THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

Joshua is a neologism, Jesus is transliterated from "Iesous" in Greek. That's why the undeclined stem, the first three letters, Ihs - YES - is printed on altars.

"Ben-Joseph" is also a neologism, it did not exist in Greek, but it is just the sort of thing that blasphemous Judeos would think up.

Right now, the hylic are bored. Poor things.

I was blessed with fine eye-sight. It was 20/8 the last time it was checked. When I point to a mountaintop 3,000 feet up and miles away and comment how neat a tree looks, those with poor sight don't believe me.

So boring must life be to the near-sighted.

Peter, I assume by your comment the "hylic" is me (and anyone else in my corner) and you are the one with the ONLY TRUE UNDERSTANDING OF GOD THAT CAN SAVE MANKIND? Oh lofty one, let me remind you that your loving god, while providing you with magnificient eyesight also damned (if one is to believe the Jewish-Christian fable) untild millions based on the sins of only two people. This is akin to being prosecuted for a crime your great grandfather committed. I could also point out that the serpent in the garden told Adam and Eve the truth (Your eyes shall be opened and you will not die today) while Jehovah told them whem they would die that day. And, as that great agnostic sage, Mark Twain Once said, and I'm paraphrasing, "Now if Jesus were MORTAL and had died, THAT would have been a real sacrifice!" Of course this won't sway you, I'm certain, since you unwavering Christer types like to believe you're the only ones with TRUE KNOWLEDGE, so let me put it in terms even you could understand:

If there was no promise of heaven, no reward, no carrot system in place, if you knew that no matter how good you lived your life and no matter how many slobbering prayers you offered up to your god, ifif you knew there was no promised land after death, you would not worship your god any more than I do.

"IHS" stands for "In Hoc Signo," which is Latin for "In this sign." This commmemorates Constantine's dream of the Cross being the emblem of his victorious army before the Battle for the Milvian Bridge, which he won. In gratitude, Constantine legalized Christianity. (Theodosius, one of his successors, made Christianity the only legal religion in the Roman Empire.)

I've never taken Greek, but I do know it has vowels.

Until the Reformation, Christianity was extremely open to people worshipping the old gods and goddesses and practicing most of the old ways -- as long as they incorporated these into Christianity. This got official endorsement, at least in the form of legend, in St. Gregory's instructions to the missionaries he sent from Rome to Britain to keep the Britons' existing holidays, but to make them Christian.

Ah! so you LIED to Bob.

You were never bored at all. You're ANGRY. Don't go over to the Dark Side, Mike!

*"You are the one with the ONLY TRUE UNDERSTANDING OF GOD THAT CAN SAVE MANKIND?"

I see, you defend arrogance by imputing into others. Veddy clever.

Did you want me to be hurt, too? I could scream if you like, but I don't think you could hear me. Sorry.

*"also damned (if one is to believe the Jewish-Christian fable) untild millions based on the sins of only two people."

I see, you are defending misunderstanding by imputing it into others. My, my I had never thought of that one.

You are repeating a late heresy. But you knew that. Or do you?

*"ifif you knew there was no promised land after death"

I see, you are defending your lack of knowledge by imputing it to others. From now on, when someone tells me something I don't know, I'll just call him a liar; it's so much easier.

There is really quite a lot of information about experiences people have had. But I guess if you've never had any, they must be impossible. If Magellan's crew say they circled the globe, well, they're lying. If some old men say they went to the moon, well, they just staged it in an airplane hangar. If -I- can't do those things, nobody can.

So, there.

(I just think Buzz would laugh at me if I told him he didn't walk on the moon.)

Hey, take something like Tchaikovsky's Barcarolle (June), a simple piece. If somebody can only say "it sounds sad," but can't hear its depth, and doesn't care to linger a while to savor the moment, he's missing something. Since he's missing something, I can't explain it to him, and he thinks I'm an idiot because I am moved by what to him are just dumb, almost random, sounds a piano makes.

