 |
|
Jon Miller
|
|
I would like to clarify my statement, and just say that you are being an idiot in this thread or with respect to this subject matter
JM
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jon Miller
ok, than how do you explain the fact that in the lifetime of people who knew Him, there were accounts written about Him |
Which people? This is again circular reasoning. We don't know who wrote any of the accounts in the Bible. The earliest gospel was written decades after he supposedly died. Before that you have stuff being passed down by word of mouth through several different channels that all say varying, contradictory things. That's why we have tons of apocrypha, you know.
If Jesus was actually a composite figure cobbled together (mostly by Paul), then the actual events that happened to the person(s) who are his basis could have been far earlier than the NT says. Messianic cults had been running around Judea for hundreds of years, after all.
quote:
face it, while it is reasonable to think that there are exaggerations and the like, it is flat out idiotic to think that He didn't exist (there is more evidence for Christ's existence than for Socrates)
|
Socrates name at does appear on at least one contemporary Athenian document that I'm aware of. He is also described in works by multiple authors whose identity we do know that are contemporary of the times. So there goes that assertion. However, what we know of Socrates may be very, very different from the reality. Plato used Socrates as a mouthpiece for his own philosophical views, so I think it's pretty likely that the Socrates we see in Plato is mostly fictional (I see an interesting parallel here between Plato and Paul).
But the point you raise actually highlights the double standard tradition has forced on this argument. Historians readily admit they don't know for sure if there was really a Socrates. If that's the case, the same admission should apply to Jesus.
Also, is it possible Plato made up Socrates entirely as a dramatic tool for his writing? Sure, I suppose so. But it doesn't really matter to philosophy students whether he did or didn't exist. The same can't be said of Jesus.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DinoDoc
I also find it appropiate for this forum that in a thread about Islam we would discuss Christianity. |
Boris doesn't know the difference. Let's illustrate it to him by tieing him up and mailing him to Saudi Arabia, labelling him as "Gay Jewish Male".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
What the hell is that supposed to mean? And why would you think I wouldn't know the difference? |
Homosexuality is a capital crime in Saudi Arabia.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
IIRC this thread started out discussing Islam, Capt. Anderson.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jon Miller
while you can in general exagerate, you can't totally make up events that ahve no truth in them
JM |
Sadly you can.
The Angel of Mons:
" During the Great War thousands came to believe that a miracle had happened during the British Army’s first desperate clash with the advancing Germans at Mons in Belgium. In some versions a vision of St George and phantom bowmen halted the Kaiser’s troops, while others claimed angels had thrown a protective curtain around the British, saving them from disaster. The battle of Mons took place on 23 August 1914 and within weeks the ‘angels of Mons’ had entered the realms of legend. By the end of the war it became unpatriotic, even treasonable, to doubt the claims were based on fact.
Gothic horror writer Arthur Machen maintained until his dying day that the Angel of Mons was fiction. Machen believed that his short story, 'The Bowmen' , was the true source of the legend [see panel], pre-dating all other claims that were made from the spring of 1915 onwards. From that time the legend took on a life of its own and even today, versions of the story continue to circulate in folklore and the mass media. "
http://www.forteantimes.com/article...gelofmons.shtml
I could also mention Orson Welles's broadcast of the radio version of H. G. Wells's 'War of the Worlds' which had Americans panicking over non-existent Martian invaders.
There are numerous other 20th Century hoaxes, mass delusions and cases of mass hysteria and Jan Brunvand has edited several volumes of collections of urban myths and legends.
Still, you can always just resort to your petulant name-calling and ignore anything you don't like.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Don't blame me, I didn't start the hijack.
That still doesn't explain your asinine Saudi Arabia comment, either. |
I beg to differ. On page 5 you're the one turning this into a debate on whether Jesus existed.
My remark serves to remind you that you'd rather live in a country politically dominated by Christian fundies than by Islamic fundies.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by molly bloom
Making allowances for the changing civilizations they certainly did the equivalent- a literal interpretation of the Bible really took off from the latter part of the 17th Century onwards, so you're actually indulging in a wee bit of an anachronism in transposing modern day Christian fundamentalist thought to the past Christian interpretations of the Bible. |
Well this thread (and Doc's post) is about how Muslim dogma is worse than other dogmas. AFAIK, Some muslim countries continue to stone their adulterous women to death, and they continue to cut one hand to a caught thief, just like the Book says. Any country that adapts its execution means (for example, a country which hangs adulterous women instead of stoning them to death) doesn't apply the dogma literally.
As such, even though such countries must be harshly criticized, they aren't relevant to this thread IMHO.
quote:
Given the differences between modern day fundamentalism and the Calvinism and Presbyterianism and Puritanism of the times, I'd say that religious reformers and politicians in those states tried their best to institute the Reign of Christ on earth, and build the City of God. |
I trust you on that. But the question is: are they comparable to Saudi Arabia? Remember, even if a religious government begins hanging adulterous women, you'll always find worse reactionaries that will tell of GOD!!!!'s wish to see them stoned to death at the gates of the city.
In their opinion, the so-called "religious" government are liberals in disguise, and a mockery to the one truth 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
I trust you on that. But the question is: are they comparable to Saudi Arabia? Remember, even if a religious government begins hanging adulterous women, you'll always find worse reactionaries that will tell of GOD!!!!'s wish to see them stoned to death at the gates of the city.
In their opinion, the so-called "religious" government are liberals in disguise, and a mockery to the one truth |
I have a very interesting book (with pictures as well as text) illustrating just how bad the Roman Catholic Inquisition was to women. However the anti-female/anti-sex rage was not confined to them, and there was witch burning and hanging and ducking and immersion in Protestant England and Scotland too.
Adultery was punished, but off the top of my head I can't remember the exact punishment- but I suspect in extreme cases mutilation was involved- slicing off the nose, boring a hole in the tongue and cutting the cheeks were popular punishments.
Fetsivals were banned in the English Commonwealth, popular pastimes halted, maypole dancing banned (possibly a good thing...) theatres closed for immorality, and prostitution outlawed.
The Royalist female camp followers were on occasions brutally treated by the Parliamentarian forces- rape and mutilation and death.
I'd say the sharia and the Wahhabists would have found like minds in Calvin's Geneva and Cromwell's England.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
03-04-2005 19:03
|