Class Warfare, Math, Macroeconomics and Fairness

OK, so  by now I'm sure we're all aware of President Obama's judgement that the [curiously named] "Buffett Rule" is NOT class warfare... It's MATH.

Bravo, Barry. It's about time you started calling out the Right on their bullshit.

I would like to give him (and everyone) one piece of advice though, when discussion taxation: Avoid the discussion of "fairness."  I know, I know! And I've made fairness-based arguments in the past, linking multiples of the median income in this country to various levels on Mazlow's hierarchy of needs, for example. And these arguments are very effective at convincing people who already agree with you that you're right. They are not very persuasive with anyone who's not already on board.  And I'm not conceding the fairness point - I do happen to be of the opinion that the rich in this country do not, in fact, pay their FAIR share of the tax burden.  BUT... that's my opinion.

And there's the rub:  One cannot objectively quantify "fairness." Whether or not something is "fair" relies entirely on the parties involve FEELING that it is fair.  If someone FEELS or is OF THE OPINION that they're being cheated?  Well guess what? That's one person who BELIEVES that "it" is not fair!

Fairness is an entirely subjective phenomenon.

Now... I will happily raise my hat and tip my glass to fellow working-class warrior, Elizabeth Warren.  SHE got it right.  And Conchobhar included some of the best parts of her speech a few posts back.  It's truly great stuff but, alas, I fear the "Social Contract" may yet be a little bit too high-brow for the Average American these days.  I heard a very well educated man trying to explain it the trainer in the Gym the other night - a black man, who definitely makes only a working-class wage, and yet was attacking the idea of taxing the rich! - and I could see that the argument was not the least bit persuasive.  In fact, it came sounding like the kind of namby-pamby Liberal whining that the Right has so effectively charactarized ALL of the higher moral aspects of civilization as over the past 30 years or so.

And besides, I think there's a much better way to put it, and it comes right from the comments section of this very blog...

In response to Tax/Deficit post back in July, Steeve put it absolutely perfectly:

Raise taxes on everyone until they feel the tiniest pinprick of pain.



So you raise taxes 0.001% on most people and they feel immediate pain. Raise taxes 60% on the rich and they feel no pain at all. That's not my problem. Hell, it isn't anyone's problem.

And there you go. 

The reason we tax the rich? Because we can do so without impacting their daily spending decisions.  And thus it cause no further economic pain, despite the Right's constant bed-wetting about it.

THIS is why you will inevitably end up taxing the rich.  Because doing anything else, including significantly reducing spending, is economic suicide.  The Right might want that, and Fox News might want that, but the American People do not.

So... STEEVE in 2012?

My and Steeve's conversation about the origin of Christianity...

I'd like to continue the conversation that Steeve and I were having about the origin of Christianity by posting (with his permission) some of the emails we've recently exchanged, and include a bit of a follow-up at the end.  I invite anyone else who's interested to chime in at any time.  (To keep things clear - who's saying what - I'm going to highlight Steeve's words in yellow, leaving my own in the default color of the blog.)

First, Steeve's email from 26 August:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry about the extreme lateness of this. It proved to be difficult, thus my laziness kicked into overdrive. I don't have a blog, and you're welcome to use this on yours in whatever way seems fit -- ignoring it, abridging it to the part that you find most relevant, deciding that such long rambling has no place on a political blog, whatever.



Most of N T Wright's book on the resurrection of Jesus deals with the religious context that existed before the rise of Christianity. His central assertion is that when a Jew of the period used resurrection-type language, they always, always, meant a physical, tangible, bodily return from the dead. Not a ghost or vision or disembodiment or a mere entering into heaven or a vague sort of exaltation.


This assertion might not bother you enough to find it worth questioning, but if it holds it virtually destroys modern scholarship on the rise of Christianity. They say that the bodily stuff morphed out of exaltation traditions. But instead we find that right from the beginning (see particularly I Corinthians 15:3-8), the core belief of the earliest Christians is the bodily resurrection of Jesus.


