-
Content specific to the COVID-19 pandemic is indexed and accessible here:
https://forums.forteana.org/index.php?threads/covid-19-wuhan-coronavirus-index-hub-portal.67106/
A
Unfortunately that logic appears to be of the binary variety, and I'm not a computer. 
Additionally; I am not specifically anti-Xtian -I am specifically anti-RELIGION. Xtianity is simply one of a whole bunch of popular delusions that I have a problem with: Xtianity, Islam, Judaism, Tantric Buddhism, Hinduism, Daoism, Monetarism, Pop Idol, and so on. So don't be in such a hurry to feel got at. :nonplus:
And it wasn't the 'devil's advocate' bit that was insulting (I made a joke about it, after all -the Milton quote?): it was the breathtaking arrogance of the suggestion that I should be pitied for my attitudes, and the equally blithe assumption that a concept like 'sin' -which has no meaning except in your personal belief system- should be binding on people who don't share your beliefs. That's essentially oppression, and I found it offensive for that reason.
As for the assertion that you can accuse me of -in essence- 'doing the devil's work' without it being offensive or insulting because I don't believe in a personal devil, I can't decide if you're really that culturally naive, or if you're trying to see how far you can push it.
While I certainly don't accept the existence of a real personification of evil, I live in a culture which has for thousands -count 'em, thousands- of years used words like 'evil', 'devil', 'demon', 'Satan' and so on to describe people and acts that have had negative human and social consequences.
Thus when you accuse me as 'being on the side of the devil', I am insulted and offended: because the phrase is loaded with negative cultural meaning as well as negative religious meaning. Therefore I do take offence and am insulted -by the negative cultural baggage that is attached to that phrase. Shame on you FA: saying that an anti-Xtian who believes in no devil should not complain about being accused of being on the devil's side, has the clear implication that Xtians can say anything they want about their critics, but that their critics are not allowed any comeback! Oh yeah. I forgot: that is the way it's been for the past 2K years...
Enough. We know you're a Believer. And like every Believer I've ever met, you are patently incapable of differentiating between simply answering Xtianity's critics and fervently espousing your beliefs. Attack may be the best form of defence, but it isn't the only form of defence. Solid foundations will deter sappers too you know. Still, I suppose after two millenia of Faith without any real foundations at all it's a bit late now to think about fixing some up...
Additionally; I am not specifically anti-Xtian -I am specifically anti-RELIGION. Xtianity is simply one of a whole bunch of popular delusions that I have a problem with: Xtianity, Islam, Judaism, Tantric Buddhism, Hinduism, Daoism, Monetarism, Pop Idol, and so on. So don't be in such a hurry to feel got at. :nonplus:
And it wasn't the 'devil's advocate' bit that was insulting (I made a joke about it, after all -the Milton quote?): it was the breathtaking arrogance of the suggestion that I should be pitied for my attitudes, and the equally blithe assumption that a concept like 'sin' -which has no meaning except in your personal belief system- should be binding on people who don't share your beliefs. That's essentially oppression, and I found it offensive for that reason.
As for the assertion that you can accuse me of -in essence- 'doing the devil's work' without it being offensive or insulting because I don't believe in a personal devil, I can't decide if you're really that culturally naive, or if you're trying to see how far you can push it.
While I certainly don't accept the existence of a real personification of evil, I live in a culture which has for thousands -count 'em, thousands- of years used words like 'evil', 'devil', 'demon', 'Satan' and so on to describe people and acts that have had negative human and social consequences.
Thus when you accuse me as 'being on the side of the devil', I am insulted and offended: because the phrase is loaded with negative cultural meaning as well as negative religious meaning. Therefore I do take offence and am insulted -by the negative cultural baggage that is attached to that phrase. Shame on you FA: saying that an anti-Xtian who believes in no devil should not complain about being accused of being on the devil's side, has the clear implication that Xtians can say anything they want about their critics, but that their critics are not allowed any comeback! Oh yeah. I forgot: that is the way it's been for the past 2K years...
Enough. We know you're a Believer. And like every Believer I've ever met, you are patently incapable of differentiating between simply answering Xtianity's critics and fervently espousing your beliefs. Attack may be the best form of defence, but it isn't the only form of defence. Solid foundations will deter sappers too you know. Still, I suppose after two millenia of Faith without any real foundations at all it's a bit late now to think about fixing some up...
F
Time's a Wastin'
Zygon - Very well and clearly said. You and I have said the same basic thing. You see the result.
I'll waste no more time on this True Believer. Simply isn't worth it.
"Never argue with an idiot because passers-by won't be able to tell who's who." -- Plato
Let's get back to the Jesus as myth thread and leave hubris and arrogance and celestial pity and not being saved and so on to the fanatics, shall we?
"If Jesus saves, then he'd better save himself, from the gory glory seekers, who use his name in death." -- Ian Anderson of Jethro Tull in "Hymn 49" from AQUALUNG
Zygon - Very well and clearly said. You and I have said the same basic thing. You see the result.
I'll waste no more time on this True Believer. Simply isn't worth it.
"Never argue with an idiot because passers-by won't be able to tell who's who." -- Plato
Let's get back to the Jesus as myth thread and leave hubris and arrogance and celestial pity and not being saved and so on to the fanatics, shall we?
