Philo, I am lost for words.

I have this image of you scrabbling through the Internet, searching for the tiniest scraps of the vaguest rumour that you might actually be right...

...and this is what you come up with.

write101.com

That well-known repository of historical accuracy and precision, that is dedicated to helping you:

" find out how to conquer your fear of the Demon Apostrophe, when to use 'who' and when to use 'whom,' how to distinguish between 'its' and it's,' and answers to all those language questions that have plagued you for years!"

I hate to break it to you, but this is merely another passer-on of hearsay material.

They actually mention St Boniface, by the way, but omit any mention of human sacrifice. Also, their account of his oak-tree-related activities differs from other versions.

Did this not ring alarm-bells for you?

And if that is not enough by way of incontrovertible evidence, you manage to unearth a copy of:

"The HoHoHo Factor!"

(Their exclamation point, not mine)

An ezine that is not exactly world-famous for its attention to fact-checking. As indeed, it would appear, are you, Philo.

Although I suspect its target audience may not be scholars of eighth-century pagan ritual, given the information emblazoned on its front cover:

"FREE Bonuses including - Wish Manifestation Tools for the smart man & woman in 2000's! - Complimentary one Year subscription for Protection from an Angel in Training & more!"

I have left in place all the relevant Capital Letters and exclamation points. Although I wholeheartedly recommend that anyone wanting a good laugh should follow the link you provide, as I did.

It's a classic, and I thank you for bringing hysterical laughter and bemused wonderment to my morning.

However, seriously.

How difficult is it to say "ok, I was wrong"?

We're not talking sackcloth-and-ashes here, just a simple acknowledgement that you mindlessly perpetuated a piece of nonsense, in order to make your point.

It's not as if anyone will be hammering on your door at 3a.m to drag you off to a gulag...

"The HoHoHo Factor!"

Ho ho ho indeed :)

Another classic Pericles post!

Philo, my advice is quit whilst you are well behind, for you are
slipping back further and further with every post.

More seriously, and just slightly off-topic, Philo's excursion into the back-blocks of the internet in search of rumour support needs more attention than just my gentle chiding.

The second "source" he quoted - that HoHoHo ezine - is an unfortunately glaring example of how the mindless dissemination of idle chit-chat can develop into "it's a fact, I read it on the Interweb thingy"

This one is a classic of its genre.

HoHoHo reports:

"Attempt to Ban Carols in Shopping Malls in Australia!" [they really do like those exclamation points]

"In 2003 the Australian Trade Union Federation, representing 100,000
workers, claimed that the non-stop playing of Christmas carols in
shopping malls was 'psychological terror'."

They even provide a link to a BBC news article as an indicator that they have done their homework

Except that the BBC News article talks about.... [drum roll]

Austria.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3291889.stm

The quote was from Gottfried Rieser, "spokesman for the Austrian Trade Union Federation".

Of course, it is immediately obvious to an Australian that the article is garbage, because we don't even have a "Trade Union Federation" in Australia, we have the ACTU.

Interestingly, it is also clear that the BBC have been slack too.

Surely, it is highly unlikely that the peak Union Federation in a major European country will have only 100,000 members?

Let's check.

It turns out that unser Freund Gottfried might not belong to the Federation, but actually be a member of the Austrian Union of Private Employees.

According to The Age, that is

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/12/03/1070351647301.html

Far more likely.

But who is to know for sure? I suspect that an extract from a respected Austrian journal-of-record, in its native tongue, would be close to being regarded as a "credible source" for a trivial item such as this.

What this little item does illustrate is the power of the Internet version of Chinese Whispers.

And does underline the need for the individual to do a little rudimentary checking before bursting into print.

Dear Foxy and Philo,

Whether people are by nature good or evil is moot. I believe we are born with a clean slate neither good nor evil. Quite possibly I have that idea from my religious training that did not accept the idea of Original Sin. We are born with certain propensities that may be encouraged or discouraged by various influences. One of the influences is religion. Both Philo and Foxy seem to maintain that religion is a force for good. I disagree and maintain it can be a force for good or evil.

Some religions maintain they have a truth denied to other people and try to push their religion on other people. That is evil. It is not evil for them to merely tell people about their religion and demonstrate it by their good life.

Maintaining that religion is a force for good is often by a process of denial. Where religion is bad religionists may claim that is not 'real' or 'true' religion or that Hitler or others who actions they don't approve of is not a 'real' follower of their religion.

The Christian Zionists who block peace in the Middle East because they want all Jews to go to Israel, the rabbis who support driving Palestinians from their land because God is a real estate dealer, the Muslims in Afghanistan who throw acid in the face of schoolgirls and burn down their schools, the Buddhist clergy who support the atrocities committed on the Tamils and the Hindu mob that burned the Christian missionary and his two sons to death in their car have all been inspired by their religion to commit or support acts that have added to human suffering.

However, the process by which evil is denied in religion is a simple one. Religion is good. Therefore when evil stems from religion it must not be real religion. I don’t buy it.

"For instance, when I read the New Testament, I get a picture of a good bloke; a carpenter who can't post on OLO, but thinks he has a handle on how to make the world a better place." - Grim

Yes,Jesus seems to have been a great teacher and humanist. Up there with the best eighteenth century liberal thinkers and twentieth century humanist psychologists.

He was also mendicant. One hopes he was not a complete trickster. He seems to so much to offer. Mabye, he was like Oprah, who seems have some shows for the general audience for popularity in order to leverage more serious endeavours. Mozart did this too. The Magic Flute for the populous and Requeim for the serous music lover. Else put, Jesus maybe performed "tricks", whilst trying to develop a social agneda and perhaps even a political agenda.

Being a representaive of the House of David he would have been given the task of being a missionary to the Godfarers, who were Gentiles converting Judaism. He spoke of a Kingdom of Heaven and may have over stepped the make with regards both Roman and Jewish authorities.

Hollywood would have Jesus, the carpenter, framed as a worker of wood. Maybe a sot with Jesus working on a small wooden item in a bench. Yet, in Roman times a carpenter was a principally a wheelright. The words cart and carpenters have a common etymology. Also, a carpenter could be a odd-jobs man. He may have indeed worked with wood but necessarily as commonly depicted.

Given Jesus lived hundreds of years after the Royal House David, there must have thousands of people genetically related to the ancient (too the Romans too) king.

If Jesus was as portrayed in the NT. He was not Joseph's child, and, because of the virgin birth not related to David through Mary, either. Assuming he started his wider Ministry at 35 (not 30), beforehand, he may have indeed been a tradesman or a member of an Essene cult and a relunctant Pharisee (A Martin Luther of his day).

Hey Oliver, good post. Might I recommend "the forbidden gospels" (can't remember where I found it, but it was a free download). My favourite was I think the Gospel of Thomas, which supplied some details of Jesus' youth. Highly entertaining.
For instance, Joseph was recorded as being 'not a very good' carpenter. He was commissioned to build a throne for the King, but after spending a year or so on the job, discovered the throne was too small. Luckily, he had a very talented son, who instructed him to grasp one side of the throne while young Jesus grabbed the other, and between them stretched the throne out to the right proportions.
Joseph was also recorded as complaining about having to move so often, because whenever a playmate of child Jesus offended him, the playmate would be struck down.
It (the gospel) actually depicts a very believable child of superhuman powers.
Which just proves -yet again- good story tellers have been around for a very long time.