far beyond just speculating. In fact, you boast: "I don't proclaim to be a scholar, but I read everything I can on this subject.” So, once again: what have you read by any professional Egyptologist affiliated with any reputable university?

*************
M*W: As usual, you are an old blow-hard spewing hatred for anyone who likes to discuss religious history, and I was not boasting. Those are YOUR HIGHLIGHTS, not mine. You are the only one who boasts on this forum. In fact, that's ALL you do! You don't offer anything of intellectual value, and that makes everything you post a waste of time for the rest of us.

How dare you demean us when we are searching for answers, and you debase us for doing so! If you feel that you are so far superior to the rest of us, you don't need to be wasting your time on sciforums. Maybe you should go elsewhere to vent your inner-hatred out on your PEERS. Or, you could just relax, chill-out, sip a glass of fine wine, and offer this forum some of your extensive knowledge of religious matters. Then you would become an intellectual asset to this forum. Unfortunately, I don't see you doing that, so I will publically contact our moderator.

CA, I would guess that there are many of us on this forum who don't consult with "professional Egyptologists affiliated with reputable universities." Why would we? For most of us, this forum is not related to our professional development, but it is here for our fun and entertainment.

Sciforums offers us a place to go to discuss relevant topics with other people who have interests like ourselves. The only time you post is to humiliate others you are deluded to believe are of inferior intelligence. You have added tremendous negativity to this forum, and I think it's time that James R. takes serious action.

James R: ConsequentAtheist is totally out of line again by continually interrupting the dialog on this forum. His/her hateful, condescending interjections are totally uncalled for and are not conducive to a positive learning environment.

Apparently, CA has nothing of intellectual value to offer this forum except for the spewing of hatred to those of us who "read and speculate" on the topics contained herein. The bitterness CA adds to this forum is getting old and tiresome. I recommend he be banned from this forum indefinitely and suggest that he find a website where he can converse ONLY with senior level doctorates in Egyptology and religious studies. CA has made it quite clear that he is far superior to all the members on this forum regardless of their religious or other affiliation.

In my opinion, he has continued his bad behavior and, like a spoiled child constantly looking for negative attention, he needs a permanent time-out.

 

[invert_nexus]

So, when you wrote:

So it's entirely possible that the Exodus did occur in the 18th, though current speculation places it later.

you meant to say that you"personally believe that there was no exodus".

Let me see if I understand: speculating about the historical relationship between Amenhotep IV and an exodus that you don't believe happened constitutes a viable religious discussion. Got it.

It's possible that God is an alien from the crab nebula. Entirely possible is merely a step above the possible, but it doesn't conclude that it's probable.

And, yes I do consider it a viable religious discussion. Because, although there isn't any archeological evidence of an exodus, religious people believe in it. Several dates have been put forward as possible dates for said exodus. One of the dates comes very close to the aten heresy of akhenaten. Why can't we discuss these things? If you want historical evidence, you're in the wrong subforum. As you have said, there isn't even proof that Jesus existed.

No, speculating about how a "mythical" exodus might have been carried out is not another way of saying that I don't believe it did happen. That's what all the statements of "if the bible is true", and "if the exodus did happen" and all the other "if" statements I made that you seem to have missed in your efforts to override my religious beliefs (which, unfortunately for your efforts, I don't have).

The next quote you posted is from Medicine Woman, not me. I have read some things on the subject, but not everything I can. If I cared to, there's a whole shelf at the library I could work my way through. And I most likely will at one time or another, but I have more interests than devouring everything I can on religion.

Maybe I should state my reasons for being interested in religion despite the fact that I'm an agnostic/atheist. To me, religion isn't about god and the devil, it's not about finding the path to salvation or the road to hell, it's about human nature. All cultures on this planet share one common truth, they all have religion in one form or another. Some take it farther than others, but they all have beliefs in things beyond themselves. By examining these myths and their possible beginnings we might come to a better understanding of human nature.

And also, I fear I am looking for a way to cure religion as though it were a disease. (I can see that you are trying the same thing, ConsequentAtheist, but your way is not curing anything. If anything it makes people stronger in their faith.) Sorry, religious folks, but I'll be honest enough to say it. I doubt if I'll succeed, but I can't fight my nature. Religion has it's pros and cons but overall the cons seem to outweigh the pros. The best that could happen (while maintaining religion) would be that it moves away from dogma and moves towards an "invisible godman" as Medicine Woman puts it. Unfortunately, that's only a short term cure. And may not be a cure at all. Better the devil you know than the one you don't? Anyway, given enough time such a religion would once more move to a dogmatic view and suppression of heresy would once more become dominant in the eyes of the church.

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

And also, I fear I am looking for a way to cure religion as though it were a disease. (I can see that you are trying the same thing, ...)

You see poorly. I have no naive/pretentious desire to cure religion, nor do I think that religion requires a cure. Sloppy and irrational thinking, however ...

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

I don't proclaim to be a scholar, but I read everything I can on this subject.”