"If Jesus saves, then he'd better save himself, from the gory glory seekers, who use his name in death." -- Ian Anderson of Jethro Tull in "Hymn 49" from AQUALUNG
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2002
- Messages
- 11,614
- Likes
- 4,520
- Points
- 234
A lot depends on how you define Christianity - if you mean the central tenets of being nice and tolerant to others, and treating them in the manner you would wish to be treated, then that's perfectly sound.
If however you mean the intolerant, dogmatic, closed-minded and hugely prejudiced churches that germinated therefrom (though not all of them are like that, it must be said), then this form of Christianity is the one that inspires most ire (and I suspect the one that turned quite a few of us against organised religion).
I'm not a christian, I don't believe in god, and I think religion has caused more strife than anything else in history - for all that, faith can make people more tolerant, and bring them strength and comfort: for this reason I do respect it in others, regardless of my personal disbelief. What others wish to believe is entirely their affair - so long as they don't start dissing me for what I don't believe.
If however you mean the intolerant, dogmatic, closed-minded and hugely prejudiced churches that germinated therefrom (though not all of them are like that, it must be said), then this form of Christianity is the one that inspires most ire (and I suspect the one that turned quite a few of us against organised religion).
I'm not a christian, I don't believe in god, and I think religion has caused more strife than anything else in history - for all that, faith can make people more tolerant, and bring them strength and comfort: for this reason I do respect it in others, regardless of my personal disbelief. What others wish to believe is entirely their affair - so long as they don't start dissing me for what I don't believe.
A
What you need to rethink is your definition of 'wrongdoing'. Hint: a wrong committed for the right reasons is still a wrong. (There I go, stating the obvious again, but apparently it's necessary.)
The term 'sin' has a specific meaning within the context of Xtianity, and you know it: a meaning that has little to do with mere 'wrongdoing'. It is apparently something mankind is born into without having to actually do anything wrong: a 'Sinner' in this context is not necessarily he who does wrong, but all who are yet to be Redeemed, possibly the most central part of traditional Xtian belief. That is the part that has no meaning outwith your own belief system. (Indeed, at this date I strongly suspect a good case could be made for the term 'sinner' to have no meaning other than its religious one within Western culture, given that the term seems now only to be used when describing criminals by poets and when the religious start pontificating about homosexuality!)
Stop trying to foist your world-view on me as some sort of universal verity! :no-no:
Stu: unfortunately the exhortation to "Be Truly Excellent To Each Other!" (to paraphrase) is not a central tenet of Xtianity; indeed, in practice it appears to be barely a consideration.
The main thrust of Xtian belief for most of the past 2K years has been, approx.: "Man is born into a sinful world, carrying sin on him because of the circumstances of his birth, and doing sinful things in his life. His only hope of Redemption and Salvation is through the intercession of Jesus Christ, and that intercession only comes through having Faith in Him and the love of God."* Respect and tolerance are relatively rare, and when they do exist Xtians seem to tend towards subjective -and limited, to either a lesser or greater extent- interpretations of what those words mean. (e.g. the recent CoE fuss over a gay prospective bishop being a good example of 'tolerance and respect' being reinterpreted to limit the possibilities in a Xtian institution widely perceived to be one of the more liberal and tolerant churches.)
*(This emphasis IMO is 7 tenths of the trouble with Xtianity: in many it lets them think they might as well 'sin' since their Faith will lead to their Salvation anyway. And in many others it creates a weird kind of comfort zone in which they seem to think that their Faith means that they talk as if they can now do no wrong, or at least, as if even if they do still do wrong, at least they aren't as bad as all of those who persist in having no Faith. And then you get the remainder: the ones who reject any suggestion that these others I've described are real Xtians, because -or so it appears to an outsider looking in- the only time a Xtian cites 'leading a life free of sin' as a central part of being a Xtian, he's doing it to exclude some other Xtian's claim to being a Xtian!)
Start? I just want them to take a 5-minute break from it!!
The term 'sin' has a specific meaning within the context of Xtianity, and you know it: a meaning that has little to do with mere 'wrongdoing'. It is apparently something mankind is born into without having to actually do anything wrong: a 'Sinner' in this context is not necessarily he who does wrong, but all who are yet to be Redeemed, possibly the most central part of traditional Xtian belief. That is the part that has no meaning outwith your own belief system. (Indeed, at this date I strongly suspect a good case could be made for the term 'sinner' to have no meaning other than its religious one within Western culture, given that the term seems now only to be used when describing criminals by poets and when the religious start pontificating about homosexuality!)
Stop trying to foist your world-view on me as some sort of universal verity! :no-no:
Stu: unfortunately the exhortation to "Be Truly Excellent To Each Other!" (to paraphrase) is not a central tenet of Xtianity; indeed, in practice it appears to be barely a consideration.
The main thrust of Xtian belief for most of the past 2K years has been, approx.: "Man is born into a sinful world, carrying sin on him because of the circumstances of his birth, and doing sinful things in his life. His only hope of Redemption and Salvation is through the intercession of Jesus Christ, and that intercession only comes through having Faith in Him and the love of God."* Respect and tolerance are relatively rare, and when they do exist Xtians seem to tend towards subjective -and limited, to either a lesser or greater extent- interpretations of what those words mean. (e.g. the recent CoE fuss over a gay prospective bishop being a good example of 'tolerance and respect' being reinterpreted to limit the possibilities in a Xtian institution widely perceived to be one of the more liberal and tolerant churches.)
