William Ramsey, Lawyering Christianity |497|

.. it couldn’t be possible that God (aka infinite-love-consciousness)...
1. you could kinda stick just about anything after that's statement. I mean, sure if we're talking about "god" then anything is possible.
2. seems to me like it's not about whether it's possible, it's about whether there's enough there to build this huge edifice that is christianity. from a historical standpoint is there more there than hundreds of other religions that died out.
 
1. you could kinda stick just about anything after that's statement. I mean, sure if we're talking about "god" then anything is possible.
2. seems to me like it's not about whether it's possible, it's about whether there's enough there to build this huge edifice that is christianity. from a historical standpoint is there more there than hundreds of other religions that died out.

I don't intend to be arguing on behalf of the huge edifice that is Christianity.

If we say (very generously) that 1/2 of all religions are divinely influenced at some point in their origin. It seems inevitable that every single one gets Gloria Steinem'ed (usually quickly) and filled in with propaganda. I think this is a human inevitability and I account for it when picking the berries of truth out from the thorns of religion.

"Human had divine experience but went on to be a bad human." to me is not proof to falsify divine experience.

Not to mention, we've seen in our lifetimes that if we give up on Religion, Science will gladly fill the vacuum with more religion and at equal scale.
 
It seems inevitable that every single one gets Gloria Steinem'ed (usually quickly) and filled in with propaganda. I think this is a human inevitability and I account for it when picking the berries of truth out from the thorns of religion.

agreed. and I think I'm sometimes guilty of overstating the spiritual disintermediation stuff. I mean, one of the"berries" might be "where two or three gather together in My name, there am I with them."
 
It has occurred to me that what some religions (maybe nearly all in fact) do is mistake the map for the terrain. What I mean is, why should spirituality be dependent on any historical events, historical figures or even mythological ones? For the most part if not the whole part these are just stories intended to point to something other than the literal narrative, figure, icon or symbol.

What does it do? Seems a better question to ask than what is it about or what happened? One is the terrain and one is simply a map, a picture and not the actual place.

For some religions all you could answer for the question Is that perhaps that it earns a place in heaven? Sometimes with virgins and lots of other cool stuff or maybe you just go to sleep and get resurrected dawn of the dead style.

All well and good but what about about life? Most religions offer to forge a better person? That's great! Well being? also great. Companionship? Cool. Comfort? Ok, still cool. So some good stuff.

Except that is not always the case unfortunately. Maybe a religious serial killer is still a serial killer and maybe a kind soul was already a kind soul. Is it effective at what it does? I don't know. Not much I think.

Still, Do you really need religion to learn compassion, the golden rule or blessed all the big noses?

What can it do? How does it do it? These questions seem more relevant than did some guy exist? Or whether some event was historically accurate. Maybe there is some history to it, but who gives a shit? There is only the now, so what good can it do you?

We are story tellers though, always have been. Our stories sometimes have implicit meaning, sometimes double meanings, sometimes hidden meanings. Along with some other stuff that is mostly things you don't want to have as stories, stuff that may end up circulated on Facebook, Twitter or even news headlines for that matter.

Taking it literally and depending on it for validity seems more like Idol worship to me, isn't there a thing about that?
So not surprising if it leaves you empty. The joke is that everything that religion is supposed to help you find is closer to you than anything else ever could be. That is why it is so hard to find.

But hey! Cheer up religion because modern physics also mistakes the map for the terrain, except in that case it is fields, virtual particles, wave functions, magnetic lines and any other mathematical abstraction that is mistaken for being the reality it describes. So they do have that in common.
 
Last edited:
It has occurred to me that what some religions (maybe nearly all in fact) do is mistake the map for the terrain. What I mean is, why should spirituality be dependent on any historical events, historical figures or even mythological ones? For the most part if not the whole part these are just stories intended to point to something other than the literal narrative, figure, icon or symbol.

What does it do? Seems a better question to ask than what is it about or what happened? One is the terrain and one is simply a map, a picture and not the actual place.

For some religions all you could answer for the question Is that perhaps that it earns a place in heaven? Sometimes with virgins and lots of other cool stuff or maybe you just go to sleep and get resurrected dawn of the dead style.

All well and good but what about about life? Most religions offer to forge a better person? That's great! Well being? also great. Companionship? Cool. Comfort? Ok, still cool. So some good stuff.