Ordinary life is full of poetry, hints at what may be. Here's a very tiny hint:

A few years ago, I was driving across the desert with all my worldly possessions. I was not happy. The desert is a barren place, and it was 114 degrees. When I reached the Colorado River, the sky became heavy and gloomy. I crossed the river, and turned on the radio. The music was likewise gloomy, with the somber tones of french horns. The road wandered out away from the desert a little into the dry desert sands again. But the music was beautiful. Then suddenly, I turned a corner and the sun broke through the clouds, brightening the overlook of a green, wooded, swampy river squeezing its way between the lifeless browns of the desert. At the same time, the orchestra became loud and triumphant. I spotted an unbroken rainbow over an abandoned silver mine. I parked the car, turned up the music, and savored the moment.

The music was an instrumental version of Siegfried's heroic Journey into the Rhine (Siegfrieds Rheinfahrt), by Wagner. A few things came together all at the same time which allowed me to focus and feel life as a heroic journey...

The important thing was not so much the rainbow and the the river, but my journey. And at this moment the inner and outer worlds were joined. I expect you know what I mean since I am sure you have had experiences like that.

It's all a matter of context; you had to be there. Many things need their proper context, or a proper approach to be understood. A man named Allen Tate said: "I am trying to discover the place that religion holds with logical, abstract instruments, which of course tend to put religion in some logical system or series, where it vanishes."

*"'Now if Jesus were MORTAL and had died, THAT would have been a real sacrifice!'"

Well, no, that would have been just dumb. Think about it.

Besides, the statement begs the obvious that everyone's soul is immortal -- that's why it's funny. It's also a lesson

*"If there was no promise of heaven, no reward, no carrot system in place, if you knew that no matter how good you lived your life and no matter how many slobbering prayers you offered up to your god, ifif you knew there was no promised land after death, you would not worship your god any more than I do."

Well no. Actually I think that is an idiotic statement. Not least because it wants to prove a negative, but also because Judaism, for example, preaches no afterlife. Connecting God to a delayed reward may work for some and more power to them.

***

Now about "hylic." There is no shame in being a materialist, if that's who you are. There is a role for people like that. Scientists are useful for their research into the material world. There is a lot of beauty in the earth, and I believe that the Divine is everywhere. I don't know why you would impute an insult in hylic, unless you are not yourself a materialist after all.

I notice you do find the topic of religion fascinating.

It's too bad your family mistreated you in religion's name. I can understand how that might make you angry at God. But that's not a reflection of Christ, that's a reflection of hurting people.

But if you want Answers, you will have to look for them, like Thomas and the Gnostics (the non-heretical kind) did. Bob is wrong about doubting Thomas: Jesus obliged his desire for knowing for certain.

I have found a few modest ones, but it doesn't work if I give them to you. It only works if you get your own.

All I can tell you is that you can succeed. You CAN find metaphysical answers if you REALLY want them. But if you don't, you are already in perfect shape, so why get so angry over other people's religion?

Or you can be like my uncle who closes his eyes and stops up his ears to anything evoking Christ. But then, he has bad taste in music.

Best of luck to you, MIKE.

Elizabeth,

I used to think Ihs was short for "In hoc signo," but that would be an incomplete sentence. ("In hoc signo vincet" has the verb.)

'h' is an old script for epsilon. That's why it's always Ihs on altars, and never IHS. 'h' is still used to tell epsilon apart from eta when transliterating into the Roman alphabet (just like 'w' is used to tell omega apart from omicron). See here: http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4139

Elizabeth,

One more thing, since you will probably find this interesting, go to newadvent.org and find the entry "Palaeography." Scroll down to "The New Minuscule (twelfth century to modern times)." In the first line of the chart: alpha beta gamma delta epsilon zeta eta theta..., you will find "h" in place of eta.

You can also look at the entry for "IHS," but its author was unclear why Ihs stands for "Jesus," and makes the mistake that "IHS" is an alternative for Ihs. The author seems to be clueless about Greek minuscules. Oh well.

Peter -

You assume I am angry and you assume my family used religion to mistreat me, which makes you the fool in both cases. I am not angry, I am an unabused unbeliever, but I have noted that w/o any facts to substantiate their claims, other religous fruitcakes have given vent to similar assumptions such as yours.