*(This emphasis IMO is 7 tenths of the trouble with Xtianity: in many it lets them think they might as well 'sin' since their Faith will lead to their Salvation anyway. And in many others it creates a weird kind of comfort zone in which they seem to think that their Faith means that they talk as if they can now do no wrong, or at least, as if even if they do still do wrong, at least they aren't as bad as all of those who persist in having no Faith. And then you get the remainder: the ones who reject any suggestion that these others I've described are real Xtians, because -or so it appears to an outsider looking in- the only time a Xtian cites 'leading a life free of sin' as a central part of being a Xtian, he's doing it to exclude some other Xtian's claim to being a Xtian!)
Start? I just want them to take a 5-minute break from it!!
A
You know, I actually thought that there could be a dialogue on this, but Zygon, no matter what I have posted, you persist in painting me, without any knowledge of me as a person or apparently without really reading my posts, as a bigoted, narrow-minded, hateful person. I am not. I truly believe in Christianity, as I have been taught it, which is entirely based on love. God's love for us. Jesus' love and sacrafice for us. Et cetera. The church I attend does not preach hatefulness of the sort you keep complaining about. I don't practice it or preach it.
If I claimed that you were a certain sort of person simply because of your membership, let's say, on the FTMB, and portrayed you as a very bigoted, hateful, destructive person from that one datum, you'd rightfully say that I was wrong and that no one can posit that much information from one datum. So how, from that one fact about me, can you imply that I'm bigoted, wrong-headed, hateful and narrow-minded?!?
You will not accept my view, and I think that's okay. Since I feel my view is the right one, I feel bad that you've got a diagreement with it. On the other side: I don't accept your view, and you're getting upset and personal way way out of proportion to the situation.
Can't you please accept that I see things in a different way from you and that does not make me hate you, but your determination to pigeonhole me with every negative thing you know about organized religion does irritate me?
Why can neither you nor FraterLibre accept that listening to you does not mean that I HAVE to agree with you, nor does listening to me mean you HAVE to agree with me...and none of this exchange means that you are a horrible person. And none of it means that I am any of the apalling things you have said.
To put it bluntly: Lighten the fuck up.
If I claimed that you were a certain sort of person simply because of your membership, let's say, on the FTMB, and portrayed you as a very bigoted, hateful, destructive person from that one datum, you'd rightfully say that I was wrong and that no one can posit that much information from one datum. So how, from that one fact about me, can you imply that I'm bigoted, wrong-headed, hateful and narrow-minded?!?
You will not accept my view, and I think that's okay. Since I feel my view is the right one, I feel bad that you've got a diagreement with it. On the other side: I don't accept your view, and you're getting upset and personal way way out of proportion to the situation.
Can't you please accept that I see things in a different way from you and that does not make me hate you, but your determination to pigeonhole me with every negative thing you know about organized religion does irritate me?
Why can neither you nor FraterLibre accept that listening to you does not mean that I HAVE to agree with you, nor does listening to me mean you HAVE to agree with me...and none of this exchange means that you are a horrible person. And none of it means that I am any of the apalling things you have said.
To put it bluntly: Lighten the fuck up.
A
Edward said:
Seems Christianity makes one forgetful [/b]
[/b]
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The pity was for you because you will never be saved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep. So I guess I was supposed to assume that a person is going to make a 180 degree change in their beliefs? By my beliefs, a person is not saved unless they believe in Jesus. Pity for someone who will not enjoy something you believe is good for them is bad in what way exactly?
Listen, just because you don't value something doesn't mean that someone's desire for you to share what they value is ill meant or bigoted. That's one of the most common misconceptions about Christianity; that the desire to share it is a bad thing. If I knew of a terrific new restaurant and suggested you really ought to try it, would you be offended? I haven't even said "try it and see" - I've only said that by my lights, it's rather sad that you'll never share this great thing.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since I feel my view is the right one, I feel bad that you've got a diagreement with it
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why is this wrong!!?? He thinks I'm narrow minded because I don't agree with him, I feel bad for him because he doesn't agree with me - WHAT'S WRONG WITH THAT?
Good grief people, stop reading your own pre-conceptions into what I post!
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can know that my friends who are pagan are wrong in their beliefs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay and this differs from Zygon and FLs certainty that I am wrong in what way?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, but in this case I believe his education and credentials outweighs yours.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The man has multiple degrees and speaks reads and writes the languages the documents in question were originally written in. How can you argue that his credentials don't in fact outweigh FL's? It was a statement that FL was free to repudiate, and he did, questioning where the degrees were obtained, and I have not yet found the answer as Pastor Z*** is on vacation with his family.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interestingly, discussing this thread with another board member, I was told I need to remember to pity those who are so unable to admit that they might be wrong, because those tend to be the same people who are never saved, because they can never admit that they are sinners.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay this one I agree I worded badly and I apologize for it.
Fine. However, I stand by my statement that things are being read into my posts by people's preconceptions.
A
It's presumptuous. It's condescending. It's patronizing. It's prideful. It's arrogant. Isn't that enough ways of bad?
No one has said it is bigoted or ill-intended: we've only suggested that we don't want to hear about how much pity you're expending on us. If that's what gets you off, fine: just don't bother me with it, and that includes not mentioning it anyplace I'm likely to hear about it.