Except that is not always the case unfortunately. Maybe a religious serial killer is still a serial killer and maybe a kind, gentle loving soul was already a kind, gentle loving soul. Is it effective at what it does? I don't know. Not much I think.

Still, Do you really need religion to learn compassion, the golden rule or blessed all the big noses?

What can it do? How does it do it? These questions seem more relevant than did some guy exist? Or whether some event was historical accurate. Maybe there is some history to it, but who gives a shit? There is only the now, so what good can it do you?

We are story tellers though, always have been. Our stories sometimes have implicit meaning, sometimes double meanings, sometimes hidden meanings. Along with some other stuff that is mostly things you don't want to have as stories, stuff that may end up circulated on Facebook, Twitter or even news headlines for that matter.

Taking it literally and depending on it for validity seems more like Idol worship to me, isn't there a thing about that?
So not surprising if it leaves you empty. The joke is that everything that religion is supposed to help you find is closer to you than anything else ever could be. That is why it is so hard to find.

But hey! Cheer up religion because modern physics also mistakes the map for the terrain, except in that case it is fields, virtual particles, wave functions, magnetic lines and any other mathematical abstraction that is mistaken for being the reality it describes. So they do have that in common.
 
It has occurred to me that what some religions (maybe nearly all in fact) do is mistake the map for the terrain. What I mean is, why should spirituality be dependent on any historical events, historical figures or even mythological ones?
great point. it should be so obvious, but it obviously isn't it :) it's like really bad conditioning.

But hey! Cheer up religion because modern physics also mistakes the map for the terrain, except in that case it is fields, virtual particles, wave functions, magnetic lines and any other mathematical abstraction that is mistaken for being the reality it describes. So they do have that in common.
haha... maybe because it's just a different flavor of the same psyop
 
Maybe i'm talking rubbish as have only just thought about it. People often say that as Christians they don't believe in reincarnation because it says it in the bible or something. Have often thought that during the time when i would read bible quite a bit that i didn't really remember anything to that effect. A lot of things that i was wrong about turned out to be in the bible as a lot of things at times that i didn't understand in the writings, i later on feel i saw what it meant. Also i cant think what it is but i know there are at least a couple points that am baffled about and probably dont think about enough. Am talking about the four gospels mainly. I just thought though that Jesus is suppossed to have got resurrected and was walking around 'in the flesh' if am remembering correctly.

Also when he cast out what is described as 'demons' 'they' are cast into a herd of pigs (organic animal beings).
Imo, on this planet at least, outside of organic beings (humans, animals, trees and plants) and their consciousness (truth-good and eternal, temporaral corrupted truth to different extents and extremes - bad, evil etc) there are no demons or any other kind of beings imo, but there are evil people.
Also animals do things like eating each others cubs etc for pissing rights or some shit, as kind of what animals do. On the human level that is obviously far far off anything and fucking evil and a cause to hunt it down unequivocally. Maybe that is why the 'devil' (another imo non-existent entity as as with 'demons') is referred to in the bible as the 'beast'. As in beast like actions in people being devil.


Maybe reicarnation is the wrong kind of word, 'taking the next step in one's life in the flesh upon death' maybe more accurate wording.
Obviously imo according to ones actions with God/natural law/universal law or whatever we want to call truth
Also i dont think evil people reincarnate or walk in the flesh, tree bark or anything back on this planet (without forgetting it is while they are here that they need dealing with for obvious very real safety reasons), at least not for a long anguishing time. Planet hells and the midway planet hells (which exist, if necessary, eternally imo), nothing like Earth.


goodnight
 
Last edited:
Listen from 07:35 to 13:40. (link starts at 7:30)
Ever since I found Breshears a few months back, his teaching has been continuously lining up with numerous intuitions of mine going back all the way to when I was 8,10,12 y/o.
In this short response (during a Q&A in the clip below) he hits the nail on the head for what I've been prying on about with "Christ Consciousness" and it folds over like a wormhole onto the New Testaments’ shaky foundation. Enjoy.

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Kim
Important phrase: "belief system."
Disagree. Maybe would be an important phrase to point out if this were a Science-only Forum.
“Skeptiko - Science & Spiritually” to me should suggest that you don’t need to point it out everytime you notice at topic is belief related. Especially when discussing 1000’s y/o spiritual traditions and given that the host in the video said nothing about having special new proof so something like that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kim
Listen from 07:35 to 13:40. (link starts at 7:30)
Ever since I found Breshears a few months back, his teaching has been continuously lining up with numerous intuitions of mine going back all the way to when I was 8,10,12 y/o.
In this short response (during a Q&A in the clip below) he hits the nail on the head for what I've been prying on about with "Christ Consciousness" and it folds over like a wormhole onto the New Testaments’ shaky foundation. Enjoy.