Wright's second assertion about the religious context is that no non-Jew believed that this sort of resurrection was possible, and that among the Jews, only one branch (the Pharisees) believed it was possible, and that branch believed that it would only happen one time, to everyone at once, at the end of the world. Early Christianity is thus an innovation, modifying Pharisaic Judaism by splitting the event in two (first Jesus, then everyone) and postulating that the resurrection body is glorified and transformed (yet still very physical), and centering that notion of transformation into their theology.


(Other "resurrection" stories like Lazarus in John 11:43-44 lack the element of transformation, so Wright suggests the term "resuscitation" to refer to them. And I might be having a brain fart here, but I think that even stories of this type are absent from the religious context, thus their appearance in the gospels postdate (and are influenced by) the rise of earliest Christianity, solidifying the assertion that early Christianity represents an innovation.)


The centrality and innovation of the resurrection in early Christianity suggests that its inception was caused by external events, not the psychology of the believers. There are many strange ways in which people cling to a false belief, but early Christianity represents the apostles being wrong, and modifying their beliefs.


Though the contradictions in the Jesus resurrection stories in the gospels are a problem for a Biblical inerrantist, they are a boon for a historian. Four accounts that agree on everything reflect a single source, removing the value of having multiple accounts. Four accounts that disagree work like 3D glasses, allowing a historian to focus in on the underlying tradition. That underlying tradition defies hypotheses of fictionalization and invention, most notably in the prominence of female witnesses (who were categorically unacceptable to Jews of the period) and the strange nature of Jesus's body (particularly the way that it didn't shine brightly as the religious context would have demanded).


Wright contends that the early Christians were driven to modify Pharisaic tradition by historical fact. An empty tomb by itself is insufficient -- resurrection simply didn't happen except at the end of the world, and a mere puzzle wouldn't change that. Appearances of Jesus are insufficient -- ancient people were comfortable with notions of visions and would not modify tradition just because it happened again. But the empty tomb and appearances of Jesus together are sufficient. If they are also necessary to explain the rise of Christianity, then the empty tomb and the appearances of Jesus are historical fact. The main evidence that they are necessary is the lack of counterexamples. If any other set of postulates is sufficient to explain the rise of the very specific early Christian belief under consideration, then neither would be necessary. No such counterexample exists.


The conclusion is that the empty tomb and the appearances of Jesus are historical fact. There is still a gap between this and belief in the resurrection, but that gap will probably have to be bridged by philosophy, not history.
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
 
To which I replied:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Hey, I really appreciate that you took the time to pull this together. However, I maintain that it does little to convince me. I'll try to keep in mind that you're giving me a (very) brief of someone's extensive work summarizing many other works - I'll accept that there's obviously a lot more than just what's is posted here. That having been said, I have several problems, and still many of the same problems, with the argument being put forth:


1) It still hinges on there being anything resembling a consensus when it comes to "modern scholarship on the rise of Christianity." A quick look in wiki will reveals that there is at least a DEBATE on the matter, and little in the way of consensus as he seems to suggest/assume. So when you say (presumably based on what he's saying) that "none of the secular scholars" agree with me (for example) that the apostles were either deluded, frauds or some combination thereof, that's simply false. As I see it, this deals only with ONE school of thought: The "morphed out of exaltation" school.

2) As I was saying in (1) he's assuming the Apostles were in fact telling the truth and are reliable sources. I'm not sure why I (or anyone) should accept that when were looking into the veracity of their own claims! And again, don't give me "modern scholars don't agree with you" because the fact is SOME DO. (And even if NONE did, that's hardly relevant, since your;e saying "they're all wrong" anyway!) But just because he chooses not to deal with them doesn't mean that they're not out there.

