PDA

View Full Version : Dumb & Dumber



antichrist
07-10-2004, 05:55 PM
Dr Karl this morning told on TV that about a hundred years ago the churches used to ring their bells to protect them from lightning (presumably calling on God or to frighten lightning off), well lo and behold, the lightning would srike the bell, travel down the chains/whatever and nab the bellringers -- killing them. They finally accepted lightning rods as earlier considered them the product of the Devil to fool God's wishes. (KB, hope can keep thread alive if don't defame living persons)

antichrist
25-10-2004, 01:21 PM
Bilal Skaf - the guy who was jailed for about 55 years for gang rape etc. He had a pretty girlfriend who gave out hints that she was fulfilling his every need. Now he is in prison for years with no girls at all.

antichrist
09-11-2004, 11:28 AM
On TV the other night it showed a Taiwanese man in a lion's cage being mauled. What we he doing in there? Trying to convert the lions to Christianity and claimed God would protect him. Religious stupidity has no bounds!

antichrist
26-11-2004, 04:30 PM
Out of SMH a few days ago comes:

Followers of a Hindu saint rioted after he failed to die at the appointed time. More than 15000 people attended to see him ascend (just like JC and the Big M),

Reminds me of about 1992 when a Korean Christian group reakoned it would be the end of the world at 6am Israeli time, about 2 am Ozzie time, their Sydney office was at Five Dock. All these other Christians also attended and when the countdown was on they all held onto their Bibles as if surfboards going to take them up to Heaven.

Come 2am and nothing happening of course I got up on a milk crate and poured p-o-o-p on them, giving them many examples in history of similar incidents. I also happened to be wearing a Muslim cap with a 666 headband around the front (as states in Bible that the mark of the Beast is 666 on forehead). I really let them have it. Well they returned the compliment with fists, another TV stint, the cops had to get me out of there.

In Korea the followers tried to kill the pastors as the followers had given up their jobs and given away their possessions really believing it was the end, being told that if did so they would go to heaven, otherwise hell. The smart operators had invested the monstreous donations into long term deposit (bit hypocritical aye), the wash up was that the govt charged them with fraud.

And you people wonder I am on an anti-religious crusade!

Don't the rest of you have any interesting stories??

PHAT
26-11-2004, 11:36 PM
Don't the rest of you have any interesting stories??

As an atheist, I Had a dream some years ago , that I met God and was so utterly overwhelmed whith joy tha tI woke up crying.

antichrist
27-11-2004, 05:40 PM
As an atheist, I Had a dream some years ago , that I met God and was so utterly overwhelmed whith joy tha tI woke up crying.

Get st.ffed Sweeney -- overwhelmed with joby-- what BS

Alan Shore
03-12-2004, 12:09 AM
An apt thread to stick this:

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,11550953%255E13762,00.html

So. Stupid.

PHAT
03-12-2004, 06:58 AM
Get st.ffed Sweeney -- overwhelmed with joby-- what BS

Not BS. True. I wish I had "faith". Mortality scares me.

antichrist
03-12-2004, 01:04 PM
Get st.ffed Sweeney -- overwhelmed with joy-- what BS edited

antichrist
03-12-2004, 01:08 PM
Not BS. True. I wish I had "faith". Mortality scares me.

I sometimes wonder if I have desended from a superior type of human being who could not care less about mortality, spirituality, New-Age, stars, religion etc etc. We must live our lives and thats it man, as AR would say. People waste their known life worrying about an unknown life -- dumb.

Alan Shore
03-12-2004, 01:37 PM
Not BS. True. I wish I had "faith". Mortality scares me.

Perhaps it scares you because with the concept of mortality is the fear of not accomplishing everything in this life you may have sought to. People should be more mindful of their mortality and realise there is limited time with which we can experience life and all the things we want out of it. Life is short and precious ladies and gentlemen - don't waste a second of it.

PHAT
03-12-2004, 04:29 PM
Perhaps it scares you because with the concept of mortality is the fear of not accomplishing everything in this life you may have sought to.

It would make no difference to me wheather I had few goals (destinations) or too many. My greatest joy is the the journey. So, when my life is over, my journey will be over. Goals reached or not, death is the ultimate robbery.

Alan Shore
03-12-2004, 08:20 PM
It would make no difference to me wheather I had few goals (destinations) or too many. My greatest joy is the the journey. So, when my life is over, my journey will be over. Goals reached or not, death is the ultimate robbery.

Quite true.. it's the little victories and the celebration of life itself that is more important than the sum of our achievements. At the same time however, we have but a short time to cherish - if we were all immortal things would not matter as we would have an eternity to accomplish all our goals. Instead, we make the most of what we have and enjoy the journey along the way.