As far as god damning the human race on the crimes of two of our ancestors, call it heresy if you like, but it is something that would never happen in a court of law. This makes me believe the bible god is a vendictive and blatantly arrogant character and one that cannot practice his own dictum of turning the other cheek and forgiving a man's sins 70 times 70.

I would like for you to prove beyond a shadow ofof a doubt that the bible god is really THE GOD. Prove conclusively that there is life after death. Yes, yes I know there are many people who CLAIM to have had an afterlife experience, but really PROVE it. Tell me why christians can kill other christians in war (such as WW1 & WW2 where both Catholic and Protestant churches blessed christian soldiers on both sides of the globe) and still be in the good graces of god's church on earth, even though it goes against all the teachings of christ. Can you drink poison or be bitten by a poisonous snake and live just as st. paul teaches us that true christians can do? Can you answer these questions without calling me names or playing character assasination, or god forbid, not get off the subject???

As Epicurus once said:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

Mark,

**You said:

*"Perhaps the issue is not that this blog isn't written for the reader, but a case of your ego not being able to handle someone someone saying they are bored to tears at a particular series of ramblings. I'm sorry to have been the bearer of bad news, but to me religous prattle is the verbal equivelent of nytol. To someone else it is and amphetamine. That's just the way it is."

**Either it is untrue that religious conversation bores you, or all your lengthy religious conversation is insincere.

**You made a very big point about that, so which is it?

***

*You assume I am angry and you assume my family used religion to mistreat me, which makes you the fool in both cases. I am not angry, I am an unabused unbeliever, but I have noted that w/o any facts to substantiate their claims, other religous fruitcakes have given vent to similar assumptions such as yours.

**"Assumption?" Here are your words:

*"they scurried about and through the various protestant denominations like fleas to a dog kennal. And *mean spirited? God yes!*... But you're right they won't budge one inch if you offer an argument that counters their beliefs and *they will most likely call you bad names in the process*."

**You said that! It doesn't sound like good treatment to me. What's the big deal?

**And, you are obviously FASCINATED, not bored with religion.

**Why else would you spend so much time writing about it and calling others names such as "you the fool" and "religious fruitcake." Dismissing that as anger was a way out for you, but perhaps you were rude by intent?

*As far as god damning the human race on the crimes of two of our ancestors, call it heresy if you like, but it is something that would never happen in a court of law.

**Obviously, I rejected that. Now, you are telling me what I have to believe!

**The primitive Church did not believe in your interpretation of original sin, nor does the Eastern Church, nor do many Protestant churches currently. A very quick check around town would have shown you that. Maybe NO ONE believes in your version of original sin.

*This makes me believe the bible god is a vendictive and blatantly arrogant character and one that cannot practice his own dictum of turning the other cheek and forgiving a man's sins 70 times 70.

**You need to read Bob's Blog. You should read Bob's and others comments. This has been addressed. Very thoroughly. Where have you been?

*I would like for you to prove beyond a shadow ofof a doubt that the bible god is really THE GOD. Prove conclusively that there is life after death.

**Are we talking about Christianity, or have you changed the subject?

**As you already know, Christianity is about faith. This means with a reasonable amount of evidence, one can believe in God and go from there. There is a wealth of information online, if you are willing to do your own homework for yourself.

**For a simplistic summary: There is order in the universe, a structure. Ockham's razor makes it easier to believe that there is some Mind that made it, than that the order appeared by accident. Order never appears out of chaos by accident. Further, laws of thermodynamics are clear that such order requires a good deal of energy to come about and to maintain itself, and could not have occurred randomly. Order always suggests intent. Intent requires a mind. Order in the whole universe suggests a Mind greater than the universe.

**Further, there is beauty. But what is beauty? Can you define it? But beauty exists nonetheless. But if we can't define it, how is that we can recognize it? If beauty exists but we cannot define it, then it exists in itself. And this would be non-physical.

