DDickey

This hypothesis is nothing new. I'm aware of two books that purport to uncover the same scenario. The books are: Et tu, Judas? Then Fall Jesus! by Gary Courtney and Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus by Joseph Atwill. From my understanding, it

So I had some extra money and splurged today. I bought a few books and now I have a dilemma: I can't figure out which one to read next. Can I get any opinions or suggestions? Right now, I'm currently reading "Julius Caesar" by Philip Freeman. The Books I purchased are: Persian Fire by Tom Holland Alexander the Great by Robin Lane Fox A Short History of Byzantium by John Julius Norwich On Sparta by Plutarch The Spartans by Paul Cartledge The Crusades: A History (second edition) by Jonathan Riley-Smith The Anatomy of Fascism by Robert O. Paxton Right now I'm leaning toward Persian Fire or A Short History of Byzantium. But I trust all of you and would like to know if anyone has read any of the above books. If so, what are your thoughts? Thanks.

Ugh. That sucks. I guess that'll teach me.

I picked up that new Julius Caesar book that came out this week. I could have sworn I saw it on here. I thumbed through it and it seems 'light.' Still, I look forward to reading it. But I have to finish a book before I tackle it.

But she was spending money. She opened nunneries across the world in her name. She opened foster homes and homes for the dying everywhere. The point is that she had raised millions of dollars under the pretense that it would go to those who needed it; to those she was charged with helping. That money didn’t go to them at all. In providing for them, she wanted no money spent. She believed in relying on God’s providence. If they needed something, money wasn’t to be spent because, she hoped, or more truthfully, she hoped God would provide it. Not, it should be noted, for their sakes, but for her sake. Because she wanted to believe and yet she found no reason to believe other than the basic desire to do so. First, there is little distinction between "bad medical assistance" and "no medical assistance." Men and women, young and old, wound up dying under her care, sometimes in cases in which they would have been spared with simple antibiotics or relatively simple medical procedures. Once someone went to her facility, they were not allowed to leave; nor were they allowed visitors; no one with whom they were familiar or intimate were allowed to visit then. Under no circumstances were they allowed to be transported to a hospital. People needlessly died because Mother Teresa was seeking confirmation of God’s existence, of Jesus’ existence. If you don’t find that sentence appalling, please, read it again. And again. And again. Until you realize the breadth of her crimes. The point is: Christian missionaries are condemning condom use on a continent plagued by AIDS. Catholic dogma insists that contraction of AIDS through premarital sex is less sinful than using a condom to protect oneself from contracting AIDS. But allow me to address you question more head on: She, and people like her, condemn condom use in African villages, to villagers whose only exposure to condoms, and the knowledge thereof, comes from Christian missionaries. They are exploiting people’s ignorance in order to disseminate their socio-political ideology. It is appalling; it is immoral. This line of reasoning has the distinction of both appalling and baffling me. Human rights are part of Catholic dogma. The entire theological message behind the anti-abortion movement, for example, is predicated on human rights. But let’s say that you are right. Let’s say that Catholic dogma existed outside of the notion of human rights. This is no excuse. It’s not even an argument. Under that line of reasoning, you could excuse everyone from Osama bin Laden to Hamas to the Nazi party because “human rights were outside of their scope of activity.” Again, I’m baffled. Absolutely baffled.

Sam Harris puts it, I think, much more eloquently. I am an admirer of Dawkins, though. Anyone who hasn't, should read Dawkin's "The Blind Watchmaker" and/or "The Selfish Gene." Fasntastic books. As for everything you say, I agree completely.

Your argument is fallacious. Discrediting the journalist does not discredit the message. Susan Shields’s testimonial is more common than you’re probably aware; one can find a number of denouncements offered by former nuns and secularists on meeting Mother Teresa, and on spending time with her in Calcutta. Doctor Robin Fox, editor of the British medical journal, The Lancet, visited Mother Teresa’s Home for Dying Destitute in Calcutta and was appalled by what he saw. Fox wrote about his experience in the September 1994 issue of the journal. Below is an excerpt. Here are some more tidbits to swallow: Mother Teresa was a fraud and a phony. My problem with her is the same as with any huckster who gains fame for fooling people. But it’s taboo in the West to call a Catholic spade a spade simply because she was Catholic; religion is off the table in terms of criticism, even when the complaints are valid—and that, I think, should stop. We live in an age in which we’re forced to tolerate the intolerant, and we who find nothing sacred, who criticize those seemingly above criticism, are, strangely enough, not tolerated; we’re told to show respect and tolerance or we’re chastised or silenced. This, I think, is something that has to change. Discourse is all we have, and nothing, or no one, is above criticism.