JGB
03-12-2004, 08:27 PM
Its not really such a short time that we have in comparison to most animals. 80 years (if your lucky) ain't that bad really, short in comparison to our planet naturally but hopefully enough time to do most of the things we would like to do.

antichrist
04-12-2004, 12:10 PM
Its not really such a short time that we have in comparison to most animals. 80 years (if your lucky) ain't that bad really, short in comparison to our planet naturally but hopefully enough time to do most of the things we would like to do.

Our only superiority over the chimps is our reasoning minds (as far as we know) which is why I go overboard when we put religious rubbish in it. It would be better if some stayed as chimps -- they don't want to reason. sent to Does God exist Thread

PHAT
04-12-2004, 02:01 PM
Its not really such a short time that we have in comparison to most animals. 80 years (if your lucky) ain't that bad really, short in comparison to our planet naturally but hopefully enough time to do most of the things we would like to do.

In a lot of biology a power or log relationship exists between to variables. I wonder if for animal species, there is a relationship between their inteligence and longevity. And if so, is humans are being ripped off. :(

PHAT
04-12-2004, 02:08 PM
Our only superiority over the chimps is our reasoning minds (as far as we know) which is why I go overboard when we put religious rubbish in it. It would be better if some stayed as chimps -- they don't want to reason. sent to Does God exist Thread

We are the 3rd chimpanzee :P

Cat
04-12-2004, 08:14 PM
Our only superiority over the chimps is our reasoning minds (as far as we know) which is why I go overboard when we put religious rubbish in it. It would be better if some stayed as chimps -- they don't want to reason. sent to Does God exist Thread

I don't know whether that is necessarily so, there ain't much reasoning in the large body of humanity I've been witness to. If it is to be measured by survival skills, then I wouldn't be surprised to see the vast majority of Chimphood outperform a population raised on Pop Idol and fast food.

I guess one should distinguish between concrete and abstract reasoning. Abstract reasoning is dependant on language, and this more than anything distinguishes us. Stories were an essential part of early human development as a means to pass information and understanding from one generation to the next, allowing us all to stand on the shoulders of our ancestors. There are obviously other distinguishing traits, but complex language has been a most important tool in our box.

Of course, religion was hugely important as the purveyor of language and stories, a means of keeping essential knowledge sacrosanct.

Rincewind
04-12-2004, 09:47 PM
Of course, religion was hugely important as the purveyor of language and stories, a means of keeping essential knowledge sacrosanct.

If you really believe that you are more confused than I thought.

Cat
05-12-2004, 09:33 PM
If you really believe that you are more confused than I thought.

In antiquity, there was little distinction between fileds of knowledge, there was simply knowledge. Many of the ancients, such as Pythagoras, felt as much at home discussing mathematics, science, philosophy or religion. By the time of Plato and Aristotle the term logos came to describe this knowledge & understanding.

Another feature common to ancient Greek, Judaism and other religions was the distinction between those with understanding, or the logos if you like, and those who were the flock. The Greeks used the terms esoterics and exoterics. The esoterics would use parables, metaphors and symbolism to disseminate valuable information to the exoterics in ways that could be easily understood. Remember 99% of humanity was illiterate at that time.

Its hard to imagine how these individuals thought about their world, but from their brilliant ideas a civilisation was launched. They probably thought very differently about their Gods to they way we think today. Many of their Gods were simply personifications of natural forces. Gods in many Pagan religions were not immortal, they had all the frailities of men, they were angered, they were often impetutious. Stories about their Gods were symbolic and conveyed valuable information about natural forces and natural consequences.

Before these kinds of construct there was simply chaos. In the earliest Egyptian concepts of religious belief there were 2 Gods, one of order and one of chaos, who were often in battle with each other. The Egyptians were forever preoccupied with the fear of descent into chaos, they saw tribes invading their borders as the bearers of chaos, and to some extent this fear was a driving force for their grand constructions. Their Pharoahs were Gods during their lives and these constructions were testimony to the order supplied by the good governance of the Pharoah, which was important for their place in posterity and in heaven.

Rincewind
05-12-2004, 09:44 PM
In antiquity, there was little distinction between fileds of knowledge, there was simply knowledge. Many of the ancients, such as Pythagoras, felt as much at home discussing mathematics, science, philosophy or religion. By the time of Plato and Aristotle the term logos came to describe this knowledge & understanding.

Another feature common to ancient Greek, Judaism and other religions was the distinction between those with understanding, or the logos if you like, and those who were the flock. The Greeks used the terms esoterics and exoterics. The esoterics would use parables, metaphors and symbolism to disseminate valuable information to the exoterics in ways that could be easily understood. Remember 99% of humanity was illiterate at that time.

