Man, oh, man... Where and how to begin with this one?

Rational Responder's Squad.

Hey, Kelly! Wanna feel my muscle!
Golly, Brian, it's big!

I only came to hear of "The RRS" because of a blog that had a link to a "debate" on ABC's NightLine program, between Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron and Brian Sapient and "Kelly" from the "rational Responders." In the video, Ray gave the presentation that he usually gives, and the other side basically thumbed their nose at him. All the ordinary fare as far as Ray's concerned, I'm sure. From there I got to their website (rationalresponders.com), and there began to familiarize myself with their (for lack of better words) "stuff." It's not really "teaching," and I think they would have a conniption if I called it "doctrine," and it doesn't exactly amount to "evidence," so "stuff" it is for the purposes of this discussion.


I'm only just now beginning to attempt to go through their material to see which pile of squeeze is worth stepping in first.

Their site is a highly disorganized mass of stuff, just piled up everywhere in no seeming order. That of course might only be saying something about me; but I'm usually pretty good at connecting the dots, and making sense of unintelligible or disorganized materials. You might say it used to be a job function of mine.

The Players

There seem to be several of them. I have little interest in any particular one of them so far. The head cheese seems to be Brian Sapient - a singularly unimpressive guy who appears to have more ego than anything else in his head.

His most noteworthy (and very revealing) statement is one in which he claims that if it were possible, he would have his mother locked up in an institution if she believed in Christianity. Combine this with his infatuation with "the badge" (which is prominently displayed, well, just everywhere on his site - it being a frequent backdrop for all their self-portrait photos - a recent visit to the page shows no less then SIX of them) and I would feel quite safe in surmising that he has a lust for the power of authority, which if ever he obtained, he would be a worse tyrant than any evil god he, or anyone else, ever imagined. It was with him in mind that I crafted the badge you see on this page. Given any sort of power, and making this sort of statement (and others made by the RRS members, such as "beliefs that need to be erradicated off the face of the earth" [because after all, free thinking is ONLY for them]) pretty much gaurantees that abuse of that power would be forthcoming.

"Kelly" is about as interesting. She took it upon herself to go to a church (where, ironically, this "debate" was being held) dressed in the skimpiest, sheer, sun-dress with lots of display for her (admittedly ample) cleavage. The pattern on the dress, I am sure, was considered particularly appropriate for the night's address. Not so much (I am guessing) with the intent of being a distraction to her opponents, but simply to be as brazen and as offensive as possible in a church. Maybe I am wrong. I rather doubt it. In any case, a "pretty, slinky, sun-dress" doesn't exactly go well with "pasty, white, tattooed, bleached hair" body that looks better suited in Goth Black. (BTW - I wrote this part LONG after the "subtitle" for this article.)

There's some others that I haven't had a chance to look into yet.

I will probably end up picking on the guy they call "Rook Hawkins" because he is the one they are labelling their (so called) "resident bible expert." And because he's a shrimp; a pipsqueak who I will affectionately refer to as "shortstop" from now on. Yeah, I can say that. I'm qualified!... I'm MORE than qualified!

I really have no interest in people who are just out there making asses of themselves; but when you cross over to calling yourself a "Bible Expert", then that's where I perk up a bit.

Rook likes to have himself introduced as:

• An Historian
  
• An Historian of Classical Civilisation
  
• An Historian of Comparative Religious Studies
  
• A Biblical and Ancient Texts Expert
  

All of these things would, to be legitimate, require a college degree majoring in those subjects, followed up by considerable time as a junior associate working under some other recognized historian or expert, and finally graduating to acceptance of the title "expert" after much hard-won experience, and the publishing of papers in recognized and accredited journals. Unfortunately, Rook has no such educational or experiental background. He is, because he says he is. Mr. Rook will take no more questions. Thank you and good day.

Personally, I'm fond of saying that I'm a nuclear physics and molecular biology expert. Of course, I have no training in any of that - but that doesn't stop me from saying it. Neither does it stop Rook.

He does, however, have a membership card to the JBL - Journal of Biblical Literature - which card can be obtained by anyone willing to pay for a subscription to the journal. The Journal is published (not suprisingly) by the SBL - Society of Biblical Literature.

A quick search of the SBL website for "Rook Hawkins" turns up, lesseee here, uhm... ZERO results. But of course, we need to be searching the JBL. A quick search of the JBL website turns up, well, dang... ZERO results. Must be a technical glitch.

So, where exactly is Rook published? Why on his website of course. He has written extensively and profusely on all subjects Biblical. In fact, I will reproduce the entire body of his work right here. Wanna hear it? Here it go:


Around the turn of the First Century CE, a Hellenized cult formed around Jesus Christ (Greek: Ięsou Christou) who was a spiritual being which brought about the Gnosis (knowledge) of the Logos (The forethought, or first thought) – sometimes referred to as the Monad or “one” by which was only achieved through Sophia (or wisdom). It is even said that this being was also a rank, achievable just by attaining Gnosis.