..., I would guess that there are many of us on this forum who don't consult with "professional Egyptologists affiliated with reputable universities." Why would we?

I guess I can't think of a reason why you would.

 

[invert_nexus]

You see poorly. I have no naive/pretentious desire to cure religion, nor do I think that religion requires a cure. Sloppy and irrational thinking, however ...

I see, then I apologize for trying to say you were trying to "cure" religion. But, then what of religious thinking? Is it sloppy and irrational? The religious believe in such things as the exodus and jesus without proof. Is that something you would try to "cure"? If you take the sloppy and irrational thinking out of religion, what do you have left? Are there many well-spoken and rational premises in the bible? The qu'ran?

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

The religious believe in such things as the exodus and jesus without proof.

All religious people believe in the Exodus? Necessarily? Does that include the Deist and the Daoist and the Hindu and the Jain? Does it include the liberal Christian and the Reform Jew? Why do you persist in saying things without thinking?

I've recently been introduced to the geographer Yi-Fu Tuan, who wrote:

Religion

Religion is present to varying degree in all cultures. It appears to be a universal human trait. In religion human beings are clearly distinguished from other animals. How can a humanistic perspective contribute to the geography of religion? The field is in disarray for lack of a coherent definition of the phenomenon it seeks to understand. Research on barns and house types is cultural geography, but research on churches and temples seems to belong to the geography of religion. Why is feng-shui, a technique for locating graves and houses, not treated as a branch of applied geography or even of surveying? Is it deemed religious because some practices in geomancy may appear supernatural or magical to the Western scholar? A field so lacking in focus and so arbitrary in its selection of themes cannot hope to achieve intellectual maturity.

A humanist geographer concerned with religion begins by asking, what is the meaning of religion? To the extent that religion is a special kind of awareness, how does it differ from other kinds of awareness? The word religion is derived from the Latin religare, which means to bind again, that is, to bind oneself strongly to a set of beliefs, faith, or ethic. More broadly speaking, the religious person is one who seeks coherence and meaning in his world, and a religious culture is one that has a clearly structured world view. The religious impulse is to tie things together. To what? The "what" is the ultimate concern theologians speak of, and it differs from people to people. Ultimate concern is the emotion-charged expression for the kingpin of a system of beliefs or the central principle that binds the components of a world view. The central principle may be God, the belief that "God does not play dice," a social or ecological ethic, or a concept of justice or of historical development. In this view, Buddhism is as much of a religion as Christianity, and atheistic Communism is a religion no less than agnostic Confucianism. At the individual level, Albert Einstein was as religious as Thomas Aquinas; their kingpins differed but not their passion for a meaningful cosmos.

All human beings are religious if religion is broadly defined as the impluse for coherence and meaning.

The strength of the impluse varies enormously from culture to culture, and from person to person. A nonreligious person or culture is defined as secular. What does secular mean? It means the religious impulse is reduced to a minimum. A secular person is a pragmatic person who does not act from a set of unwavering principles; his acts are ad hoc, based on the needs and conditions of the moment. He feels no urge to integrate his experience and knowledge with a larger system. He has many short term projects, but no ultimate concern. Modern technological society is secular because its orientations are largely pragmatic; its members do not subscribe to any authoritative world view. It is a mistake, however, to equate modern industrial society with the secular outlook. Some nonliterate peoples are very pragmatic. They may practice magic, but magic is mainly a technique for achieving limited ends and is not integrated with any system of religious thought. A humanistic approach to religion would require that we be aware of the differences in the human desire for coherence, and note how these differences are manifest in the organization of space and time, and in attitudes to nature.

[from "Humanistic Geography". Annals of the Association of American Geographers Vol. 66, No. 2: 266-276, pg. 271-272 [emphasis added]

I find it to be an interesting definition, particularly since it does not require that this "meaning" be an inherent quality. It is a definition that allows for the religious naturalism of people like Ursula Goodenough.

 

[invert_nexus]

All religious people believe in the Exodus? Necessarily? Does that include the Deist and the Daoist and the Hindu and the Jain? Does it include the liberal Christian and the Reform Jew? Why do you persist in saying things without thinking?

Oh, come on now. Now you're just bogging down in semantics. I was using the exodus and Jesus as an example of "sloppy and irrational thinking." Note the "such things as." If you want to get down to semantics, when are you going to follow your own advice?

You know as well as I, that even if these other religions don't believe in these examples in particular, they do hold faith in other similar ideas that have no basis in fact. The point still stands. Religion is based on sloppy and irrational thinking. Remove that and you have nothing. Next to nothing anyway.

 

[invert_nexus]

Interesting clip, by the way. Thanks for posting it.

 

[SVRP]

What a pathetic and dishonest little list you have there. Let's do the following: you pick the one that you find most probative and start a new thread. I'll be more than happy to contribute.

Why don't you leave a list of opposing viewpoints, let the readers sort it out, and we will leave it at that?