Well, okay; I wasn't going to say anything, but I figured: what the heck. It's a common misconception that Mother Teresa made any contribution to mankind. The majority of money raised did not go to the poor in Calcutta; it went to building nunneries to indoctrinate women into Mother Teresa's unique brand of 'compassion.' She mistreated those she was charged to help; she allowed countless people to die who could easily have been saved through modern medicine. She was a vicious, phony fraud. And we recently found out that for fifty years she didn't believe in God or Jesus; she tried to, she wanted to, but she couldn't feel their presence. This serves to illustrate her motives: she did what she did for two reasons. One, to fight off her demons, and, Two, in a selfish attempt to feel the presence of God and Jesus. Don

I agree. I've become a huge fan of Hitchens recently. And in response to my conundrum as stated above, I've decided on another Hitchens book before I tackle one of the above mentioned. Currently, I'm reading "The Trial of Henry Kissinger" by Hitchens, and it's an explosive polemic.

It's a great little book, too. And I say 'little' because it's only around 92 pages, but, man, is it vicious; it does a fantastic job in a limited space of completely abolishing Mother Teresa's so-called piety. She was a fraud, and this is a great place to start if one is interested in reading about her--an updated version would be nice, though, especially in light of the revelation that Mother Teresa held about as much belief in God as I do. As an aside: I finished up a book last night and am struggling with what to read next. I've got a large queue, but the three I'm setting my sights on are: On War by Carl Von Clausewitz, The Open Society and Its Enemies by Karl Popper, and the Elgin Marbles by Christopher Hitchens--that one might wait, though, because a new revised edition is coming out soon.

I've been reading a lot this year, but so far I've managed to completely stay away from fiction. I find myself watching virtually no television and reading more than one book at a time. Here's a list of books I've read so far. 1. The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design

I'm currently reading the new translation of Sallust. It's a pretty smooth translation. I've been comparing it to the Loeb translation as I read it--this is my first reading of Sallust--and find it better than Loeb is some spots and Loeb better in others. I also have Social Conflicts in the Roman Republic by P.A. Brunt queued up to read next.

This is the best I could find. I couldn't find the year in which it was taken, though--aside from "19th century," which is about as vague as one can get.

Evolution is a theory that explains things, that answers these questions. It is the default theory by virtue of the fact that there are no other theories to explain these things. As I've explained elsewhere, creationism isn't a theory; it's a hypothesis. So evolution is the default theory because there are no other legitimate theories to explain these things. If a theory arose that better explained these events, than that would become the new, best theory we have. If, on the other hand, evolution was utterly annihilated, that in no way, shape, or form validates creationism. Evolution is not a religion. It requires no blind belief in the supernatural or the paranormal. It is logical conjecture based on observable evidence--some will say, and have said, overwhelming observable evidence. Scientific theory is the antithesis of religious belief. To refer to science as a religion is to show how little you know about both. That is the nature of human understanding. What we know now differs from what we knew during the enlightenment, for example. It is a testament to the evolution of our understanding. Which is one of my base complaints with religion. We are in the twenty-first century, and we're being taught and preached ideas that were conceived during the Bronze Age. We who trust in science have evolved beyond the need to rely on fairy tales; you who belief in the 'scriptures' are still stuck in the intellectual birth canal. See my previous post about the difference between theory and fact. In Genesis 1:25-27, it is stated that animals were created before humans. In Genesis 2:18-19, it is stated that humans were created before animals. In Genesis 1:27, it is stated that man and women were created at the same time. In Genesis 2:18-22, it is stated that man is created first, then animals, then woman. In Genesis, God creates day and night on the first day--and differentiates and defines them by naming them. Yet he didn't create the objects in the sky--the sun, stars, etc.--until the fourth day. How can light exist when there is no sun? Genesis one states that plants were created on the third day. But the sun wasn't created until the fourth day. This may have been plausible during the Bronze Age, but now that we know about a little thing called photosynthesis, we know that that order would be reversed: the sun would come before the plants. Now you dare to call anything mentioned above valid? You mean to suggest that something that is so internally contradictory and in defiance of logic and reason yields a perfectly acceptable hypothesis? Surely, sir, you are joking. This, of course, is an unnecessary argument. As you should know, sir, the burden of proof does not reside with me. The burden is on your shoulders to prove these claims. As the great Carl Sagan once remarked: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You can provide no evidence outside of faith--which, itself, isn't evidence; it is a cop-out that proves or disproves nothing. You ask me to prove that creationism is invalid, but the burden of proof lies with you. So you, sir, must prove your claims or concede the point. I hold nothing but contempt for religion. The time to respect religious beliefs is drawing to a close. The zeitgeist is changing, and a new revolution is growing. If you, and people like you, think that their appalling beliefs should be taught to our children in the public sphere then you'd better get used to criticism; because I will fight until my dying day to make certain that my child will never have to be forcibly exposed to this obnoxious nonsense. Funny that you didn't respond to this. But then theists never do. Where did God come from?