The confusion of the early centuries of the Common Era (CE) bring on multiple different interpretations of this cult, and from it springs Orthodox Christianity. Over time, and various slander wars, the Orthodox Church wins out and crushes the Gnostic and Mystics movement. They burry or destroy the texts and canonize the books that fit their philosophy. What doesn’t fit originally is made to fit with forgeries and minor altercations of the texts. Get ready for the book that will change the world.


(Side-Note: Rook is prolly hitting the gym right now to "pump html" and "bulk-up" a bit. But for now, that's the whole sum of his "published work" on his website. UPDATE: Two years later, I go back and check on him and his website, and it seems he's given up on the website thing, and is instead just pointing his domain at the irrati0nal resp0nders website. It was fun while it lasted, I guess...

New update: about a year later, and RookHawkins.com is now just pointing at Sapient's blog... Dunno... Maybe they had a fallout.)

On Rook's website, rookhawkins.com, his sole purpose seems to be selling stuff - mainly cheap trinkets. He be hawkins some warez over dere... ;-) Rook: feel free to poke fun at my name. I mean, my name is "Kirby" for crying out loud - there's a goldmine of "suck" euphemisms to be mined there, dude.

I especially like his Amazon links, where he prominently showcases both Atheist and Christian works. I have to give it to him - there truly would be some perverse satisfaction to be had in profiting from the sales of your opponent's works. Nothing beats being the prophet of the law of unintended consequences. And besides, you can always trump it up to "unbiased objectivism" if anyone calls you on it.

I feel pretty confident in asserting that if Rook had any credientials at all, they would be most prominently displayed, well, just everywhere.

Unfortuantely, the only credentials I can find, anywhere, are on his website are... Ready for this?:



Like I said earlier - these are people infatuated with the police power of government. That's ok. Most REAL cops (not all) are people who are infatuated with the police power of government. Trust me... I know...


And finally - In checking my facts, I googled the hell out of "rook hawkins college" and came upon this.

From which I quote Rook:

There's a quote, but I cannot recall where I heard it from. It was something along the lines of, "You are what you work hard to become." That is a quote I stand by, and if you write about history, take it seriously, enjoy educating yourself and others about it, I see no reason why you shouldn't be considered a historian if you fit that definition.

That pretty much clinches it. He ought properly to be introduced as "self professed historian" or "wannabe historian." By his own admission.

Now, and finally, for some a humourous diversion. And this, I am sure is not by Rook's design:

Rook thought it likely that he could wander into what SHOULD be safe haven, and post to his heart's content and receive glowing praise and accolades - he took to the forums on "RichardDawkins.net" whereupon he was immediately called to the floor for his claims of proper accreditation. He should have known that "great minds think alike", but he should have also known about the old saying "like moths to a flame." In these forums were not just familiar and friendly faces, but also the collection of adversaries expected to be drawn by such a bait. But he apparently did not consider that angle.

When the expected outrage arose over his claim to "credentials", rather than replying there - he chose to reply back on his "home ground" (rational responders website) where he would not have to face unmoderated, or perhaps unsolicited comments, or in any case, could face them on friendly ground. So he posts a "link" to his challengers, saying that he has responded "here." "Here" of course, being his safe haven on Rational Responders website.

So I tool on over there to read his response. I just about forgot to read "the response", after stumbling upon a sincere irony. As a wonderful fulfillment of the Law of Unintended Consequences, Rational Responders - not ones to refuse money from whatever source - had bought into the Google Ads paradigm. So, in Rook's response, at the very top of his "response" to his challengers over the "credentials" uproar, was a very funny, if not wonderfully appropos Google Ad, which I reproduce for you here, untouched (except for the red arrow I added pointing at the hillarious bit):



'Nuff said...






Full Disclosure

First, let me take care of the "full disclosure" requirements.

When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

I have great respect for Kirk and Ray, but I differ from them in some respects. The "debate" was a bad idea from the beginning because of the rules that I'm sure RRS insisted upon before they would show their faces - namely that they (Ray and Kirk) will prove that God exists without employing faith or the Bible.

This is just a silly foundation upon which to debate whether God (who exists outside nature, and therefore outside of the ability of any instrument inside nature to detect him) exists. [Note: There is a distinct difference between saying "outside of", and "completely outside of", which I will not get into here. The concept works either way in this particular case, so it's not worth the distraction of going there for present purposes]. The thing was self defeating. Much like trying to prove that a line is "straight" without employing a known authority on straight lines - namely a straight-edge (or ruler, if you prefer). In the Bible, God explains this quite clearly: some are GIVEN the ability to believe in him, and others are not. Some have "ears to hear" and others do not. This is an up-front declaration that the matter is outside the realm of science, whether theoretical or applied.

I do not believe that the existence of God can be proven apart from Faith. In fact, I do not believe that the existence of God can be proven at all. And I think he made it that way on purpose. But I do subscribe to the "design" argument put forth by Ray at least insofar as it states that "if anything exists at all, then it must have a creator" whether the thing presents any perceptable design or not.

