> > I think the evidence is pretty conclusive that "Jesus of Nazereth"
> never
> > existed... because Nazereth did not exist when Jesus was around!
> The
>
> >
> > I'd say you've let the mind virus lead you astray, Chardin.
> >
> Marie Foster wrote:
> Cathy has left the room. I take my life in my hands by leaping in
> here
> but could you agree that the myth or the reality of the existence of a
>
> human being named X having lived at some time in the past is not
> particularly relevant? I think that Cathy believes that He was a real
>
> person. You do not. I figure that any argument will not convince
> either of you.
>
> I do think that you agree that there was/is a Christ/meme.
>
> If reason is to prevail in any discussion I think it is best to find a
>
> point of agreement and go from there.
>
> I don't mind a fight as long as it is a clean fight.
>
> Marie
I think that ERiC, if provided evidence of Christs existence that he
could accept, woould change his view. Cathy, on the otherhand, even if
taken back in time and witnessing the entire "hoax" (I say this as a
what-if case) would still believe, in in the face of incontrivertable
evidence to the contrary.
I don't want to talk behind Cathy's back, so lets consider this to be a
difference in perspective. I think ERiC's perspective is more flexible
in that it will change to fit existing evidence regardless of emotional
encumbrances. I think person "C" has a perspective that discards
evidence it does not like, regardless of validity. Neither is flawed, I
simply prefer the former.
Sodom