That's not a misconception: the desire to share it is a bad thing. Or, rather, the desire to be active in sharing it is a bad thing: I'd have no problem with it if it was simply a matter of you open the odd church here and there and if someone wants to come in and ask a few questions because they might want it in their lives, that'd be fine. It's getting it crammed down my throat 24/7 that irritates me. Believe what you want, just don't do it in my back yard, don't try and get my kids into it, don't tell me what I should and shouldn't be reading or watching, and don't I repeat don't tell me I'm hellbound just because I disagree with you and the baby Jesus. It involves judging me and you -and your God- don't have that right. (Please note that the word 'you' in that last paragraph was the generic 'you' and not 'you' specifically , FA.)
:rofl:
What a great analogy!
I can see it now:
FA -"Have you tried that resturaunt I told you about yet?"
FA's Friends -"Uh, no, not yet. Not had time."
FA -"Oh, I pity you. It's so sad that you've not gone there yet."
Geeze Louise: what the heck would you say to them were they to reply, "Yes actually we did, and we though it was terrible. One of our party actually got sick."
Would you tell them, "Well in that case I really doubt that you'll ever eat anything nice again."?? Of course not, and yet:
Actually no-one repudiated anything, least of all FL. Questioning your pastor's credentials was a request for clarification, not a discrediting of those credentials. (That will come if you cite them and we discover he got them mail-order, or from some arch-conservative bible college where all the guys are required to wear crew cuts and avoid denim, are taught that the Documentary Hypothesis is a liberal sham, and the reading list consists of just the gospels and publications by people like those lovely people at CARM (irony). Also, it was actually I who questioned your pastor's credentials, IIRC. I'll look forward to researching where he got 'em.
No one has said it is bigoted or ill-intended: we've only suggested that we don't want to hear about how much pity you're expending on us. If that's what gets you off, fine: just don't bother me with it, and that includes not mentioning it anyplace I'm likely to hear about it.
That's not a misconception: the desire to share it is a bad thing. Or, rather, the desire to be active in sharing it is a bad thing: I'd have no problem with it if it was simply a matter of you open the odd church here and there and if someone wants to come in and ask a few questions because they might want it in their lives, that'd be fine. It's getting it crammed down my throat 24/7 that irritates me. Believe what you want, just don't do it in my back yard, don't try and get my kids into it, don't tell me what I should and shouldn't be reading or watching, and don't I repeat don't tell me I'm hellbound just because I disagree with you and the baby Jesus. It involves judging me and you -and your God- don't have that right. (Please note that the word 'you' in that last paragraph was the generic 'you' and not 'you' specifically , FA.)
:rofl:
What a great analogy!
I can see it now:
FA -"Have you tried that resturaunt I told you about yet?"
FA's Friends -"Uh, no, not yet. Not had time."
FA -"Oh, I pity you. It's so sad that you've not gone there yet."
Geeze Louise: what the heck would you say to them were they to reply, "Yes actually we did, and we though it was terrible. One of our party actually got sick."
Would you tell them, "Well in that case I really doubt that you'll ever eat anything nice again."?? Of course not, and yet:
Actually no-one repudiated anything, least of all FL. Questioning your pastor's credentials was a request for clarification, not a discrediting of those credentials. (That will come if you cite them and we discover he got them mail-order, or from some arch-conservative bible college where all the guys are required to wear crew cuts and avoid denim, are taught that the Documentary Hypothesis is a liberal sham, and the reading list consists of just the gospels and publications by people like those lovely people at CARM (irony). Also, it was actually I who questioned your pastor's credentials, IIRC. I'll look forward to researching where he got 'em.
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2001
- Messages
- 756
- Likes
- 1
- Points
- 49
FA, I think that you can be pretty sure that the majority of contributors to this board have sampled most if not all of the menu at 'Chez Jesus' and found the dishes tasteless, unfulfilling and hard to swallow. The service is stiff and unaccomodating and the decor whilst grand and imposing is ultimately a distraction (presumably due to the lack of substance in its meals).
May I recomend occasional visits to the 'The Bhudda Lounge', 'Pagan Pizza', 'Pret-a-Muslim', K.F.Sikh. All good eateries and a welcome change to any strict diet.
May I recomend occasional visits to the 'The Bhudda Lounge', 'Pagan Pizza', 'Pret-a-Muslim', K.F.Sikh. All good eateries and a welcome change to any strict diet.
A
Edward said:
FA, I think that you can be pretty sure that the majority of contributors to this board have sampled most if not all of the menu at 'Chez Jesus' and found the dishes tasteless, unfulfilling and hard to swallow. The service is stiff and unaccomodating and the decor whilst grand and imposing is ultimately a distraction (presumably due to the lack of substance in its meals).
May I recomend occasional visits to the 'The Bhudda Lounge', 'Pagan Pizza', 'Pret-a-Muslim', K.F.Sikh. All good eateries and a welcome change to any strict diet.
May I recomend occasional visits to the 'The Bhudda Lounge', 'Pagan Pizza', 'Pret-a-Muslim', K.F.Sikh. All good eateries and a welcome change to any strict diet.
I was specific in my use of that analogy so gimme a break. What is with you people that you insist on reading into a post what is not there?! Is it so important to you all to make me wrong for my beliefs that you have to resort to mis-quoting and taking statements out of context to support what you WISH I had said, so your attacks would then be justified?
Also, I've been sh*t on in this thread for making assumptions or taking a thread of discussion one step further, so I feel free too do it too: Edward, your post reads that you assume that I have NOT investigated Buddism, Paganism, et cetera. You might be interested in knowing that your assumption is dead wrong.