Thanx for posting that. It's wonderful that many ppl are catching on to the Caesar's Messiah idea. The wretched state of organized christian religion, among others, strikes at the heart of Alex's concern for accepting evil in the world today & long into the past.
 
In this excellent interview, we learn that Alex was at one time a Greek Orthodox Christian and that William Ramsey identifies as a Christian, but one neither Protestant nor Catholic. Good for him. If Christianity is your thing, biblical and non-denominational is where you want to be.

Some constructive criticism...by no means am I saying here that Christianity is gospel truth, but in attempting to discredit the validity of the Christian faith, our beloved host once again takes to the use of employing a polemical propping up of easy targets so as to make Christian belief seem outright ridiculous and dismissible.

As one who is non-Christian myself, I still like to defend Christianity from what I perceive to be lame and invalid criticisms against it.

Alex brings up Constantine, as if this Christian pretender was somehow the founder of the Church of Christ. This, a red herring if there ever was one. With regard to this morally bankrupt emperor and his professed conversion, there's no argument here.

This brings to mind a JW family I knew, whose parents, in wanting to prove to their lapsing children that theirs was the 'true' Christian religion, decided one morning to attend a Catholic service, for the sole purpose of letting their children see for themselves just how blatantly false Catholicism is (at least to them), with its unbiblical idol worship, pomp and ceremony, veneration of Mary, unchristian wealth, and so on. This JW couple couldn't have picked a more easy target to 'prove' their argument, in my opinion.

Rather, as Ramsey alludes to, one must go back to the early Church Fathers -- the first- and second-century Christian writers in particular, in order to see what true Christianity was like prior to the 'Whore of Babylon' appearing on the world stage in the form of ecclesiastical Romanism.

For an excellent historical overview of the history of the church, from its beginning and down through the centuries, I recommend listening to the various in-depth discourses, available online, from the late Christian minister, David Pawson. Here's a link to one of his existing sites...
David Pawson - Church History

How Alex does love his Flavius Josephus. Question: Where to go for early Christian history -- an exceptional online lecture series like those of Pawson's, as presented from a scholarly believer who had devoted practically his entire adult life to the study of the Bible and the origins of his faith, or a Jesuit-schooled businessman who hit it big during the dot-com boom and whose 'higher criticism'-based basic premise has been cogently refuted in the span of just a few minutes by one Chris White?

Consider the writings of Iranaeus, who wrote an entire tome on heresies, in which were exposed and denounced the heretical teachings and writings of the Gnostics, texts of which, some were conveniently discovered at Nag Hammadi, a find which some Bible critics quickly latched onto and have used to somehow try and discredit apostolic Christianity.

I'm not sure if Alex is a proponent of (pseudo-scientific) evolutionary theory, but in the context of discussing ancient history here, in passing he does make the comment, using the phrase "50,000 years" in reference to the past. Yet where's the conclusive scientific evidence for the historical record dating back this far? No doubt Alex's own historical views are ones somewhat based on unprovable faith, as well.

Yet, do not NDEs point to the idea of Christian salvific exclusivity being wrong? Playing Devil's Advocate here: Would it not be in the best interests of the Great Deceiver -- as one whom the Bible speaks of as being able to transform himself into an angel of light -- to teach, via these supposed afterlife accounts, that all are saved, there is no judgment of the wicked, that it's all light and love, cotton candy and unicorns?

Interestingly, prior to modern-day NDE research, even before much of our medical technology, there existed a phenomenon referred to as 'deathbed visions' or 'confessions.' These were the accounts of often bedridden men and women who being at death's door and with one foot in the grave would experience 'sneak peeks' if you will of what lie beyond the threshold. In an 1898 book by Solomon Shaw, titled Dying Testimonies of Saved and Unsaved, a number of these fascinating accounts were compiled into one highly insightful and compelling read, with not one among these reports pointing to secular medicine's near-death findings of universalism.
 
Last edited:
Alex brings up Constantine, as if this Christian pretender was somehow the founder of the Church of Christ.