When I look around, I am more convinced by the mere fact that matter exists at all. How it came to be in this form, and how it came to be in this shape are all completely ancillary to the central issue at hand which is this: "Either someone created this stuff, or else it just was forever and ever and ever and ever and ever, and GOLLY, FOREVER here... in some form or another - or else it literally came out of nothingness all by it's lonely self." Since that second option is the usual refuge of the three year old intellect (and ironically, most of modern so called "science"), and since the last option is just truly nonsensical, I'm a bit loathe to go there.

I am more compelled by the fact that anything at all exists, than by the suggestion that it somehow comprises a "design."

In other words, it is enough for me that "stuff happened" at all, and I really don't care that much about what happened to it after that. That "stuff happened" is the real interesting point as far as I'm concerned. What may or may not have happened to it afterwards doesn't go one way or the other in proving that God exists. It is only the prima facie fact that anything exists at all that (in my opinion) is an evidence that God must exist. Ultimately, nonexistent things do not create things; and they sure as hell don't create themselves.

Evolution doesn't explain where matter came from - it only attempts to explain what happened to it after that. I personally don't care so much what happened to it "afterwards." I'm more interested in what the first cause was. Everything after that is a matter of ephemera that can be figured out later at our liesure. Or not at all, depending upon whether you care or not.

But Faith is much the same as creation in one respect - they are both creations of God. The world is not man's creation. Neither is his faith.

Faith in God comes by, and only by, hearing the word of God (that's my job) and then by revelation (that's God's job).

It is the pre-emptive work of God in the hearts of men to whom he has chosen to reveal Christ. Without this revelation, you will in no wise, and with no amount of study, and even with no amount of prayer and seeking, will you ever see Jesus Christ as "the Christ; the Son of the Living God..." though you may, as Esau, seek it desperately with tears. It will not happen, because it cannot happen.

But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not. All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. ... No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him:"

If God has not chosen to reveal the Son to you, then there is little that can be done for you and, personally, I have little interest in wasting time on you, trying. If that sounds, callous, crude or offensive, well, dude, that's a bummer, isn't it?

On the other hand, if God has chosen to reveal Christ to you, then there is nothing that I or anyone else can say that can stop it. It will happen.

In the parable of the sower, you will notice that the sower doesn't go around with a bag of seed and a shovel. He doesn't spend ANY time trying to convince the bad ground to act like good ground, or the weeds to act like wheat, or the goats to act like sheep. He simply sows (speaks) and then moves on. The growth of the seed is almost of no concern to the sower. It's "not his job" you might say. Jesus was the same way. In fact, in that parable, it is himself that he is speaking of. He's calling to you. Preaching to you. But having done that, he certainly is not chasing you.

Neither am I ¹.

It is the spirit of God that makes the seed grow. If that spirit is not there, then that seed has fallen on rocky ground. Period. End of story. More specifically, end of your story.

I do not believe in trying to convince the weeds to act like wheat. I do not believe in trying to make someone else's fallow ground more fertile. God says that's their job.

For that reason, if you are reading this, then I implore you to yield to that inner voice if you hear it. If you hear it, don't try to pretend that you do not. If you, like I, hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and that voice in your head is saying, "He's right. I need to do this..", then by all means, heed that voice. If God is speaking to you, it is in your power to pretend that you do not hear it. You can pretend to not know that Jesus is the Christ - the son of the living God. Don't do that. The consequences there are dire.

THAT is the "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit" that the "responders" are so quaintly trying (some successfully, others not) to commit. The successful ones are the ones that hear that voice, know it to be true, and are refusing to heed. They are successful in blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Most of the rest are being just plain ignorant. But they are lost already, so there's nothing more to be lost for them. They are "free indeed" if you take it on the wisdom if Janis Joplin: "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose..." And Athiests truly have nothing left to lose.

Most of what I have said so far I have more fully developed in the following two articles:

Let Them Alone

Leading the Horse to Water

On a personal note, I've only had a short time, so far, to actually view videos or writings of these guys, but my first impression is that they are simply a bunch of one-trick ponies - They have very little to say, and a lot of different ways in which to say it. They strike me as a bunch of clowns who don't even believe their own tripe.

They look like a bunch of guys just wanting to bring da ruckus and get a few people ruffled around the edges - get some laughs. And if their website is any indication, they hope to make a few bucks off it too - fleecing their own with "special access to features" for a price. If so, then I have to say that I admire their ability to speak with a straight face. I'd have a hard time not laughing. Imagine actually trying to put on a somber, serious face and say something as dumb as "I deny the Holy Spirit." It reminds me of all the "backward masking" hype back in the 70's and 80's. "Yeah, but if you play it backwards, and listen to it a hundred times in a row, you can just barely make out him saying 'My Sweet Satan'... For real! Golly."

