Conference hydra::dejavu

    Mary, I think a good argument can and probably will be made for all
    variations of this question. 
    
    I think that we are physically grown bodies and only partially grown
    minds with the potential for unlimited growth, if only we can all find
    the proper path. There is more then one possible path to growth (or
    regression) for each of us. We each find the one right for us at the
    time.
    
    We are a great people in potentia. We wish to be in reality and some of
    us are finding our paths to that possibility. Our minds are expanding
    in ways we never dreamed possible, but the growth has not, and never
    will stop. Some are still infants and children, some are adolescents,
    some are preteens and teens, some adults (a few) and a very, very few
    throughout our hirstory have gone beyond adulthood. Jesus, Mohammed,
    Buddha and others.
    
    PJ

    very astute PJ 

    My Grand-father always said that all babies had a fully capable brain,
    and it was up to the parents to bring the best out of it. Stupid people
    were a product of their environment.
    
    I go along with that to some degree.
    
    RE: Jesus, Mohammed, and Buddha
    
    Is there any real, incontrovertible and lasting proof, that these people
    ever existed as flesh and blood on this planet? Should there not be
    any, and I'm not aware of any such evidence, any mention of them in the
    context of a discussion like this is spurious to say the least.
    
    Laurie.

    Who cares if they existed?  What difference does it make?  As far as
    reality is concerned.. our acceptance of their supposed existence is
    enough to give them life in our history.

    Certainly Mohammad existed as an historical personage.  The historical
    existence of both Jesus and The Budda are quite plausible.  Ignorance
    generally is a poor argument against something unless you are fairly
    expert in the area in question.

				    Topher

RE:   <<< Note 1548.4 by VERGA::STANLEY "what a long strange trip it's been" >>>

�    Who cares if they existed?  What difference does it make?  As far as
�    reality is concerned.. our acceptance of their supposed existence is
�    enough to give them life in our history.

    But Mary, *I* don't accept that they existed; I believe they were
    created by mankind to fulfill a basic human need. For me, to have them
    held up as an example of mental "adulthood" is quite, quite pointless.
    I feel sure, I'm not alone here.
    
    Laurie.

    So what though... I don't see what difference it makes... it's all
    just opinion anyway...

RE:              <<< Note 1548.5 by CADSYS::COOPER "Topher Cooper" >>>
    
�    Certainly Mohammad existed as an historical personage.  The historical
�    existence of both Jesus and The Budda are quite plausible.  Ignorance
�    generally is a poor argument against something unless you are fairly
�    expert in the area in question.

    I know of no evidence that Mohammed, as in Allah, existed. Furthermore,
    plausibility doesn't equal existence. I make no judgement on peoples'
    faiths here, but those names were held up as examples of *people* who
    lived on this planet, and reached adulthood in terms of development of
    the mind.
    
    For those of us who don't believe they existed, and who don't accept
    that the common belief that they existed is enough to demonstrate that
    they did, they aren't very good examples. In fact, they aren't examples
    at all, and throw the basis of the entire illustration into doubt.
    
    As far as ignorance, you can rest assured that if there were any proof
    positive that any of these people existed, the religion with the vested
    interest would be cramming it so far down our throat you wouldn't
    believe it. What a sure-fire way to recruit memeber! At present it all
    relies on faith, which as I said, I'm not knocking, I simply don't
    share it.
    
    Laurie.

    
    Laurie,
    
    >*I* don't accept that they existed...
    
    So? Your accepting that they existed or not has no bearing on whether
    they in fact did exist (or not).
    
    And what does your comment have to do with the basenote anyway?
    
    Cindy

    What difference does it make?  In the final analysis... what difference
    does it make?  People believe what they want to believe anyway... you 
    too as a matter of fact.... people get so hung up on details.

  
  Re .8 (Laurie)
  
  > As far as ignorance, you can rest assured that if there were any proof 
  > positive that any of these people existed, the religion with the vested
  > interest would be cramming it so far down our throat you wouldn't      
  > believe it.
  
  It depends on what evidence is available ... whilst this is slipping even
  further off the topic, I'd recommend a glance at "Holy Blood, Holy Grail"
  as an example of why the Christian church might not be too keen on hard
  evidence relating to the birth, life and death of Christ. [ I'm not sure
  if HBHG is the complete title but I'll try to dig it out tonight & check ]
  (This is actually moving further away from the idea of JC as a mystical
  master and more towards him as a mortal who deserves respect but I don't
  want to bog down the discussion with pro- v anti-Christian arguments,
  just that the respective authorities would probably not back such research
  unless it was guarenteed to support their specific [re-written] viewpoint).
  
  Frank

    Re: .0
    
    
    Meanwhile, back to the subject of the base note... Bodies that have
    grown minds...
    
    Hi Mary!
    
    Bodies that have grown minds? (Gee, I hope my mind never grows up, else
    what would Laurie have to complain about.)  Or is it bodies that have
    groan minds? (Groan!)
    