**Another example might be in a story, but I already tried one for you.

**If you demand ABSOLUTE proof, then you are not telling the truth about being an agnostic.

**An agnostic just doesn't know for sure, but thinks it could be true.

**You don't think it is even possible. You are an atheist.

**I respect anyone who is honest about who he is and who takes a stand for honest reasons, including atheists. We don't all walk in the same shoes.

*Yes, yes I know there are many people who CLAIM to have had an afterlife experience, but really PROVE it.

**You might as well just ask: 'I know there are people who CLAIM to have experimented with electrons, but really PROVE it.'

**Your question is not about Christianity or any other religion.

**For ME to believe in something, I might have to prove it.

**For YOU to believe in something, it is up to you.

**Here's why. Your question is not strictly religious. It is existential. It is on the nature of existence. For you to change or enlarge your conception of existence, you have to go through it yourself. There is little that someone could do for you. You require subjective proof, but since I am not you, anything I tell you is objective to you.

**I cannot exist for you.

**If YOU want to know, YOU have to repeat the experiment. If you don't even want to know, you are wasting everyone's time. To repeat the "experiments," you can wade through stuff online, or I could possibly direct you to literature (I am no expert), but I don't think you are really interested.

**If objective thought is enough for you, then read up in philosophy. There is a lot to choose from. There is a large number of good books that are quite compelling about the existence of God. There is no excuse for holding a strong opinion and knowing so little about it. If you seek absolute proof, you will have to undergo it personally since as I noted, it is existential.

**The part about "THE GOD" is a bigger issue, and rather pointless since you are sure there is no God.

*Tell me why christians can kill other christians in war (such as WW1 & WW2 where both Catholic and Protestant churches blessed christian soldiers on both sides of the globe) and still be in the good graces of god's church on earth, even though it goes against all the teachings of christ.

**They can't. But you knew that.

**The question is disingenous. To bless someone about to die is about like wishing someone well. It doesn't condone war. This is OBVIOUS.

**For example, if I don't want you riding on a motorcycle on a freeway without a helmet, I might bless you, hoping that you wouldn't hurt yourself. It doesn't mean I condone you riding on the freeway unsafely.

**Didn't Bob just write about this? Are you interested in your own question or is it like nytol to you?

**If they "go against the teachings of Christ," then how are they Christians?

*Can you drink poison or be bitten by a poisonous snake and live just as st. paul teaches us that true christians can do?

**He doesn't. That's your own misstatement. NO ONE but maybe about 10 Pentecostals in the deep woods believes that. Have you EVER met anyone that believes that? You aren't being honest here.

*Can you answer these questions without calling me names or playing character assasination, or god forbid, not get off the subject???

**Do you mean such as "you the fool" or "fruitcakes?" You see, you have already done that. How can you hold anyone to rules which you don't follow?

**Why should you be exempt from normal good behavior?

*As Epicurus once said:

*Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

*Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

*Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?

**All excellent points and worthy of consideration.

**But they are questions on the NATURE of good and evil, or the nature of a "higher power," not on his existence. If you can't figure out where good or where evil come from, then maybe you don't WANT to believe in God, but that is no proof of his nonexistence.

**Or, it may be that you don't understand good, evil, or God adequately, and maybe sermons you heard were addressed to people dumber than you, who didn't ask good questions.

**Or maybe you don't care at all. After all, wasn't it you who said:

*"to me religous prattle is the verbal equivelent of nytol. To someone else it is and amphetamine. That's just the way it is."

**The last sentence:

*"Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

**No one who believes in a god thinks he is neither able nor willing, by definition. But you knew that.

You began by making a very big deal that religious conversation bores you to extremes. Then, you spent a very good deal of time engaging in your own religious conversation, or should I say "prattle?" You claim to be an agnostic, but it is clear you weren't entirely truthful about that either: you can't even venture to capitalize Christ, Christians, Paul or Bible. That's not just bad grammar, it's vindictive. You claim to have spent time in church, but you persistently misrepresent even the most basic of Christian ideas. You insist that no one calls you names, but you do whatever you want. Thus, I doubt the sincerity of your questions.

I ask myself if you really do not believe in God, or if you just hate that you might have to answer for your behavior to a higher power?