If you don't believe in him, then what are you denying? If you DO, then what do you hope to gain by this silly excercise? There's no intellectually serious way to do what they are asking you to do.

And finally (for the opening), as I said ² to the Muslim "Debate Warriors", I do not debate those that the Bible calls "mockers." And these boobs clearly are. It is a given that anything I say will pass either completely over their head, or right through it - in one side and out the other. There is nothing to be gained for either of us by engaging in a "debate."

To that end, I expect to read their stuff and respond here - probably just once. They can read what I have to say and respond in-kind: on their website, if they care to. But there will be no "ongoing dialogue" because, frankly, I have neither the time, the interest, nor the "compassion" to bother with them.

Comments are open on this article, and as in all my articles, I do not censor, delete or retract. I like to let the stupidity of fools speak for itself; unimpeeded by the pesky constraints of wisdom, honesty, or maturity.

And as in past cases, I should state up front that I do not read all the comments. I simply cannot, especially when they pour in here 700 at a time. I seriously doubt these guys could amass 700 comments from their entire ranks, but I'm just sayin... It's OK to bring da ruckus.... Know what I mean?

Most of this article will be aimed at Christians looking for information about the "responders" claims, or wanting to clarify claims that they make, or hear (particularly) what the Bible has to say about this matter. This article is for them.

Everything that I have to say, ultimately may be intended for just one person. God may have brought this entire action to fruition for the sole purpose of reaching and saving just ONE PERSON from their ranks, or even from among the bystanders, or heck, even someone in "church".


Now then, lets go on.

The Blasphemy Challenge

Since this is the first mention of the Responders that I came across, I suppose I should deal with this first.

The Challenge is basically this. Read Matthew 12:31:

Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come."

... and then attempt to do what it says by deliberately saying that you "blaspheme (or deny) the Holy Spirit."

Does this actually work?

Most Christians seem intent on demonstrating that these people cannot actually do it because they do not understand what it actually means.

Personally, I think the mere attempt is more than sufficient.

I mean... really... If you are deliberately saying this in an attempt to actually do it, then I think you have probably succeeded, at least in the spirit of the thing (which, after all, is really where it counts). Not all of you, but probably a good percentage of you.

When I say "not all of you, but probably a good percentage of you", what do I mean by that? I mean those that do it and then laugh without feeling even the slightest twinge of conscience, and losing no sleep over it at all, and who continue in that state until the end of their lives - those are the ones likely to have succeeded. Others there are that say it, but kinda "cringe" inside. They wonder later whether they really mean what they said. Or they question whether that is really enough to have done it.

Basically, the touchstone here - the trigger point - the differentia... the proof that we are poking around in the pudding looking for - is the element of "taboo." Psychiatrists would suggest that "taboo" is a function of the conscience. If that were true, then conscience can be trained or conditioned. In other words, it can be biased. But the sense of "taboo", here, is actually the working of the Holy Spirit. Those who took the challenge, followed the prescribed course, and laughed all the way through because it was fun, or funny, and felt no compunction at all about doing it - those are the ones most likely to have actually succeeded.

In an extreme case of irony, those who have succeeded in "denying the Holy Spirit" do not even get the inward satisfaction of knowing that they've actually done it. The whole thing is a joke from beginning to end, and once they've had their laugh, they are off to enjoy the rest of their reward, which, as Jesus said, "They already have."

On the other hand, there are those who took the challenge, and like the others, laughed all the way through, but something about doing it didn't seem "right." There was that inward "cringe" when they said it. There was inward doubt as to whether saying it was enough to actually perform it. In fact, the mere presence of ANY level of concern over what they were doing - even in retrospect - or in the back of their minds, or subconsciously, or whatever - the mere presence of some kind of voice (that sounded remarkably like their own voice) that said "uh, hang on a second... what was THAT all about?"... even if they managed to supress it long enough to get the words out...

They are the type who actually do what they claim to do and keep "open minds" and "question all beliefs" - including their own. They are those who probably have not succeeded (at least not yet) - and in this case, failure is a good thing.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

Which side are you on?

Personally, for The Six, I do not care. They can take their blasphemy challenge and go straight to hell for all I care. Bye-Bye... See ya!

For the Half Dozen, the rest of this article is for you.

First Things First

The real heart of the "Responders" efforts seems to have nothing at all to do with proving that God doesn't exist (or alternately, "debunking" claims that he does), but rather in insisting that evolution is factual.

Since there is no logical connection between these two constructs (neither proves or disproves the other), it appears to me that they have chosen a futile path. Their arguments for one cannot be projected onto the other, so I foresee a lot of circular reasoning (or at least redundant, perhaps faulty reasoning) before the debate even begins.

Arguments which, when reduced to their essence, say little more than "Evolution, which makes no claim regarding the exstence of God at all disproves the existence of God."

Uhhh... What?

We can expect a LOT of that sort of reasoning in the upcoming process.