    An interesting concept, to say the least.  Well, I see Life in this
    existence, in this reality as a miracle - a real miracle.  Imagine - a
    Spirit form, you, me, and other DEJAVU readers and the REST of the WORLD,
    embodying a matter form, in this case, FLESH and BLOOD.  It's just a
    miracle, and as such, it has an air of mystery about it, and is not
    completely, if at all, explainable by science, wisdom or knowledge.
    And I see plant life as a miracle also.
    
    So what does it all mean?  Don't know all the answers, but I do know
    that since it is all miraculous, and temporary, in this form of course,
    I just want to appreciate it all and be thankful for it all.
    
    I am continually amazed and thankful (even for you, Laurie)
    
    
    Bill Slater
    
    
    PS   A note on Jesus of Nazureth.  Check out the historical writings of
         Josephus, a historian of those times.  He was not a Christian, but
         he did write about the life and crucifixion of Christ in a very
         factual, objective manner.
    
    PPS  And yes, Mary Stanley and Cindy Painter - It doesn't make any
         difference if we believe it or not.
    

    re: .12
    
    Bill, but don't you get it?  I mean, anyone could have written that
    history.  It doesn't prove it happened.
    
    For that matter, Laurie, can you prove you exist to me?  I've never
    seen you.  I've never heard your voice.  For all I know, you could be a
    practical joke played by some system manager looking for a good time.
    
    As it happens, it doesn't matter to me whether or not you or the others
    exist(ed) as a flesh and blood, corporeal entity.  I can still learn
    from the ideas put forth in your name.
    
    Mary

RE:                    <<< Note 1548.13 by CARTUN::MISTOVICH >>>
    
�    Bill, but don't you get it?  I mean, anyone could have written that
�    history.  It doesn't prove it happened.
    
    Quite.
    
�    For that matter, Laurie, can you prove you exist to me?  I've never
�    seen you.  I've never heard your voice.  For all I know, you could be a
�    practical joke played by some system manager looking for a good time.
    
    Indeed you don't Mary. I can assure you, however, that I do... ;^)
    You'll have to be gullible on that one! Unless we have a mutual
    acquaintance. Jamie's met me, but he doesn't fancy me, says I'm too
    ugly.
    
    Real flesh and blood, lots of both.
    
    Laurie the Real_Thing.

RE: .8 (Laurie)

>    I know of no evidence that Mohammed, as in Allah, existed.

    Once again, unless you have some expertise here your ignorance is not
    terribly relevant.  I cannot say that I am terribly expert here, but in
    all the reading I have done of the history of the area and of the
    religion there has been no hint that Mohammed was not a historical
    person.  As far as I know (though I'm willing to hear of a
    counter-example) the question is not considered the least bit
    controversial by historians.  He is treated in histories in much the
    same manner as rulers in the area.  As I understand it, there are
    multiple, contemporary, non-religious documents that refer to him.  At
    the very least I can say, with very little fear of substantive
    contradiction, that the mainstream view of historians is that there was
    a man named Mohammed, who founded a new religion based, in large part
    on Judaism, which came to be known as Islam.  His verbal teachings --
    believed by his followers to have been supplied to him by Allah -- were
    transcribed at the time by his followers (perhaps with some "editing",
    I don't know) and collected into a book known as the Koran or the
    Qur'an.

    One can logically accept that Mohammed existed without believing that
    he was devinely inspired or that he performed miracles sometimes
    attributed to him.  Just as one can accept that Joseph Smith existed
    (you don't deny *he* existed, do you?) without believing that he was
    given golden tablets by an angel as a youth, or believing that the
    claimed contents of those tablets are true.

>    Furthermore, plausibility doesn't equal existence.

    No but there is certainly no basis for denying their existence.

>    As far as ignorance, you can rest assured that if there were any proof
>    positive that any of these people existed, the religion with the vested
>    interest would be cramming it so far down our throat you wouldn't
>    believe it. What a sure-fire way to recruit memeber!

    Whatever for?  The fact that a religion was founded by someone or was
    based on some particular person's teachings (or his/her followers
    interpretation of those teachings) is completely and thoroughly mundane
    -- of no great significance.  Some of the older religions -- tracing
    back to prehistory -- have lost their "roots" and cannot claim one or
    a very few founders (Hinduism is the major example which comes to
    mind).  In others the historical record is so weak that there is some
    real historical question (was Moses an historic figure?  To modern
    secular historians of religion the general opinion seems to be that as
    found in the Old Testament he is probably a composite, but there may
    or may not have been a single, historical figure to which the other
    stories accreted).  But most religions can identify a real once-alive
    founder, who is at least historically likely, and generally the
    identity of the founder is unquestionable.

    Now there may be some Christians who feel that they are at a
    "disadvantage" in the competition for converts because unambiguous,
    contemporary evidence of their founders is lacking, but proving the
    historical existence of Jesus would just be a matter of catching up
    to the norm on the issue, not getting ahead.