3) There are some other leaps of logic that I question. For example:

a- "An empty tomb by itself is insufficient." (Agreed - it could have simply been pillaged by bandits or desecrated by the Romans or the other Jews.)

b- "Appearances of Jesus are insufficient." (Agreed - People see Elvis all the damn time. Not to mention the Virgin Mary in their French Toast, etc...)

c- "But the empty tomb and appearances of Jesus together are sufficient." (HUH?! How the hell do you concluded THAT?! How is it not still 100% probable - and in fact considerably more likely - that (a) the grave was plundered and (b) someone had an Elvis sighting?! And (c) the Apostles, seeing this golden opportunity, decided to run with it?) (And not to be judgemental of them: Perhaps they were so inspired by the man (Jesus) that they felt his legacy HAD to go on, and just could not bear the "failure" that his death would rep[resent.)

The logic doesn't follow because he deals only with one or two competing hypotheses. It still ignores the simplest explanation. As to why "most scholars" don't argue as I do? (1) I still don't care - that doesn't make it an unreasonable hypothesis; and (2) I guaren-goddamn-tee you that SOME DO.

I'm sorry. maybe I'm just being too narrow in my focus, (or maybe you were in yours,) but there are two necessary assumptions to buy into all of this that I see no good reason to accept: (1) That the apostles were both honest AND reliable sources and (2) That there is anything resembling a consensus when it comes to alternative explanations. The one he chose to shoot down here is only one. Well done. I'll give you/him that. He did a fantastic job annihilating the ONE alternative explanation. But other, perfectly reasonable explanations are go unchallenged. Plus: He's speaking for others who are not there to make there counterpoints. Unless you've read the work of the men he's citing (and I HAVE NOT) you cannot assume that he is truly representing their work and their evidence accurately.

I still see someone who interpreting the evidence to make an argument. IMHO there's bias at work here. He does well, but I don't see why I HAVE to accept his interpretations over others. He's just one voice of many in a debate, only he seems to be imply that there IS no debate - just him proving everyone's consensus wrong.

(end part, the first)

In any case, I'd still very much like to post it (as well as my response above in the comments section). There's certainly no rule that says my blog is strictly political. Considering the little amount of research I do into current events (LOL) it's closer to say that it's a blog about "political philosophy" than strictly politics. And religion - especially in THIS country - is for better or worse a key component of Political Philosophy. So I'll probably put it up sometime next week, unless you really don't want me to, in which case just let me know and I'll keep it offline.

And either way: THANKS AGAIN. I never fail to appreciate anything that really gives me something to think about, and I wouldn't want you to be under the impression that I consider my response above to be any kind of "final word" on the matter. Religion remains something that really interests me, so I intend to keep digging, keep reading, keep trying to understand it, even if only from an academic / hobbyist standpoint.
 
-------------------------------------------------------------
 
he replied:
 
-------------------------------------------------------------
 
If you post, I'll have a response. The first two sentences will be something like: the apostles aren't being trusted to tell us that the resurrection happened. They're being "trusted" to tell us the precise nature of early Christian belief, which once established needs to be explained.



If you're able to cite people who specialize in the field promoting significantly different theories, particularly the "apostles were frauds" one, I'll appreciate it.

-------------------------------------------------------------
So... I'll put my reply here, rather than emailing it, and if there is more to yours, I know you'll feel free to let me know.
 
First point - that "the apostles aren't being trusted to tell us that the resurrection happened. They're being 'trusted' to tell us the precise nature of early Christian belief, which once established needs to be explained."
 
WTF?  Look, the two are one and the same if their explanation for the "precise nature of early Christian belief" happens to BE that "the resurrection happened."  Which is pretty much what I see being presented here.  Christian belief is ROOTED in the belief in the Resurrection.  I'm sorry, but you lost me again. I just can't follow the logic of trying to separate the two, especially when this is in response to the original point of Stephen Roberts that: "When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." If the resurrection didn't happen, then there's no need for further debate.  And you're playing logic games in trying to avoid that point.
 