One final word: someone mentioned that in their opinion "Respect and tolerance are relatively rare, and when they do exist Xtians seem to tend towards subjective -and limited, to either a lesser or greater extent- interpretations of what those words mean. " I'd like to note that respect and tolerance go both ways; if you show no respect or tolerance for a Christian's beliefs how can you even ask for them to show respect or tolerance for yours? I know that one of the teachings of Jesus is to turn the other cheek, but that's a hard thing for anyone to do. If you're talking respect and tolderance for lifestyles and such, I agree that many so-called Christians are hateful in their attitudes. However, that does not mean that all are that way and it's as bigoted for people to be down on Christians for their beliefs as it is for Christians to be down on homosexuals or Muslims.
That considered, I will state that yes I have an issue with people who specifically attack Christianity. The attacks tend to be so vehement and are not well supported by the idea "I don't like the bad things Christianity has done" because it's the believers in the religion that go out and do things, not the religion itsself. Just like "guns don't kill people, people kill people". And there have been as many deaths done in the name of Islam as there have been done in the name of Christianity, but I don't hear many people expending their time and energy to knock that religion. So give it a rest and when you're tempted to open your mouth against Christianity, realize you're no different from the racist or sexist people you think ill of.
F
Above Recrimination?
"That considered, I will state that yes I have an issue with people who specifically attack Christianity. The attacks tend to be so vehement and are not well supported by the idea "I don't like the bad things Christianity has done" because it's the believers in the religion that go out and do things, not the religion itsself. Just like "guns don't kill people, people kill people". And there have been as many deaths done in the name of Islam as there have been done in the name of Christianity, but I don't hear many people expending their time and energy to knock that religion. So give it a rest and when you're tempted to open your mouth against Christianity, realize you're no different from the racist or sexist people you think ill of."
If an Islamic, Buddhist, Taoist, Aum Shinri-Kyu, Janist, or any other fantatic came around being sanctimonious, we would attack that behaviour too.
The xtian meme is indeed responsible for turning loose those many people who do bad things in its name. They would not have done it otherwise, so it's ridiculous to say it's not the religion to blame. Of course it is.
And according to the illogic of your final sentence, no one is permitted genuinely to dislike and speak against xtianity in a reasoned, intellectual, and dispassionate way because, according to you, this is but bigotry?
Seems the critics are far better informed than the criticised.
"That considered, I will state that yes I have an issue with people who specifically attack Christianity. The attacks tend to be so vehement and are not well supported by the idea "I don't like the bad things Christianity has done" because it's the believers in the religion that go out and do things, not the religion itsself. Just like "guns don't kill people, people kill people". And there have been as many deaths done in the name of Islam as there have been done in the name of Christianity, but I don't hear many people expending their time and energy to knock that religion. So give it a rest and when you're tempted to open your mouth against Christianity, realize you're no different from the racist or sexist people you think ill of."
If an Islamic, Buddhist, Taoist, Aum Shinri-Kyu, Janist, or any other fantatic came around being sanctimonious, we would attack that behaviour too.
The xtian meme is indeed responsible for turning loose those many people who do bad things in its name. They would not have done it otherwise, so it's ridiculous to say it's not the religion to blame. Of course it is.
And according to the illogic of your final sentence, no one is permitted genuinely to dislike and speak against xtianity in a reasoned, intellectual, and dispassionate way because, according to you, this is but bigotry?
Seems the critics are far better informed than the criticised.
A
The keywords are reasoned, intellectual and dispassionate way.
Try it. I'll work harder at it too. And realize that your earlier posts have not been so, not entirely. You and I and Zygon have all given in to getting passionate about this debate, so if you'd rather it was reasoned, intellectual and dispassionate, I'll go for it. But that goes for you too.
What might be easier and more honest all around is to say that yes, my beliefs are in part emotionally based and lack 100% intellectual basis. And so does your anti-Christianity bent. Which makes it hard for you and hard for me to be all reasoned and dispassionate.
Edit: I also stand fast on the statement that it's your belief that Christianity advocates people doing negative things in the name of Christianity. And we're talking present day, not back in the days of the Inquisition, because let's face it, you're against modern Christians, not people who lived hundreds of years ago.
You've made statements over and over again on this thread without backing them up with evidence. My HS debate coach would have booted you out about the 3rd time you tried that in a debate. Very seldom have you said "These are my opinions." which would make your statements valid, as opinions. When I speak of my beliefs, I state them as my beliefs or my thoughts or my opinions. Your statements are presented in ways that people normally present facts but they are in truth only your opinions.
Historical statistics or even modern statistics about Christians who speak, act or behave a certain way does not in fact prove that all Christians are that way. Your negative statements about the behaviours of (current day) Christians are based off your experiences with a few people, and even if it were thousands, the numbers of Christians in the world today make even that a negligible statistic.
Also, you can base your arguments off the actions of the Church leader of some sects, and that is as fallacious an argument as stating that 100% of the population of a totalitarian cruel regime are cruel totalitarians. One datum or even a sprinkling of stats does not generate a true picture of the situation.
I know not all Christians are admirable people. Neither are all non-Christians. And most Christians are good, ethical and kind people. Most non-Christians are good ethical and kind people. I can say that easily because I live my life accepting people for what they are, and did long before I was a Christian. Yes, I fail to meet my own standards on that sometimes, but heck, who doesn't? The important thing is to always keep reminding yourself what you are supposed to do and try to do it, no matter where your guidelines stem from, no so?