... ok, that might be your opinion, but Constantine has been acknowledged as the founder of the Christian church throughout history. remember the crosses on the shield... Council of Nicea... all those churches he built. that's what made him " Saint Constantine"



For an excellent historical overview of the history of the church, from its beginning and down through the centuries, I recommend listening to the various in-depth discourses, available online, from the late Christian minister, David Pawson. Here's a link to one of his existing sites...
David Pawson - Church History

How Alex does love his Flavius Josephus. Question: Where to go for early Christian history -- an exceptional online lecture series like those of Pawson's, as presented from a scholarly believer who had devoted practically his entire adult life to the study of the Bible and the origins of his faith, or a Jesuit-schooled businessman who hit it big during the dot-com boom and whose 'higher criticism'-based basic premise has been cogently refuted in the span of just a few minutes by one Chris White?

ok, but that guy is dead.

You've obviously put a lot into this post. I appreciate the links and references.

how would you feel about taking it one step further and helping me produce another show on this topic. you can start by identifying guests who you think would support/reinforce your points (e.g. Constantine, Josepphus, "early church fathers"). I'm sure you can find some good ones but you might want to run them past me before you send them an invite. then, we will invite them on the show and you can help arrange the topic / questions.

are you in?

As you know, I've covered this topic extensively:
Matt Whitman, On the Gist of Josephus |501| - Skeptiko
Joseph Atwill, Why the Bible is Pro-Roman |464| - Skeptiko
Dr. Adrian Goldsworthy, The Romans, and the ... - Skeptiko
Dr. David Skrbina, Unabomber, Panpsychism and Jesus |510
... and others

we're also due for another round with William Ramsey, but I'm not sure he's the right guy to dive into Christian apologetics.
 
... ok, that might be your opinion, but Constantine has been acknowledged as the founder of the Christian church throughout history. remember the crosses on the shield... Council of Nicea... all those churches he built. that's what made him " Saint Constantine"





ok, but that guy is dead.

You've obviously put a lot into this post. I appreciate the links and references.

how would you feel about taking it one step further and helping me produce another show on this topic. you can start by identifying guests who you think would support/reinforce your points (e.g. Constantine, Josepphus, "early church fathers"). I'm sure you can find some good ones but you might want to run them past me before you send them an invite. then, we will invite them on the show and you can help arrange the topic / questions.

are you in?

As you know, I've covered this topic extensively:
Matt Whitman, On the Gist of Josephus |501| - Skeptiko
Joseph Atwill, Why the Bible is Pro-Roman |464| - Skeptiko
Dr. Adrian Goldsworthy, The Romans, and the ... - Skeptiko
Dr. David Skrbina, Unabomber, Panpsychism and Jesus |510
... and others

we're also due for another round with William Ramsey, but I'm not sure he's the right guy to dive into Christian apologetics.


In my above post I mentioned at least one name you might consider having on to debate this: Chris White. You had him on before to discuss 'ancient aliens,' although I'm not sure if you're up to another round with him or if you are familiar with his other work debunking Atwill's 'Caesar' theory. Off the top of my head, there's Lee Strobel, whose book I referred to in another thread, with author/lecturer/researcher Joel Richardson being one of my favorite intellectual Christian apologists of our time (although I'm not sure how precisely mindful he is of the whole 'Josephus' argument, despite his obvious intensive knowledge of Church history). There are no doubt countless others equally qualified to defend historical Christ/Church history, ones far less biased and more reliable than Atwill is on his take of things, that one could recommend to have on your show, to provide at least some counterpoint to the hitherto one-sidedness that is, so I do think your suggestion is a good and fair-minded one. I'll try and get back to you on this with any other names and recommend some of these to you.
 
I would have been a little more socratic about it myself, but Alex's frontal assault did the job. Not that I don't feel for Ramsey; I've been there myself. Alex was actually a little too easy on him in some ways. For example, what is "Bible-based Christianity?" On one hand, what Protestant Christian would claim not to be "Bible based?" And if William is proudly wearing the label of Christian, who is giving him the right to basically excommunicate every single other person who also claimed that label over the last two millennia? Second, the whole idea of the Bible being the basis of Christianity is severely flawed. Where did the Bible come from? Even if you aren't accepting the Roman Josephus thing, and I remain agnostic on that, the Christian Church decided what the Bible was and what made the cut. This is illustrated beautifully by the fact that the canon is not the same across all denominations of Christianity. So if WR is claiming to be "biblically based," which Bible? Is it the one decided on by the Western (Catholic, by the way) Church? Lucky for him he just happened to be born in the West so he had the right scriptures! I kept waiting for him to come out with "It's not a religion, it's a relationship!"