Since evolution doesn't address the existence of God, continuing to rely on it for ammunition seems rather hopeless to me. Proponents of this line are like people who keep pulling the trigger of an empty gun... Click, click, click... hoping one day the damned thing will go bang. It's not gonna happen. We can debate evolution. And we can debate the existence of God. But they are two different debates.

In my brief exposure to them and their tactics, I can see already that one of them is to jump schizophrenically from one unrelated subject to another - abandoning one sinking ship as soon as it springs enough leaks, in favour of the next one that comes along, and hoping to reach the destination, as it were, by aquatic hop-scotch.

As far as evolution is concerned, I already touched briefly on it in my opening. Evolution doesn't explain where all the "stuff" we see and feel came from. It only attempts to explain what happened to it after that. The theory that explains where it all came from is allegorically refered to as the "Big Bang Theory." It is called a theory because that is exactly what it is. A Theory.

Evolution is also a theory. It is a theory because it so far lacks the evidence necessary to elevate it from theory to known fact.

Gettin' My Jollies

One of the things I get a big laugh from is the little Darwin Fish Stickers that some people like to put on the car. You know, the fish with legs.

That little sticker is representative of the very proof they need to provide to prove their claim. It is the fossil record of the fish with legs that proves them right and which so far they are completely unable to provide. It is the transition stages which they need to prove their assertion, and which is completely lacking from the fossil record.

Once in a while, one of them will stupidly point to something like a mudskipper as proof of a transitional form. The mudskipper is not a transitional form because it appears exactly the way it is as far back into the fossil record as you can trace it. In other words, it is not transitional because it appears to have existed in it's current state as far back as we can trace it. If there were something "like" a mudskipper that was a little more "fish-like", somewhere back in it's history, there might be room for argument. But there's not. The thing is what it is in the same way that it always has been what it is.

So people who think they are being clever by putting these little stickers on their car are actually, in a sense, parading and advertising their failure.

Personally, I find this almost endlessly hillarious...



The chair you are sitting on - where did it come from? From the chair factory. No, I mean before that. Uh, the forest... Before that... the molten and cooling earth that eventually produced trees? Before that? Uh, there was nothing, and then suddenly out of nothing, for no reason at all, BANG! And everygthing came, ultimately including the molecular and atomic material (and now, even, subatomic material) out of which this chair is made...

You get either that line, or else the "everything just always and always existed" line.

Really!? Just always and forever it existed?

Blind faith.

Evolution makes no attempt to explain where it all came from. It only attempts to describe what happened to it after that.



Shortstop at Bat

Rook Hawkins, AKA, "Shortstop" seems to consider himself something of a "Bible Expert." Maybe I'm wrong there - I haven't heard that from him; I've heard it from the other responders in speaking about him.

At first, it seems he's quite a prolific writer. However, it rather quickly becomes evident that he's not so much a writer himself, as he is a collector and compiler of other people's writings. Nothing wrong with that, I suppose. My "They Said" category is dedicated entirely to things other people have written. But I very clearly display that someone else wrote it, and who.

I first noticed this when the guys at blasphemychallenge.blogspot.com (where I first ran into the group in the first place) first pointed out that the huge volume of information posted by him had actually been lifted from another page, by another author - complete with links to both works for comparison. I checked it out, and it was indeed true.

But I'm not sure about the fairness of calling Rook a plageurist, since in the web forum posting in question, Rook quite clearly states that the material is borrowed from someone else, and even credits their name. That's not really plagiarization. It's also a bit beyond the border of citation, too, though. "Borrowing" ten pages of information, and adding one paragraph at the end is kinda pushing the definition of citation. However, it should be noted that the web forum posting in question shows that Rook edited (ie, changed) the posting three times after it's initial posting. That could have been him adding the reference and original author credit later to escape the plagiarization charge, or it may have been him simply adding additional information or fixing typos. I don't know, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

But since he's posting the material of others, and not really posting much in the way of original thought, I might as well address the stuff he's posting - even if it is not his material.

Like I said, there are dozens and dozens of pages of material quoted from other collected sources. I've neither the time nor the inclination to address every single thing he has to say, because, again, others before me have done the job more than adequately - and, personally, I just don't care.

But I will take a moment and point out a few principles that are common to a great deal of the material he presents.

For instance:

Rook's main angle seems to be this futile attempt to deny that a dude named Jesus Christ ever even existed at all, based entirely upon one, single, argument: that somepeople who lived at the same time as he never mentioned him. He's really hung up on this "no contemporary reference" thing.

One might ask, but what about Matthew? This tax collector wrote an entire book about him. No, Matthew doesn't count - he's one of them. Mark, the physician? Nope. Paul? Nah. John? Definately NOT! But they are all his contemporaries! Yeah, but they were all sympathetic to the cause. So, let me see if I get this right: a writer only counts as a "contemporary" if they are on the opposing side even though they have no actual firsthand knowledge of the guy's life, and all the people on the home team don't count, even though they lived with him 24/7 for about three years? Furthermore, only those people who never actually mention him can be considered (somehow) his "contemporharies?" Yeah, that's right.