So... PLEASE: Clarify.  Because I have no problem admitting that I just don't get it.
 
Second point - Now, you almost had me with this one.  I was this close to challenging you to prove that there aren't any "people who specialize in the field promoting significantly different theories," but of course that burden of proof is not on you at all.  And as one who'd like to occasionally think of himself as a critical thinker, I KNOW THIS.  So... shame of me for even thinking it.
 
That being said, I don't know who you'll consider a person "specializ[ing] in the field" but I found several "different theories" just on Wikipedia:
 
Under "Resurrection of Jesus" there is an "Origin of the Narrative" section about halfway down.
 
It starts: The ultimate origin of the Apostles early belief in the resurrection of Jesus is debated by theologians, scholars and lay persons alike.
 
So... right off the bat one cannot claim that there is a single consensus to debunk, as Wright appears to do.  (At least in the material you have presented.  Again, admittedly, I have not read his book.)
 
It gives some evidence against the idea of a deliberate fraud (though without citation). 
 
It then goes on to reference E.P. Sanders, who argues that "a plot to foster belief in the Resurrection would probably have resulted in a more consistent story, and that some of those who were involved in the events gave their lives for their belief. However, Sanders offers his own hypothesis, different from the supporters, claiming that "there seems to have been a competition: 'I saw him,' 'so did I,' 'the women saw him first,' 'no, I did; they didn't see him at all,' and so on."
 
This is bot as blunt as the "frauds" argument I laid out, but the logic is the same. It continues:
 
"James D.G. Dunn writes that where the apostle Paul's resurrection experience was "visionary in character" and "non-physical, non-material" the accounts in the Gospels are very different. He contends that the "massive realism'...of the [Gospel] appearances themselves can only be described as visionary with great difficulty - and Luke would certainly reject the description as inappropriate" and that the earliest conception of resurrection in the Jerusalem Christian community was physical."
 
I'm not claiming to understand the ultimate point here, but there fact of there being a contradiction present in the Gospels or, at a minimum, differing interpretations about the claims being made, is, to me, self-evident.
 
Helmut Koester writes that the stories of the resurrection were originally more like the visionary experience of Paul and that they were interpreted as physical proof of the event at a secondary stage. He contends that the exact details of the resurrection story are also secondary and do not come from historically trustworthy information but belong to the genre of the narrative types.
 
Now... THIS does seem to be along the lines of what Wright is arguing directly against, but Koestner's point is the same as mine: Why should we believe the Apostles?  Even if they aren't necessarily "frauds" at a minimum they gained a large and dedicated following from pushing this narrative.  It doesn't mean their intentions were BAD per se, but their accounts are too self-serving to be taken at face value.
 
Moving on to "Resurrection Appearances of Jesus" we have James A. Keller "question[ing] the reliability of the resurrection appearances, claiming: "All we have is other people's accounts of what the eyewitnesses purportedly saw, and these accounts are typically sketchy and were written many years later. Thus, the historian who wants to understand what the resurrection event was must use later, sketchy, second-hand accounts of what the eyewitnesses saw, and from these accounts he must try to determine what theresurrection event was.
 
Origins of Christianity offers many alternate explanations.  None are specifically relevant, but I contend that it's evidence that there is, in fact a debate, and that Wright continues to deal with the issue as if there were a consensus rather than a variety of opinions, beliefs and arguments being put forth.
 
There was another one - and I'll ammend this post if I can find it, but so far I'm coming up empty - that claimed that the apostles were so taken with Jesus and his teaching that they just could not deal with, or accept, the failure that his death would represent, relative to Jewish prophecy.  So they concocted the Resurrection story as a way of continuing his legacy and ministry. 
 
Personally, that last one is the one I find most likely.

My Reply to Steeve

(Ed Note: If there is a tone of voice that you can use when you read this that sounds sincere, rather than snarky, please use it.  I'm not pulling any punches, but I want everyone to know that I have a great deal of respect for Steeve and his views - most of which I SHARE, at least politically speaking.  So I hope that he takes it as a sign of my respect for him that I'm not holding back here!)