				Topher

    >For that matter, Laurie, can you prove you exist to me?  I've never
    >seen you.  I've never heard your voice.  For all I know, you could be a
    >practical joke played by some system manager looking for a good time.

    There was a rumour that had great popularity for some time that Laurie
    was in fact an AI program which had gone disastrously wrong. But I
    have met Laurie and I can assure you that Laurie is real.

    Jamie.

re:    <<< Note 1548.16 by HOO78C::ANDERSON "I despise the use of TLAs!" >>>

>	 But I
>	    have met Laurie and I can assure you that Laurie is real.

	That's your subjective reality, Jamie.  Why should we believe you?

	Delia

    Last weekend Laurie managed to appear to be real to 10 people at once.

    Goodness knows how it is done.

    Jamie.

	Mirrors and blind faith, no doubt.

	Delia

    No mirrors, it's the vampires you see.

> There was a rumour that had great popularity for some time that Laurie
> was in fact an AI program which had gone disastrously wrong. But I
> have met Laurie and I can assure you that Laurie is real.

> Jamie.

Jamie, however, is an enormously clever AI program! :-)

So what does that make Laurie? :-)

Re .18 (Jamie):

    >Last weekend Laurie managed to appear to be real to 10 people at once.

Sounds like fun. :-D

Steve Kallis, Jr.

    Gee, I was sure that Jamie was a practical joke being played on us by
    a system manager who has *really* gone round the bend!  Now you tell us
    that not only is he an AI program, but a quality program as well!
    
    Mary :-)

    
    Re. a few back, Laurie,
    
    If you are so inclined, please see a recent note in the Antiquity
    notesfile dealing with the evidence found to substantiate the existance
    of the "historical" Jesus. If you do not have this in your notebook, I 
    can point you to three sources, Ian Wilson's (a compatriot of yours, I
    believe) _Jesus, The Evidence_, Michael Grant (another Briton) _Jesus,
    An Historical Review of the Gospels_ and Geza Vermes (A Jewish
    historian) _Jesus the Jew_. Of the three, Geza Vermes' book is perhaps 
    the "driest", but since he is quoted frequently by both other authors
    if you want to read only one, read that one. Lest you think that
    Vermes' bona fides are suspect, his treatment of the Dead Sea Scrolls
    were, until recently at least, the definitive work on the subject.
    
    To echo Topher's comments somewhat, I also hasten to mention that
    whether Jesus, Mohammed and Buddha existed has no direct bearing on the
    religions claimed to have been founded by them. In regards to Jesus,
    having recently read the above books, I have come to believe Jesus to
    be a combination of what Christians believe and what Jews believe he
    was. That does not in any way diminish the possibility that He existed,
    nor does it confirm or deny that He was or not what Christians or
    others believe him to be.
    
    As for "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" I would read it with a grain of salt.
    It is an entertaining tale, but one filled with  supposition and
    deduction rather than true corroborated facts.
    
    
    Marilyn

re .8, Laurie :    
    >I know of no evidence that Mohammed, as in Allah, existed. 
    
    I normally lean to the sceptical, rather than the mystical,
    viewpoints among those espoused in this conference.  However,
    the above statement is extremely questionable.  Mohammed's 
    life is documented in AMAZING detail from multiple sources, 
    including non-religious ones, of the day.  
    
    reductio ad absurdem : I also have no empirical proof that Abraham
    Lincoln existed, either.  Or ANYONE that was dead before I was born,
    or whom I have not met.  There's times to maintain scepticism and times
    to back off.
    
    karl

  
  Re .24 (Marilyn)
  
  > [HBHG] is an entertaining tale, but one filled with  supposition and
  > deduction rather than true corroborated facts.                  
  
  My point was that it presented an interesting alternative which could
  also be deduced from applied research and given the highly political,
  partisan nature of the "authorities", there is little to distinguish one
  "scholarly view" from another. The art of re-writing history is a very
  old and well practiced one.
  
  Re .25 (Karl)
  
  Precisely. There is a whole lot of data that cannot be proven absolutely
  and so is accepted as "popular belief" to avoid 'ad absurdum' overcoming
  the 'reductio' !
  
  Frank

    Since you all seem to be having some problem in believing that Laurie
    Brown actually exists I suggest that you conduct the following
    scientific experiment. From the VMS $ prompt do this,

    $ VTX ELF
    FIND /BADGE=1 [then press the PF1 key and the ENTER key.]

    Jamie.

ELF: the definitive word in Corporate information! Now the ultimate
meter of reality!

    Bet you wish that you had know that before you said such unkind things
    about Laurie.
    
    Jamie.

    
    Re. .26 (Frank)
    
    Point taken, but using Occam's razor, a favorite tool of some of our
    noters, why should we believe that Jesus did *not* die on the cross as 
    reported, I think Romans were pretty efficient about things like that.
    Note I make no claims as to what happened after that........
    
    Marilyn

    Just to let you know I'm still about.....
    
    Laurie very_busy Brown.