I'm thinking of a movie line here: "So, let me see if I've got this right... You can only turn invisible when absolutely no one is looking at you?"

If your tactic is going to be to simply deny absolutely everyone who steps up and says, "but I knew him", then how is any proof or evidence at all going to matter to you? If Matthew claims to have known him, you simply step up and deny Matthew too? And when 500 people claim that they saw him, you simply up the ante and deny all 500 of them? But you take at face value that someone never existed at all because absolutely no one (who already didn't know him anyway) didn't mention his name? Philo for (Rook's) example... He never mentions the name of a guy who wasn't really worth mentioning, so that person doesn't exist? There's LOTS of people Philo doesn't mention. I don't think Philo ever mentions Krishna. So Krishna is out? The latter emperors of the Han Dynasty? The first emperors of the Xin Dynasty? Goners all! Never existed. Philo would have said so if they did. I don't think Philo ever mentions Cleopatra. Is she ghosted now too?
Here's news: Philo was a JEW. How much voice do you think he's going to give to a guy who was an enemy of the Jews? Of course he's not gonna mention him. "It goes to motive, yer honour.."

The lunacy of proving a negative would be immediately pounced upon my any "rational responder" as soon as it was presented. Except when THEY do it?



(This section is in blue text to help you follow this tangential train of thought. It's a bit lengthy, but necessary.)

One of Shortstop's main thrusts is the assertion that there is no, real, historical person of Jesus Christ. The guy is a complete fabrication and never actually walked the face of the earth. To support this, he quotes several sources, including:

Pliny: "I have laid down this rule in dealing with those who were brought before me for being Christians. I asked whether they were Christians; if they confessed, I asked them a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; if they persevered, I ordered them to be executed.... They assured me that their only crime or error was this, that they were wont to come together on a certain day before it was light, and to sing in turn, among themselves, a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and to bind themselves by an oath--not to do anything that was wicked, that they would commit no theft, robbery, or adultery, nor break their word, nor deny that anything had been entrusted to them when called upon to restore it.... I therefore deemed it the more necessary to extract the truth by torture from two slave women whom they call deaconesses. But I found it was nothing but a bad and excessive superstition.... the sacred rites which had been allowed to lapse (by them--Ed.) are being performed again, and flesh of sacrificed victims is on sale everywhere, though up till recently scarcely anyone could be found to buy it."

From this text, he draws four conclusions, namely:

• It proves nothing in regard to the existence of Jesus Christ, but only affirms the existence of Christians.
  
• If the passage is referring to Christians, then it is also
  saying Christians sold the flesh of their sacrificial victims.
  
• Roman laws accorded religious liberty to all. Before
  Constantine there was not a single law opposed to freedom
  of thought.
  
• Pliny is universally conceded to have been one of the
  most humane of men. That Pliny would have tortured two
  women is highly unlikely. The person and character of
  women in Pagan Rome were held in high esteem.
  

Establishing the Source: Rook or someone else?

In any matter of translation from one language to another, there will invariably be differences in the language rendered, introduced by the mindset and training and experience of the translator. The very many different English translations of the Bible are testimony to this fact. But while the essential meaning will be rendered in a paraphrase, and the essential literal wording will be rendered in a translation, in both cases, there will be slight differences from different translators.

The ancient language of the letters of Pliny are no exception. If Rook was doing his own work, his rendition should differ slightly - perhaps even only ever so slightly. But there will be differences.

I'm now going to lay side-by-side, Rook's Text, and the text from a book entitled "The Christ Myth" by John Remsberg:

Rook

Remsberg's "Christ Myth"

Pliny: "I have laid down this rule in dealing with those who were brought before me for being Christians. I asked whether they were Christians; if they confessed, I asked them a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; if they persevered, I ordered them to be executed.... They assured me that their only crime or error was this, that they were wont to come together on a certain day before it was light, and to sing in turn, among themselves, a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and to bind themselves by an oath--not to do anything that was wicked, that they would commit no theft, robbery, or adultery, nor break their word, nor deny that anything had been entrusted to them when called upon to restore it.... I therefore deemed it the more necessary to extract the truth by torture from two slave women whom they call deaconesses. But I found it was nothing but a bad and excessive superstition.... the sacred rites which had been allowed to lapse (by them--Ed.) are being performed again, and flesh of sacrificed victims is on sale everywhere, though up till recently scarcely anyone could be found to buy it." (And his four conclusions) 1. It proves nothing in regard to the existence of Jesus Christ, but only affirms the existence of Christians. 2. If the passage is referring to Christians, then it is also saying Christians sold the flesh of their sacrificial victims. 3. Roman laws accorded religious liberty to all. Before Constantine there was not a single law opposed to freedom of thought. 4. Pliny is universally conceded to have been one of the most humane of men. That Pliny would have tortured two women is highly unlikely. The person and character of women in Pagan Rome were held in high esteem.