This post picks up form a conversation that left off back in March of this year.  The post started out with me presenting some of the latest (at the time) examples from Bob Carrol's "What's the harm?" section of Skepdic.com.  This section covers everything religion from Voodoo to Islam to Christianity to Scientology, but the examples I sighted both came from "Christians." One was of a boy starved to death, the other of children being beaten to death, all in the name of bringing them "closer to God" or some such thing.  And I expected that most people would say that, "MY religion is not like that!" And sure enough no one really stepped up to defend the practice. (Obviously.)

But as the piece evolved, I came to a realization: That if you take ANY person, no matter how religious they are, if you find some who they would consider "more religious" than themselves, they'd also inevitably think that other person was a little crazy as well.  And this judgment would become stronger the greater the difference in religious zeal.  The Atheist thinks the twice-a-year Church goer is a little crazy. (Just a little.)  The twice-a-year guy thinks the once-a-week guy is a a little crazy.  That guy thinks the guy with his kids in bible school is a little crazy. That moderate guy thinks the fundamentalist is a little crazy. The Fundamentalist thinks the Cultist is a little crazy.  And the Cultist thinks the Terrorist is a little crazy.  Line these people up by religious faith on the X-axis, and plot their judgment of the next guy down on the Y-axis and you'll find that amount of crazy you are, is some positive function of how religious you are.  Not a very encouraging thought, for pretty much ANY believer, but think about it. I don't think you can deny the observation, even if you don't appreciate the implication...

Think about someone who you think is significantly more religious than you are. 

Don't you think they're at least a little crazy? 

The thing is that no matter where you are on the spectrum, this holds true!  (OK, yeah, I don't know who's to the right of some guy who's strapping a bomb to himself, with the intent of blowing his crazy ass up and taking as many people with as he can, but... well... You can't deny the man's FAITH now, can you? Misplaced though it may be, this man has FAITH on a level I cannot even comprehend. In that case? No one is more Religious and no one is more crazy!

Anyway, that was the gist of the original post.  And my final question was, since we can all acknowledge the increasing level of insanity that it brings, and with so many well-documented example of demonstrable and unnecessary harm, bloodshed and death being caused by EVERY religion under the Sun...

Why do we need it?  What good does it do that we couldn't accomplish without it?

Now a LOT of really good comments came out of that post.  Some agreed with me (Kevin Kelly, TomCat)some took issue with me to varying degrees. (JLarue) and that's all good.  That's why I DO this blog, in fact. I particularly liked poser Kimberly's statement that "going to church doesn't make me a Christian anymore than standing in my garage makes me a car."  I really liked that. LOL

But the most intriguing, and by far the most frustrating (LOL), comments came from poster Steeve.

In response to my request that, "I would really like for some moderate, liberal defender of religion to try and convince me of it's inherent goodness." He replied:

No can do, because a religion is not a social club or a set of rules. It is a truth proposition. I'll debate the truth of my religion with you all day long. If it's true, I don't really care how good it is. Reality is reality.

OK.  I can accept this.  After all, I don't believe in the Scientific Method because it's GOOD.  I believe it is, but that's not why it serves as such an important part of my life's philosophy.  I hold in such high esteem because it is the WAY that we determine what is TRUE. (Or... at least what should be accepted as FACT.) And as Steve says, "Reality is reality."

But is Religion "reality?"  Does it really satisfy any objective measure of the "truth"?  Maybe to Steeve.  And I'm willing to let him have that much.  But it being the truth from his point of view is no more profound than me saying it's NOT the truth from mine.  One of us will have to do better.  Now, in addition to Bob Carroll's 'What's the harm' section of Skepdic.com, I could refer to Joe Sommer's website (another member of my Hall of Fame) and his article "Why the Bible is Unreliable" which calls out logical contradictions, claims disproven by scientific evidence and moral position that not even the most hard-core fundamentalist would still consider to be 'moral.'  (And for the whackos that DO, I'll refer you back to Bob Caroll.)

