[Buddha-l] it's not about belief

[Richard P. Hayes]

On Thu, 2006-01-05 at 18:02 -0500, Stanley J. Ziobro II wrote:

> The issue, as I've understood it, is that a priest in Viterbo Italy is not
> required to appear in court to attest to the existence of Jesus.  In the
> article where this was related the Gospels were deemed unworthy of
> consideration as a viable source for Jesus' existence, because they are
> scriptures for a faith community.

That seems a perfectly reasonable conclusion in a court of law,
especially in a country that has become very secular, as Italy has done.
Why allow the gospels as evidence and not various gnostic writings? Why
believe the gospels rather than the Qur'an, which says that Jesus was
married and was never crucified? It is in the nature of all evidence
that it becomes stronger if it is corroborated by independent accounts.
Accounts independent of the gospels not only fail to corroborate what is
said there, but some accounts actually contradict what is said there. As
the Buddha said to the Kalamas, "when accounts contradict one another,
the only reasonable response is doubt."

> What you've related above is true, but beside the point.

N, it was very much to the point. The point was simply that you were
misusing the term "hermeneutics of suspicion."

-- 
Richard