First, let's define our terms. Creationism is a hypothesis. Evolution is a theory. There's a huge difference. A theory yields verifiable predictions. A hypothesis is, at best, a cute thought experiment. Evolution, more over, is a fact. Current theories of evolution are simply designed to explain the fact of evolution. Fact and theory are two different things. Take gravity as an example. It is a fact that gravity exists. The theory of relativity is a theory designed to explain gravity. If Einstein's theory was disproven tomorrow, would you come out and denounce gravity or those who believe in gravity? Would you say that it lacks credibility? And how can one who states "if the scripture supports Creationism than I believe in it" discuss credibility in the first place? The scriptures also state that the earth is flat; that it's held up by four pillars. Do you believe that, too? Do you also believe that we should stone to death disobedient children, or that a man who, on his wedding night, discovers that his wife isn't a virgin should stone her to death on her fathers doorstep? Do you believe in a virgin birth? Do you believe in the story of Exodus, which has not yielded a single shred of archaeological evidence? And on the issue of credibility, read the first two books of Genesis. We are presented with two conflicting stories of creation within the span of a single page. The bottom line is this: If you don't believe in evolution I want you to do me a favor. The next time you're sick with a viral infection, go to a doctor. When he prescribes antibiotics, request a form that was developed thirty years ago. What will happen? He will laugh at you. Why? Because viruses evolve an immunity to antibiotics. A small percentage of our genome consists of viruses, so would it be a radical statement to suggest that, if viruses can evolve, then so can we? I think not. I think it's more than probable.

I believe you're objecting to the inclusion of Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu for the wrong reasons. "Influential" does not necessarily equal "benign." Note that Hitler, Stalin, Ghengis Khan, etc. are also on the list. -- Nephele Well, I see your point and I concede that point. But, as Cato pointed out, Mother Teresa did nothing globally influential. She was a much hyped figure who, as it turns out, had about as much faith in God as I do.

Mother Teresa already gets more attention that she deserves. She was a pious stooge for god who thrived on the exploits of the impoverished. No one who denounced abortion while simultaneously denouncing condoms in AIDS ravaged Africa should appear on such a list. Ever.

My problem with creationism vs. evolution is that the theists assume that creationism is the default theory. If evolution can be disproved--which will never happen--they assume that the only other explanation is creationism--which is no explanation at all. Disproving evolution does not add to the validity of creationism. There is no validity to creationism. It is simply a silly Bronze Age fairy tale and nothing more. To invoke God as the answer to how everything started is to present the problem of an infinite regress. Who made God? Who made God's creator? And so on.

Aside from Sallust, does anyone know of any source--ancient or modern, though I would prefer modern--that deals with the Jugurthine War?

Thank you.

Wow. This is a hard one for me. There are so many. Hemingway is definitely on my list. So is James Joyce. F. Scott Fitzgerald

Wow. It actually makes so much sense now, that I happened to have been born on the most depressing day of the year. Talk about being born under a bad sign. DDickey, you sound almost goth, there. So, as a birthday gift to you, I'm going to anagram you a goth name. ('Gramming goth names is actually a specialty of mine, which I do on a number of goth/fetish message boards). Using the name scramble you'd given me awhile back for your Hidden Roman Name, I hereby dub you... Launcelot Deadlykin = diadcenoleutkanlly Happy Beastday! -- Nephele Wow. That sure is swell! And I used to be a fairly melancholy person.

Thank you. I plan on drinking a lot over the next couple days.