So there: I've done better. And with all due respect to poster Steeve, and much is due, either a whole lot more is needed, or I'm forced to conclude that what you call "reality" is what I call "Shit you made up" or "Shit you happen to believe."  Unless there some objective truth or facts to support it, you are playing VERY hard and fast with the definition of the word "reality."  Granted, we do all live our own respective realities, but I only expect anyone else to see the one reality that we all share.  And that is NOT one described by religion - it is one that quantified and defined by Science.

He replies:

Do you actually need to be CONVERTED to simply accept that other people think that Christianity is reality? Your original question was along the lines of "given that religion is crap, how is it justified?" The correct answer is "Well, I don't think it's crap."

And I went on to reply that I didn't just say "religion was crap." I pointed out that it does DEMONSTRABLE, TANGIBLE HARM. Then, I asked if it did any GOOD. I also asked whether or not that same GOOD could be done without all the mental baggage: asking me to believe many things that have been proven false AND asking me to condemn things that I don't see as wrong.  I'm keen to let anyone believe anything they want provided that (1) it is not the answer to a question already answered by science (like... the earth is 4000 years old and dinosaurs and man lived side-by-side, for example) and (2) does not do harm.  And whether it's a dramatic as beating a child to death or merely denying two gays the right to marry or a rape victim the right to terminate the resulting pregnancy, there is no shortage of harm being done. 

You want to talk about souls, heaven, hell, the afterlife, God...? Fine.  I won't tell you you're wrong, because I can't proove you wrong.  But I have no reason to concede that you're RIGHT, because you can't proove it either.  If you want to believe it's "reality?"  Knock yourself out.  But that kind of "Reality" - the kind that each one of us has, and which is distinct for every person...? is hardly anything profound.  At that point, "reality" DOES simply mean, "Shit I made up, that I REALLY BELIEVE."

Now, while this all sound very hostile and confrontational, I want to reiterate that I RESPECT whatever beliefs of this kind any of you may hold.  HOW, you ask? Simple: If you don't expect me to live in your reality, I won't expect you to live in mine.  BUT... when something is PROVEN by Science, it's time to accept it.  And when HARM is being done to another, it time to STOP it.  That's all I'm saying.

A simple "Separation of Church and State" issue, really.

Now... Steve DID say that he accepts evolution, rather than Genesis as a literal story.  Fine. Good.  But it's just after that where he really loses me:

I do believe in the resurrection of Jesus, because that's where the real evidence in the real world points. Anyone who can show that the real evidence in the real world points somewhere else is welcome to, but as I started to show in my previous post, it's been nothing but decades of failure by all of the best minds in the business.

I will say to Steeve exactly what I have said to EVERYONE who's ever said something like this.  First of all: WHAT "real evidence in the real world?"  All you've got is a STORY written by someone trying to get you to WORSHIP them! (Or, OK, worship as they do.) It's still no more than a fanciful claim at that point!  There IS no "evidence." Just a claim, made in a book that's already been shown to have gotten it wrong MANY, MANY times!  Second: It is not up to me to prove that it DIDN'T happen.  YOU'RE the one making the positive claim.  You're the one who has the burden of proof.  I say it's impossible, and I've got every single atom of Science that has withstood public and peer scrutiny over the past 2000 years on my side.  I got the billions and billions of people who have died in the past 2000 years who DIDN'T come back from the dead to establish the null hypothesis. And there is no evidence to support the positive claim.  Null assumption? "X" didn't happen, unless you can show some evidence that it did.  And someone else merely making the claim and having a lot of people believing it is NOT "evidence."

And it was about this point that the famous meme from Steven F Roberts came up.  I paraphrased, but it goes like this:

"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

The way I said it was:

Many religions have resurrection stories, virgin or divine births, fulfilled prophecies, etc... I see no reason to reject some and accept others, just based on the number of people who believe them.