For the most part, most traditional Bibles (those recognized by orthodox theologians and published by conscientious Christians), basically read the same, save for a few isolated passages which, yes, do read differently, however insignificantly so and, crucially, absent any intent to alter fundamental Christian teaching.

(Documentary filmmaker Chris Pinto has done some great work on this subject of Bible translation.)

It is commonly known that The Great Bible (of 1539) and the Geneva Bible (of 1557) are considered by many to have been two of the first reliable translations in the English language, thanks to men like John Wycliffe and William Tyndale, who had devoted and risked their lives working to make the Bible available in the everyday language of their day (Middle English). Tyndale was put to death in 1536 for doing this, for making the Bible accessible to commoners, an action which had so irked the controlling papacy/priesthood of his time.

Obviously, the Bible, per se, isn't really -- or rather, is not the sole or primary -- basis of Christianity, just as many of the first-century Christians did not have the collected New Testament scriptures at their disposal, but -- most importantly -- had believed whole-heartedly in the divinity/human nature of Christ and in the Resurrection (these tenets, the actual foundation, or crux of the faith).

If, then, one is to accept that the original Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic manuscripts were divinely inspired as the Bible says of the (orthodox) canon, I suppose, then, for a Christian, so long as he reads from a Bible purporting to be a 'word-for-word' translation, he can be sure that what he is reading is as close to the 'Word of God' as thought possible.

It seems to all come down to that f-word again: faith. Just as there exists many an occultist who either practice or who at least accept the phenomenon known as 'automatic writing,' so too with those who firmly believe that God (no, not the Christian Church) would have had the means to see to it that what we have come to know as the Bible is of Holy Spirit influence.

As noted, this does not mean that all Bible translations read the same, and especially in modern times does one find those that apply a more liberal 'thought-for-thought' approach to transcription. Which is why for many a studious Christian, careful regard when choosing a Bible is of utmost importance.

The authorized KJV seems to be the translation of choice for many a biblical Christian. Certainly one question to consider when choosing a Bible would be: Were the translators God-fearing men, meticulous as scribes and honest-hearted copyists, or largely made up of non-believers?

It is known that at least one translation in recent decades had outright binatarians on their committee, and another a number of atheists, with the new ecumenical Bibles being printed in our postmodern age so loosely translated (watered down from the original languages) that no serious student of the Old and New Testament texts takes them seriously.
 
Last edited:
In my above post I mentioned at least one name you might consider having on to debate this: Chris White. You had him on before to discuss 'ancient aliens,' although I'm not sure if you're up to another round with him or if you are familiar with his other work debunking Atwill's 'Caesar' theory. Off the top of my head, there's Lee Strobel, whose book I referred to in another thread, with author/lecturer/researcher Joel Richardson being one of my favorite intellectual Christian apologists of our time (although I'm not sure how precisely mindful he is of the whole 'Josephus' argument, despite his obvious intensive knowledge of Church history). There are no doubt countless others equally qualified to defend historical Christ/Church history, ones far less biased and more reliable than Atwill is on his take of things, that one could recommend to have on your show, to provide at least some counterpoint to the hitherto one-sidedness that is, so I do think your suggestion is a good and fair-minded one. I'll try and get back to you on this with any other names and recommend some of these to you.

Chris White would be fine... but remember he was the "nails in Noah's Ark guy." but again, he's fine if that's the guy you want, but I really want you to pick who you think would be best at supporting yr position.

also, I'd really like it if you could make the initial contact. once you find someone who's interested in the kind of dialogue we're talking about I'll be happy to work out the scheduling and arrange the show.
 
Thank-you, Alex, for considering these guest suggestions and for allowing me the go-ahead to reach out to them. This is legwork that is no problem for me at all, thanks to the internet. Hoping to receive (but really not expecting) some interested responses. There simply needs to be a Christian apologist come on to defend their faith in the face of this overhyped 'controversy.' The only question is, is there anyone qualified among them who's up to the challenge? Up till now, Atwill has been like a smug shadow-boxer believing himself an undefeated champion. We shall have to wait and see.
 
Back
Top