Try it. I'll work harder at it too. And realize that your earlier posts have not been so, not entirely. You and I and Zygon have all given in to getting passionate about this debate, so if you'd rather it was reasoned, intellectual and dispassionate, I'll go for it. But that goes for you too.
What might be easier and more honest all around is to say that yes, my beliefs are in part emotionally based and lack 100% intellectual basis. And so does your anti-Christianity bent. Which makes it hard for you and hard for me to be all reasoned and dispassionate.
Edit: I also stand fast on the statement that it's your belief that Christianity advocates people doing negative things in the name of Christianity. And we're talking present day, not back in the days of the Inquisition, because let's face it, you're against modern Christians, not people who lived hundreds of years ago.
You've made statements over and over again on this thread without backing them up with evidence. My HS debate coach would have booted you out about the 3rd time you tried that in a debate. Very seldom have you said "These are my opinions." which would make your statements valid, as opinions. When I speak of my beliefs, I state them as my beliefs or my thoughts or my opinions. Your statements are presented in ways that people normally present facts but they are in truth only your opinions.
Historical statistics or even modern statistics about Christians who speak, act or behave a certain way does not in fact prove that all Christians are that way. Your negative statements about the behaviours of (current day) Christians are based off your experiences with a few people, and even if it were thousands, the numbers of Christians in the world today make even that a negligible statistic.
Also, you can base your arguments off the actions of the Church leader of some sects, and that is as fallacious an argument as stating that 100% of the population of a totalitarian cruel regime are cruel totalitarians. One datum or even a sprinkling of stats does not generate a true picture of the situation.
I know not all Christians are admirable people. Neither are all non-Christians. And most Christians are good, ethical and kind people. Most non-Christians are good ethical and kind people. I can say that easily because I live my life accepting people for what they are, and did long before I was a Christian. Yes, I fail to meet my own standards on that sometimes, but heck, who doesn't? The important thing is to always keep reminding yourself what you are supposed to do and try to do it, no matter where your guidelines stem from, no so?
Ahhh! now it get it!!
for many post I could not figure what that word was...now it hit me!! its like christmas =xmas. learn something new everyday! Ok -back to Jesus. He is whatever you want him to be here in america. The father ,son, and holy ghost (thats what I was brought up to beleive in sunday school) or a great philosypher, or a really chrismatic speaker like that real tall dark haired guy that makes alot of money to do them "take my course and be popular and have people like you" (like me) (like lifesprings, amway,est...etc. people) or like "Stan Lee" , back then 2000 years ago he could have been like a 1 in a million type guy ! real smart like L.RON HUBBERT of Scienentificology who think your engrams need ajusting ,for your brains to work right cause your parents filled you full of alot of bullshit that their parents fill them up with also, and caused things like slavery and pediphiles and MAMBA clubs, cause Peter Townsend got into alot of trouble looking at folks to young to be naked and stuff. If he would have went to a site like "Rapture Ready" he woouldn't have gotton his hard drives looked at! So, its all down to who's right for "you" and what is beleiving and what is studying a persons Ideas and writtings that were done so long ago that even Carl Sagan, wasn't gonna take it for face value but can get alot of cross referencing from certain parables and stories for his classes and "cosmos, series" ad infinitum. I think I beleived in Jesus more as a "God" a few times in my younger days in the Navy when I thought I was gonna die.
for many post I could not figure what that word was...now it hit me!! its like christmas =xmas. learn something new everyday! Ok -back to Jesus. He is whatever you want him to be here in america. The father ,son, and holy ghost (thats what I was brought up to beleive in sunday school) or a great philosypher, or a really chrismatic speaker like that real tall dark haired guy that makes alot of money to do them "take my course and be popular and have people like you" (like me) (like lifesprings, amway,est...etc. people) or like "Stan Lee" , back then 2000 years ago he could have been like a 1 in a million type guy ! real smart like L.RON HUBBERT of Scienentificology who think your engrams need ajusting ,for your brains to work right cause your parents filled you full of alot of bullshit that their parents fill them up with also, and caused things like slavery and pediphiles and MAMBA clubs, cause Peter Townsend got into alot of trouble looking at folks to young to be naked and stuff. If he would have went to a site like "Rapture Ready" he woouldn't have gotton his hard drives looked at! So, its all down to who's right for "you" and what is beleiving and what is studying a persons Ideas and writtings that were done so long ago that even Carl Sagan, wasn't gonna take it for face value but can get alot of cross referencing from certain parables and stories for his classes and "cosmos, series" ad infinitum. I think I beleived in Jesus more as a "God" a few times in my younger days in the Navy when I thought I was gonna die.
A
So, did any of the UK board members see Did Jesus Die? (on BBC4, 22:20 hrs, 24/08/03)? Basically a summation of varying theories regarding the historical truth of the crucifixion and resurrection. (Dunno if it was a repeat; the Radio Times didn't list it as such, but they're never 100% reliable with that kind of info.) According to the announcer before it began, the participants (theologians and historians) were mainly 'devout Xtians', for whatever that's worth (easy assertion to make when viewers can't ask said participants if they consider themselves 'devout' anythings).