And this is a critical point.  Because that is really all that's being presented as "evidence." Lot's of people believe in the Bible.  Well... Lot's of people believe in the Koran.  But Steeve doesn't.  Lot's of people believe in the Tora.  But Steeve doesn't.  Lot's of people believed these claims when Siddartha Guatama made them.  But Steeve doesn't.  And lots of people believe in Shiva, Vishnu, Kali, etc... But Steve doesn't. 

So if Steeve expects me to accept the claims made by Christianity, after BOTH OF US have rejected them when they were made by everybody else... I'm going to need a damned good reason to accept it this time around.  If there's nothing NOVEL about what's being proposed and no more EVIDENCE to support it? Why on earth should I treat it any differently than I did the LAST time I came across the claim?

Now... I may have missed something at this point because he then says:

You should look into Christianity again, if you're so inclined, because you can't explain its origin. You still believe the grafted-on myth thing, which is historical and collapses on inspection. The definitive work on this is here.

I don't know who's telling you to believe Christianity because Bible stories are unique or because there are lots of believers, but they're wrong, and they're not me. They haven't posted on this thread. Yet you're arguing with them.

 
OK... so to be fair, maybe I was misrepresenting Steeve's position or what he was saying of putting words in his mouth.  OK. I can accept that.  But... at no point was I offered any OTHER reason to believe what was being claimed.  Maybe it ended up being a strawman, but I don't see where else I was supposed to go with this.  And I don't think my points were being addressed either. 
 
He DID offer me a link to a work that he recommended.  But I didn't end up buying the book, which he describes thusly:
 

That link should have been more about what the atheistic community needs to argue with, not what you need to argue with. It would be a prohibitive time investment, and I don't have the slightest idea if the book would be of any value to you.


It's sort of a compendium of everything that's historically knowable about what the earliest Christians thought about the resurrection. He draws on essentially everything available that's relevant to that topic, although that topic is so narrow that 2/3 of what's relevant is the bible. The argument is of the form "what could have caused this belief to emerge in the way that it did".

At this point, I forced to conclude that we ARE in fact missing each other's points.

I don't CARE what "the earliest christian thought about the resurrection."  Especially if 2/3 of the work references the Bible.  The BIBLE is what's under scrutiny here.  So it can't be used as evidence to support its own claims.  Whether they believed it the way it's described today, or slightly differently, is irrelevant.  That will not answer the question, "DID IT ACTUALLY HAPPEN?"

And it does not answer the question of why I should accept THIS CLAIM on the basis of no more than a BOOK, when it's been made before and I've rejected it on the basis that I had no more evidence that (1) The Claim, in (2) a Book that (3) a lot of people believe.

Steeve...

This may not be what you offering me as a "Reason to believe" and it may not be YOURS, but I've just gone back and read the comments, and you don't offer me anything else!

I'll say it again: If you get something good out of believe in the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth, than fine.  I'll let you have it.  In fact, I'll fight, kill and die for your right to.  I will still hold that:

1) There is not inherent good done by Religion that could not be accomplished with all the mental baggage.  (Believe in Genesis, Virgin Birth, Resurrection, Miracles, etc...)

2) There are no necessary rules of morality that are part of Religion that are not part of a Secular Humanist philosophy.

3) Science is contradicted and harm is being done.  This is a FACT, and even you - who I truly do respect, and who's input on these matter I truly value - have done nothing to tell me why I shouldn't let this PISS ME THE FUCK OFF!

and 4) The Steven Roberts quote:

When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

In particular, I don't see where you even tried to address this, let alone "thoroughly destroyed" it (in our "little religious war" as you claimed.  But I'd love to see you try.  And I wouldn't ask if I wasn't truly interested.

So HIT ME (or Misters Carroll, Sommers and Roberts) with your best shot!