Over at his UFO Conjecture(s) blog, Rich Reynolds has a very interesting new article on the parallels between the Roswell affair of July 1947 and Christianity. Check it out here...
Rich obviously has got some lingering hang-ups to overcome when he so mucks up his opening volley with an egregious error which is easily checked. He says:
“A (relatively) minor event, the crucifixion of a Jewish prophet/radical, in Jerusalem during the reign of Augustus Caesar. . . ”
Duhh! The crucifixion was during Tiberias Caesar’s reign. Jesus was BORN in Augustus Caesar’s reign.
So much for putting any reliance on Rich’s knowledge of Christianity, and then his presentation of core Christian principles goes downhill from there.
But should we expect a fair representation from someone who evidently likes to identify himself as a lapsed Catholic who was taught by Jesuits? I’m not Catholic, but from all I’ve read the Jesuits were not founded on the basis of altruistic love of truth. Au contraire, it had more to do with blind obedience to the Pope. Ignatius Loyola (one time conquistador) after recovery from serious wounds, volunteered to the Holy See for the “Counter Reformation (i.e. to combat the Lutherans, Calvinists, Huguenots, etc.). So it would not be surprising that Reynolds got a very shallow picture of the core message of the Good News, if not a complete caricature. However, once trusting Rich discovered his faith had been built on sand (Matt 7:26-27), thanks to the Jesuits, then all “Christianity” was guilty, since in the Jesuit equation, only the Roman Catholic Church is “Christianity.” (Another “Duhh” on that!) So we thus expect Rich’s errors, non-sequiturs and false analogies in his comparison with Roswell.
On the other hand, I do think Roswell “believers” hold to something something akin to “religious faith.” And it is true there is no physical evidence of Roswell other than corroborative testimony, yet nearly everyone believes that “something” crashed, including the USAF. Authorities first said it was a flying disc and then immediately retracted. However no authority two millennia ago said that Jesus had risen from the dead and then retracted it. So there are some substantial differences. Moreover, what does Reynolds do with testimony of, for example, Muslims who are suddenly and unexpectedly visited by Jesus and subsequently risk all and become his followers. Such reports are not only by Muslims but come from around the world, mostly where people have a standard of living quite a bit below that of Mr. Reynolds (Luke 6:20-26).
b”h
ReplyDeleteRich obviously has got some lingering hang-ups to overcome when he so mucks up his opening volley with an egregious error which is easily checked. He says:
“A (relatively) minor event, the crucifixion of a Jewish prophet/radical, in Jerusalem during the reign of Augustus Caesar. . . ”
Duhh! The crucifixion was during Tiberias Caesar’s reign.
Jesus was BORN in Augustus Caesar’s reign.
So much for putting any reliance on Rich’s knowledge of Christianity, and then his presentation of core Christian principles goes downhill from there.
But should we expect a fair representation from someone who evidently likes to identify himself as a lapsed Catholic who was taught by Jesuits? I’m not Catholic, but from all I’ve read the Jesuits were not founded on the basis of altruistic love of truth. Au contraire, it had more to do with blind obedience to the Pope. Ignatius Loyola (one time conquistador) after recovery from serious wounds, volunteered to the Holy See for the “Counter Reformation (i.e. to combat the Lutherans, Calvinists, Huguenots, etc.). So it would not be surprising that Reynolds got a very shallow picture of the core message of the Good News, if not a complete caricature. However, once trusting Rich discovered his faith had been built on sand (Matt 7:26-27), thanks to the Jesuits, then all “Christianity” was guilty, since in the Jesuit equation, only the Roman Catholic Church is “Christianity.” (Another “Duhh” on that!) So we thus expect Rich’s errors, non-sequiturs and false analogies in his comparison with Roswell.
On the other hand, I do think Roswell “believers” hold to something something akin to “religious faith.” And it is true there is no physical evidence of Roswell other than corroborative testimony, yet nearly everyone believes that “something” crashed, including the USAF. Authorities first said it was a flying disc and then immediately retracted. However no authority two millennia ago said that Jesus had risen from the dead and then retracted it. So there are some substantial differences. Moreover, what does Reynolds do with testimony of, for example, Muslims who are suddenly and unexpectedly visited by Jesus and subsequently risk all and become his followers. Such reports are not only by Muslims but come from around the world, mostly where people have a standard of living quite a bit below that of Mr. Reynolds (Luke 6:20-26).