"I have laid down this rule in dealing with those who were brought before me for being Christians. I asked whether they were Christians; if they confessed, I asked them a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; if they persevered, I ordered them to be executed.... They assured me that their only crime or error was this, that they were wont to come together on a certain day before it was light, and to sing in turn, among themselves, a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and to bind themselves by an oath -- not to do anything that was wicked, that they would commit no theft, robbery, or adultery, nor break their word, nor deny that anything had been entrusted to them when called upon to restore it.... I therefore deemed it the more necessary to enquire of two servant maids, who were said to be attendants, what was the real truth, and to apply the torture. But I found it was nothing but a bad and excessive superstition." (inlcuded here are only those of the twelve points made by Remsberg that match Rook's Points) 1. The Roman laws accorded religious liberty to all, and the Roman government tolerated and protected every religious belief. Renan says: "Among the Roman laws, anterior to Constantine, there was not a single ordinance directed against freedom of thought; in the history of the Pagan emperors not a single persecution on account of mere doctrines or creeds" (The Apostles). Gibbon says: "The religious tenets of the Galileans, or Christians, were never made a subject of punishment, or even of inquiry" (Rome, Vol. II, p. 215). 3. Pliny, the reputed author of the letter, is universally conceded to have been one of the most humane and philanthropic of men. 8. "I therefore deemed it more necessary to inquire of two servant maids, who were said to be attendants, what was the real truth, and to apply the torture." Never have the person and character of woman been held more sacred than they were in Pagan Rome. That one of the noblest of Romans should have put to torture young women guiltless of crime is incredible.

Noteworthy: Rook's Points 1 and 2 are not mentioned by Remsberg at all. They are Rook's own conclusions added as Numbers 1 and 2, and 3 and 4 are actually from Remberg's "Christ Myth."

Or are they?

If you go to http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/bepart22.html, there you will find an exact, word-for-word rendition of what Rook has actually posted. Verbatim. Including the four conclusions, exactly as Rook presented, and even including the "B.E. Editor's note" embedded in the text. It appears that the folks who edit the "Biblical Errancy" newsletter (Issue #32, Aug 1985) actually wrote what Rook provided (without crediting the author, or even suggesting that it was plageurized), and added their own conclusion's to Remberg's book passage, which Rook then found and reproduced in it's entirety. Perhaps not realizing that he was plageurizing work that had itself already been plageurized and modified.

So what you have is Rook plageurizing already plageurized work. Neither of them giving credit.

As for the conclusions drawn by Remsberg, added to by the Biblical Errancy editors, further "borrowed" by Rook which he took as his own;

It proves nothing in regard to the existence of Jesus Christ, but only affirms the existence of Christians.

How many references to "Christians" can you overlook before you consider that there might be a "Christ" lurking about somewhere? This document he is quoting is very largely a collection of people talking about Jesus Christ. How many people can you dismiss as being simply mistaken? It kinda wears thin after the hundredth person comes along and talks about him too.

Granted, a hundred people talking about man is not proof the man exists, but it's a pretty strong indication. I talk a LOT about "Grover Leon Havens, Hm.D." So do a lot of other people.

If the passage is referring to Christians, then it is also
saying Christians sold the flesh of their sacrificial victims.

The "victims" here, are sacrificial animals. It was common (erroneous) practice to continue sacrificing animals in observance of Jewish Law in spite of the fact that Christ put an end to that. Selling the meat afterwards was common practice, and Paul specifically addresses this specific practice in one of his letters in the Bible.

Roman laws accorded religious liberty to all. Before
Constantine there was not a single law opposed to freedom
of thought.

This is just laughable. How many people, again, was it that were being eaten by lions in the coliseum? WHO destroyed the Jewish Temple in 70 A.D.? How far did the Roman Empire spread, and how many people did they kill and conquer in their quest? Why did Jewish people hate the Roman's so much? WHO was it that tore down their synagogues and forbid them to practice their religion (along with however other many religions?)

To claim that the Romans were "tolerant" is just plain ignorant!

Pliny is universally conceded to have been one of the
most humane of men. That Pliny would have tortured two
women is highly unlikely. The person and character of
women in Pagan Rome were held in high esteem.

[I'm not sure what he hopes to accomplish by attacking the credibility of his own source, here, but...]

Oh, really? Maybe ROMAN women. Slave women were fed to the lions right along with their slave husbands and slave children - of all religions, by those "tolerant Romans."




That's what you are up against in this crowd.

And try these one for size: (also plageurized from the Biblical Errancy Newsletter which itself is also plageurizing Remsberg).

The letter implies Bithynia had a large Christian
population which is improbable at that early date., and ,

The passage implies Trajan was not acquainted with
Christian beliefs and customs even though Christians were
quite prominent in his capital., and,

For Christians to be found in so remote a province as
Bithynia before acquiring notoriety in Rome is unlikely.