Okay my fruitcake friend, here we go:

**If you demand ABSOLUTE proof, then you are not telling the truth about being an agnostic.

**An agnostic just doesn't know for sure, but thinks it could be true.

I never asked for absolute proof on the existance of A god, but proof of THE god, as in christian, muslem, hindu, etc. Since you are (and i am assuming) chrsitian, then give me absolute proof the chrsitian god is THE god.

Your arguemtns over beauty and science and what not is interesting, but if I were a muslim I would say Allah created all this, and if I were hindu I'd say Krishna created all this, and if I were christian I'd say jehovah or yaweh or christ created all this. Just because these things are here does not prove that any one religion's god created it.

---------------

*Yes, yes I know there are many people who CLAIM to have had an afterlife experience, but really PROVE it.

**You might as well just ask: 'I know there are people who CLAIM to have experimented with electrons, but really PROVE it.'

You are comparing apples to oranges. People can prove they experiemnt with electrons. NO one can prove they have had an after life experience or that there is life after death.

-------------

**The primitive Church did not believe in your interpretation of original sin, nor does the Eastern Church, nor do many Protestant churches currently. A very quick check around town would have shown you that. Maybe NO ONE believes in your version of original sin.

Actually the modern Catholic and most mainstream Protestant churches believe in the concept of original sin, meaning man inheerited sin from Adam and Eve and we being punished for this since wer are (as the fable says) descendents of the first two humans, which is the same thing as being punished for their crime against god. My uncle is a Missouri First Baptist minister and we have discussed this nonsensical biblical claim in detail and so far the Baptists around here still believe we inheritted punishment for A&E's sins. My former parish priest also discussed this with me, and surprisingly, the Catholic church still teaches this version of original sin. And of course, the bible claims it true and inspired so if youre a bible believing christian there's no getting around it, unless you want to invent a new spin on it. All scriptures inspired and beneficial, remember?

------------

*Tell me why christians can kill other christians in war (such as WW1 & WW2 where both Catholic and Protestant churches blessed christian soldiers on both sides of the globe) and still be in the good graces of god's church on earth, even though it goes against all the teachings of christ.

**They can't. But you knew that.

Well that's news to me. One of my uncles fought in WW2 and his outfit was blessed by the Lutheran minister before going off to kill the nazi hun. That same Lutheran church in Germany blessed the SS and Wermacht troops in the same manner, as did the Catholics. In fact, prior to Peral Harbor the Catholic diocese in NY ran an ad in the NY Times for a special mass praying that Germany win the war against the godless Communists and for all good NY Catholics to support and/or attend. During the war of northern aggression both Union and Confederate ministers/priests were certain god was on their side and victory was assured. Apparrantly, if christians can't kill other christians and stay in good graces with god's church it must be a new concept taught only in the last few years.

--------------

*This makes me believe the bible god is a vendictive and blatantly arrogant character and one that cannot practice his own dictum of turning the other cheek and forgiving a man's sins 70 times 70.

**You need to read Bob's Blog. You should read Bob's and others comments. This has been addressed. Very thoroughly. Where have you been?

Oh good comeback! I'm thouroughly christianized now!

---------------

*As Epicurus once said:

*Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

*Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

*Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?

**All excellent points and worthy of consideration.

**But they are questions on the NATURE of good and evil, or the nature of a "higher power," not on his existence. If you can't figure out where good or where evil come from, then maybe you don't WANT to believe in God, but that is no proof of his nonexistence.

Actually they are not questions on the nature of good and evil, instead they question the nature of god, Christian or otherwise. Is the christian god omnipotent and omnipresent like mainstream christianity has taught these last 2000 years or isnt he? Are the beautitudes true or just pretty verses in a black book?

-----------------

*"Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

**No one who believes in a god thinks he is neither able nor willing, by definition. But you knew that

NO ONE? Now you're speaking for the entire human race? Get a grip, Peter. Actually, if youre going to try and prove the christian god is all knowing and all caring the question of "why did he invent evil and the devil and let innocent children come down with cancer or AIDS or let someone be raped or molested or let the devil tempt A&E or..." will come up.