However, that didn't stop the program makers chucking in references to the "Rennes-le-Chateau/Templars hid Christ's bones"* and "Mary Magdalene married Jesus then fled to the Camargue" (let's be charitable and dignify them with the term) theories. It also spent some time on the Buddhist connection: the old suggestion that Jesus survived the crucifixion and then went to Kashmir to be a religious teacher there. This time it came with the amplification that the 3 Wise Men had been Buddhist monks seeking a reincarnated Bodhisatva (which I'd heard before, but no longer giggle at the idea of) and that Jesus' 'missing years' (age 14 to 29) had been spent in the east being trained as a Buddhist monk/teacher (which was a version of the Jesus/Buddha connection I hadn't heard before for some reason).
On a more positive note, the prog. did make it clear that none of the earliest texts we have of the gospels mention the resurrection, but end with the discovery of the empty tomb: apparently the resurrection accounts are add-ons that all date from around 200 CE.
Was a wee bit worried by 2 things though: the fact that the account of the crucifixion wasn't questioned because it was -apart from how quickly Jesus was supposed to have died- consistent with what we know of other crucifixions. This IMO rather optimistic given the fact that the Romans were still crucifying people during the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE, thus making it possible that the crucifixion account was accurate not because it happened, but because the gospel writers had witnessed other, more recent crucifixions and used them as the basis for their accounts. (Not saying that's what happened, only offering it as a plausible alternative.)
The other part that worried me was the assertion that the 'commonly-accepted earliest date' (by whom? The readers of Time magazine??) for any of the Gospels is now around 40 CE, nearly 90 years earlier than any dates that I've read of as being 'commonly accepted'. IIRC, there are 3 tiny scraps of papyrus held at Maudlin College, Oxford that appear to contain a fragment of Matthew XXVI, and that some guy called (Teaday? Tidé?) has recently dated those scraps -the so-called Jesus Papyrus- to 40 CE -allegedly by using handwriting comparison (a standard papyrus dating technique): however in the documentary On The Trail of The New Testament (continually recycling on Discovery-Civilization in the UK, oh hey it's on as I write this: synchronicity or what?) it was quite clear in interview that (Teaday? Tidé?) was highly-motivated and in fact determined to date the fragments as early as possible, a fact which could not help but influence his analysis.
In fact, using handwriting comparison, he was only able to stretch the date back as far as around 70 CE (using some frankly dodgy writing on a piece of pottery from Masada, while discounting the more convincing writing on papyrii from around 135 CE), then hacked off a few more years based on a radical interpretation of a controversial fragment of scroll the size of a postage stamp found at Qmran -his claim being that if any Xtian texts were being written on scrolls prior to 68 CE, there must have been a scroll version of Matthew from the same period: a claim for which he has absolutely NO evidence other than his gut feeling!
So excuse me if I take the 40 CE date for any of the gospels with a pinch of salt.
*rofl: when the historian who's been investigating the area for 12 years talked about how he had tried to survey from a Templar site, looking for other Templar sites, but made lots of mistakes until he finally found what he was looking for after 12 years of trying! So he was doing it wrong until he found what he was expecting to find, eh? )
Anyway, anybody else see Did Jesus Die? and have an opinion on it?
However, that didn't stop the program makers chucking in references to the "Rennes-le-Chateau/Templars hid Christ's bones"* and "Mary Magdalene married Jesus then fled to the Camargue" (let's be charitable and dignify them with the term) theories. It also spent some time on the Buddhist connection: the old suggestion that Jesus survived the crucifixion and then went to Kashmir to be a religious teacher there. This time it came with the amplification that the 3 Wise Men had been Buddhist monks seeking a reincarnated Bodhisatva (which I'd heard before, but no longer giggle at the idea of) and that Jesus' 'missing years' (age 14 to 29) had been spent in the east being trained as a Buddhist monk/teacher (which was a version of the Jesus/Buddha connection I hadn't heard before for some reason).
On a more positive note, the prog. did make it clear that none of the earliest texts we have of the gospels mention the resurrection, but end with the discovery of the empty tomb: apparently the resurrection accounts are add-ons that all date from around 200 CE.
Was a wee bit worried by 2 things though: the fact that the account of the crucifixion wasn't questioned because it was -apart from how quickly Jesus was supposed to have died- consistent with what we know of other crucifixions. This IMO rather optimistic given the fact that the Romans were still crucifying people during the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE, thus making it possible that the crucifixion account was accurate not because it happened, but because the gospel writers had witnessed other, more recent crucifixions and used them as the basis for their accounts. (Not saying that's what happened, only offering it as a plausible alternative.)
The other part that worried me was the assertion that the 'commonly-accepted earliest date' (by whom? The readers of Time magazine??) for any of the Gospels is now around 40 CE, nearly 90 years earlier than any dates that I've read of as being 'commonly accepted'. IIRC, there are 3 tiny scraps of papyrus held at Maudlin College, Oxford that appear to contain a fragment of Matthew XXVI, and that some guy called (Teaday? Tidé?) has recently dated those scraps -the so-called Jesus Papyrus- to 40 CE -allegedly by using handwriting comparison (a standard papyrus dating technique): however in the documentary On The Trail of The New Testament (continually recycling on Discovery-Civilization in the UK, oh hey it's on as I write this: synchronicity or what?) it was quite clear in interview that (Teaday? Tidé?) was highly-motivated and in fact determined to date the fragments as early as possible, a fact which could not help but influence his analysis.