Next time you are chatting up an RSS "Agent", try peppering your dialogue with words like "implies" and "unlikely" and "probably" and see how tolerant they are of YOU using those words.

They are perfectly valid "proof" for them, but not for you. How lame is that?


How about another (really good) example:

There's some doubt cast on the existence of James as an Apostle of Jesus Christ, and as the Brother of Jesus Christ, and upon the details of his death:

James ... NEVER acknowledged Jesus as his "brother". Jesus NEVER acknowledged James as his "brother".

I've never told anyone in my writings that Jon is my brother. None of my friends have ever written in their blogs that Jon is my brother. Therefore, Jon is not my brother, and in fact does not even exist.

Wazzat? Come again?

Jon, please feel free to jump right in, here ;-)


Then there's a long dialogue about three letters about James' death. I'll summarize this one for you - it's long.

One witness says he was thrown off a roof.

Another says he was thrown off a roof then stoned.

Another witness says he was thrown off a roof then stoned, and beaten with a club.

The "logic" here (believe it or not) is that because the three witnesses did not write down the same details, NONE of their statements are true, NONE of the events actually occured, everybody is lying, and furthermore, James does not exist.

Wow. I'm impressed.


A Kind of Monty Python examination of the facts:

"That one burned down, fell over then sank into the swamp... but the fourth one... "

Ultimately, it boils down to this:

Tom, Dick and Harry are discussing Frank. Tom says Frank has brown hair. Dick says Frank has green eyes. Harry says Frank is tall. Therefore they are all lying and Frank doesn't exist.

As an intersting side note: one of the letters being discussed is claimed to be the most reliable. It says:

...many even of the rulers believed, there was a commotion among the Jews and Scribes and Pharisees, who said that there was danger that the whole people would be looking for Jesus as the Christ.

Why would that many people, on both sides, be looking for a guy named "Jesus" if the man did not exist? How many people, both friend and enemy, can be trying to find a man that doesn't exist?


Here's the low-down on this story so you can finally put this one to bed, once and for all.

All of the material above (regarding James) comes to us primarily from the account of this event given to us by John Foxe, in the mid 1500's, in his book "Foxe's Book of Martyrs." Here's the passage from which all the above nonsense is culled. The "Scribes and Pharisees" think that they can turn James to their side by flattering him. So they appeal to him to speak to the people (who are rather in a tizzy about their hero, Jesus, being crucified by the Romans):

And so, the scribes and phasisees set James up on the top of the battlements of the temple and cried to him "James, thou just man, whom we all ought to obey... this people is going astray after Jesus who was crucified.

James replied, "Why do you ask me about Jesus? He sits on the right hand of God and shall come again in the clouds of heaven".

At this, many were persuaded and glorified God upon the witness of James.

Then the scribes and Pharisees said amongst themselves, 'We have done this wrong. Instead of villifiying Jesus, we've set up a testimony of him. Let us go up and throw him (James) off the top of the temple so that others may be afraid and deny the faith." So, they cried out, "This man, too, is deceived!" And they went up and threw him down off the roof. But he (James) was not killed by the fall. Instead, he turned over on his knees and prayed to God saying "Forgive them, God, for they know not what they do." And the people said amongst themselves, "Let us stone him to death instead." So they took up stones to stone him. And while they were throwing rocks at him, a priest said the them, "Stop what you are doing. Don't you know that this man is praying for you?" One of the people who stood by - a fuller (a sword or tool-maker), took a tool and struck the man on his head, killing him...

All this, and a bit more of the same, seems to pretty much exhaust Shortstop's repertoire. So I do not forsee much point in bothering with him anymore. (Though I'm sure I will).

It is for this reason that I really have no interest in debating people like this. They present one faulty argument (an argument that has been answered a hundred times, over perhaps hundreds of years - As they say "They Truth is Out There"; they just don't want to look for it). Their faulty argument is answered. So they present another one equally as deficient as the previous one, but presented for no other reason than it is different from the first. Then they demand that you debunk THAT one. Then the next, then the next, then the next, ad infinitum. The will exhaust the entire allotted time basically reitterating the same point over and over and over again and getting nowhere.

There are people who do nothing more than amass ammunition. They don't know how to use it, they don't even know if it works in their particular "gun"... but they've figured out how to pull the trigger. And that's very entertaining to them.

Like I've said, just a little thought on the matter would quickly reveal that most of these arguments are just plain silly. Everyone is lying if everyone doesn't remember the same details. Investigate a bank robbery some time. It turns out all bank employees and customers are pathogenic liars and there are no such things as bank robbers - they are all figments of our imagination. Who knew?

These people argue for the mere sake of arguing.

That makes them fools, and I've little time to waste on them.
















More later... .. it's too late right now (4am) and I have to work tomorrow (today).






google this exact phrase:

"I have laid down this rule in dealing with those who were brought before me"

There are six results, two of which are remsberg from "The Christ Myth" which render the same translation, and also which make the same points rook makes.