-----------------

*Can you drink poison or be bitten by a poisonous snake and live just as st. paul teaches us that true christians can do?

**He doesn't. That's your own misstatement. NO ONE but maybe about 10 Pentecostals in the deep woods believes that. Have you EVER met anyone that believes that? You aren't being honest here.

Ok, how am I being dishonest? I didn't say I believe in this bibical nonsense, I just asked a question. Are you afraid of answering the question directly? Oh, and it doesn't matter if only 10 people believe in this pablum because it's in the bible. In fact jesus himself told something similar to his apostles:

Mark 16. 15-18:

"He (Jesus) said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. 16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."

Now, if you say this doesnt apply to modern day chrsitians then tell me where in the bible the timeline for drinking poison and handling snakes was spelled out in the bible. If this doesnt apply today, what other promises did christ make that dont apply anymore? Christians still believe in expelling demons, and many supposedly speak in tongues. In fact, Some people suggest that this verse only applies to the original Apostles. BUT, that statement finds no support in scripture. If one reads verses 16 and 17, it becomes clear that Jesus was speaking about "them that believe", those that are baptized and saved. It does not say anything about the original Apostles being the only ones who can drink poison and handle snakes.

--------------------

**Do you mean such as "you the fool" or "fruitcakes?" You see, you have already done that. How can you hold anyone to rules which you don't follow?

**Why should you be exempt from normal good behavior?

If you recall, youre the one who threw out the first name-calling. Remember, us "hylics" can call names too.

-------------------

You claim to be an agnostic, but it is clear you weren't entirely truthful about that either: you can't even venture to capitalize Christ, Christians, Paul or Bible. That's not just bad grammar, it's vindictive.

So youre saying if I were TRULY agnostic I'd capitolize all god's names, christian or otherwise? Or is it only the chrisitan gods that need capitalization in your eyes? Sounds kinda fruitcakey to me, but just so you won't think I'm totally vindictive I did capitalize Allah and Krishna for you. What else do I have to do be a TRUE agnostic? Do I need a prayer rug to sit on if I discuss Mohomad? Do I need to burn incense if I discuss Budha? Should I kill a chicken if I discuss Santeria? I'm so glad you can speak for all of us agnostics -- let me guess, did you write the book on being agnostic, or just ghost write it?

Mark,

Thanks for making an effort to reply intelligently. By the way, your formatting is excellent.

I am in the middle of finishing a 300+ page book for an academic audience, and I have deadlines to meet. So please be patient; I can reply more fully later.

That said, I ask you please to re-read my replies carefully.

I shouldn't have to repeat myself later. It's all written above. I chose my words very carefully, but it appears to me that you skimmed and read what you thought I meant to say. (I realize it was long.) As it is, I am talking to the air. Please note the choice of words in the replies. And yes, everything is important, including the little story I wrote in the first reply. Insisting something is "not interesting" is just a way to evade it and limp on.

If you think something irrelevant, stop and think why I may have said it. The reply is long because I spent the effort to address directly every word you wrote. I spent a lot of time going over each and every word you wrote, and meaningful conversation means you ought to do the same. I realize that I may be different from most people in listening to you carefully, but please accept that as my compliments to you. Some of your answers repeat what I just wrote in a way that suggests you didn't read it.

So far, you are arguing to yourself.

I pointed out to you the ungrammatical spelling is an disguised emotionalism that gets in the way of listening.

Also, resorting to name-calling is an open admission of a lack of a reasonable response; it concedes the argument.

It also suggests that emotions are getting in the way of listening.

Last, your comment: "Oh good comeback! I'm thouroughly christianized now!" is problematic. If you think that this conversation is an ego-contest, don't you are wasting your time? Can this explain why you didn't quite read what I wrote? Also, why do you assume someone is trying to Christianize you? You began the discussion, no one knocked on your door and asked you to come join a fun get-together down at the beach.

I will reply later.

Best wishes!

Mark,

I guess I can't reply! We need to focus on Bob.

At least Bob knows now that when you say something bores you, you don't mean it one bit!