In fact, using handwriting comparison, he was only able to stretch the date back as far as around 70 CE (using some frankly dodgy writing on a piece of pottery from Masada, while discounting the more convincing writing on papyrii from around 135 CE), then hacked off a few more years based on a radical interpretation of a controversial fragment of scroll the size of a postage stamp found at Qmran -his claim being that if any Xtian texts were being written on scrolls prior to 68 CE, there must have been a scroll version of Matthew from the same period: a claim for which he has absolutely NO evidence other than his gut feeling!
So excuse me if I take the 40 CE date for any of the gospels with a pinch of salt.
*
rofl: when the historian who's been investigating the area for 12 years talked about how he had tried to survey from a Templar site, looking for other Templar sites, but made lots of mistakes until he finally found what he was looking for after 12 years of trying! So he was doing it wrong until he found what he was expecting to find, eh? )Anyway, anybody else see Did Jesus Die? and have an opinion on it?
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2001
- Messages
- 55,239
- Likes
- 9,013
- Points
- 284
A
I wouldn't mind this sort of exploration so much, if it wasn't for the fact that so much of the theory appears to be based on a series of books that seem to use the same sort of reverse engineering logic (pick a theory and work backwards with your facts to make them fit), that worked so well for Erich von Daniken, back in the Seventies.
Personally, I think it highly possible that the historical Jesus, might well have had a wife, but thinking backwards from the 'revelation' of the divine nature and antecedents of the royal Stewart Clan, is highly dubious.
I think it's all part of that scam, one way, or another. Prove one part and later you can come back with another dubious fact to prove, and use this piece as back up for 'proof.'
Bu then I'm verrry cynical!
Personally, I think it highly possible that the historical Jesus, might well have had a wife, but thinking backwards from the 'revelation' of the divine nature and antecedents of the royal Stewart Clan, is highly dubious.
I think it's all part of that scam, one way, or another. Prove one part and later you can come back with another dubious fact to prove, and use this piece as back up for 'proof.'
Bu then I'm verrry cynical!
F
Context
It's historical context. Of COURSE he had a wife, that being the absolute required norm for any and all rabbis and, for that matter, Jewish men over the age of majority.
Had he not it would have been so unusual as to require reams of explanation.
Further, his wife was Mary Magdalene, as they knew at the Council of Nicea, where the smear campaign against her began in earnest. (Did you know, by the way, that she's pictured in Da Vinci's Last Supper? And check out the daggers threatening her, too.)
She was not a prositute at all but rather a rich woman who was also, incidentally, a direct descendant of a royal dynasty. Thus, his marriage to her produced the strongest claim to the throne then extent, which is why he was such a huge political threat.
Meanwhile there was another Jesus meandering around rabble-rousing. The name Joshua was common and this other Jesus was a trouble-making loon.
The two were very handily conflated by the Council of Nicea to consolidate Contatntine's stranglehold on this strange new Catholic Christianity he cobbled up to ensure the Roman Empire would continue.
It worked.
It's historical context. Of COURSE he had a wife, that being the absolute required norm for any and all rabbis and, for that matter, Jewish men over the age of majority.
Had he not it would have been so unusual as to require reams of explanation.
Further, his wife was Mary Magdalene, as they knew at the Council of Nicea, where the smear campaign against her began in earnest. (Did you know, by the way, that she's pictured in Da Vinci's Last Supper? And check out the daggers threatening her, too.)
She was not a prositute at all but rather a rich woman who was also, incidentally, a direct descendant of a royal dynasty. Thus, his marriage to her produced the strongest claim to the throne then extent, which is why he was such a huge political threat.
Meanwhile there was another Jesus meandering around rabble-rousing. The name Joshua was common and this other Jesus was a trouble-making loon.
The two were very handily conflated by the Council of Nicea to consolidate Contatntine's stranglehold on this strange new Catholic Christianity he cobbled up to ensure the Roman Empire would continue.
It worked.
A
So, which one got nailed to a tree? Jesus, TML, or Iesus Nazrene Rex Iudae? If the former, why did Joseph of Aramethea bother to engineer it being done on private land, and if the latter, what happened to the Trouble Making Loon?
I'm not disagreeing about the very suspect portayal of John the Beloved on Mad Vinnie's 'Last Supper', and the Johanite imagery (figure to the right of Jesus in the picture, index finger of right hand raised in the 'John' sign, anyone? ) in there should have been enough to get Da Vinci skinned by the church
As to Constanine's reasons for the invention of the creed. It mostly brought the Christian faith in line with the other major faiths of his version of the Empire, there is no evidence, or rather, limited, evidence he favoured christianity in any form. He mostly saw it as a source of trouble if it wasn't whipped into shape to weed out some of the rather politically unfavourable ideas, which questioned king ship etc (which later became the Mandean, Manchean and Cathar heresies)
I'm not disagreeing about the very suspect portayal of John the Beloved on Mad Vinnie's 'Last Supper', and the Johanite imagery (figure to the right of Jesus in the picture, index finger of right hand raised in the 'John' sign, anyone? ) in there should have been enough to get Da Vinci skinned by the church
As to Constanine's reasons for the invention of the creed. It mostly brought the Christian faith in line with the other major faiths of his version of the Empire, there is no evidence, or rather, limited, evidence he favoured christianity in any form. He mostly saw it as a source of trouble if it wasn't whipped into shape to weed out some of the rather politically unfavourable ideas, which questioned king ship etc (which later became the Mandean, Manchean and Cathar heresies)