Its hard to imagine how these individuals thought about their world, but from their brilliant ideas a civilisation was launched. They probably thought very differently about their Gods to they way we think today. Many of their Gods were simply personifications of natural forces. Gods in many Pagan religions were not immortal, they had all the frailities of men, they were angered, they were often impetutious. Stories about their Gods were symbolic and conveyed valuable information about natural forces and natural consequences.

Before these kinds of construct there was simply chaos. In the earliest Egyptian concepts of religious belief there were 2 Gods, one of order and one of chaos, who were often in battle with each other. The Egyptians were forever preoccupied with the fear of descent into chaos, they saw tribes invading their borders as the bearers of chaos, and to some extent this fear was a driving force for their grand constructions. Their Pharoahs were Gods during their lives and these constructions were testimony to the order supplied by the good governance of the Pharoah, which was important for their place in posterity and in heaven.


I'll let this go through to the keeper. Kegless?

Cat
05-12-2004, 09:49 PM
I'll let this go through to the keeper. Kegless?

He doesn't know which way the ball's swinging, he confuses his metaphoricals and his metaphysicals.

Alan Shore
05-12-2004, 11:19 PM
I'll let this go through to the keeper. Kegless?

By all means Baz, allow me. ;)


In antiquity, there was little distinction between fileds of knowledge, there was simply knowledge. Many of the ancients, such as Pythagoras, felt as much at home discussing mathematics, science, philosophy or religion. By the time of Plato and Aristotle the term logos came to describe this knowledge & understanding.

I think you are a little confused about the nature of the word 'Logos'. Translated, Logos means 'word', specifically, it refers, in Greek New Testament texts to the 'word' of God, i.e. Jesus as a representative figure of this 'word'. If you note John 1, 'Logos' appears in most translations as 'Word' capitalised such.


Another feature common to ancient Greek, Judaism and other religions was the distinction between those with understanding, or the logos if you like, and those who were the flock. The Greeks used the terms esoterics and exoterics. The esoterics would use parables, metaphors and symbolism to disseminate valuable information to the exoterics in ways that could be easily understood. Remember 99% of humanity was illiterate at that time.

Given, those who spoke thus were often seen as sages. Jesus himself spoke in hyperbole and parables some 70% of the time in the NT texts. I think however you still cling to the idea that Christianity evolved out of Greek thoought, something I do not accept based upon the ideology of the majority of present-day scholars.


Its hard to imagine how these individuals thought about their world, but from their brilliant ideas a civilisation was launched. They probably thought very differently about their Gods to they way we think today. Many of their Gods were simply personifications of natural forces. Gods in many Pagan religions were not immortal, they had all the frailities of men, they were angered, they were often impetutious. Stories about their Gods were symbolic and conveyed valuable information about natural forces and natural consequences.

This I somehow agree with. Despite the attributes to God of an omni-benevolent and omniscient being, the structure of the texts simply do not suggest this. Most interesting are the Greek gods, who are simply flawed figures that are more powerful than mere mortals, in much the same vein that mankind appears to rule over all animals, in some bizzarre way.


Before these kinds of construct there was simply chaos. In the earliest Egyptian concepts of religious belief there were 2 Gods, one of order and one of chaos, who were often in battle with each other. The Egyptians were forever preoccupied with the fear of descent into chaos, they saw tribes invading their borders as the bearers of chaos, and to some extent this fear was a driving force for their grand constructions. Their Pharoahs were Gods during their lives and these constructions were testimony to the order supplied by the good governance of the Pharoah, which was important for their place in posterity and in heaven.

While this is accurate enough I fail to see the relevance of your point. Non-religious writings have also survived, even in the Bible itself (Esther, Ecclesiastes etc.). What are you really trying to allude to here?

PHAT
05-12-2004, 11:33 PM
DR and "Bruce",

Forget it. Until the existance of your god has been shown to be better than a 50-50 chance - notice I do not even say "proved" - you are both talking utterly unnecessary drivel. STFU

Bill Gletsos
05-12-2004, 11:39 PM
STFU
Another example no doubt of your friendly personality and excellent communication and conflict resolution skills.
You are a total joke.

Bill Gletsos
05-12-2004, 11:42 PM
Oh no, not another Matt V Bruce slug fest. :hand:

Alan Shore
05-12-2004, 11:44 PM
Oh no, not another Matt V Bruce slug fest. :hand:

LOL! Perhaps the slightest hint of hypocrisy apparent here? ;)

Bill Gletsos
05-12-2004, 11:46 PM
LOL! Perhaps the slightest hint of hypocrisy apparent here? ;)
It doesnt worry me, the more that get stuck into him the better.

PHAT
05-12-2004, 11:58 PM
... you talk complete drivel most of the time.

Is that a crime?


So STFU yourself and get out of this thread since you obviously have nothing intelligent to contribute.

I would not and have not ever tried to debate Bible Studies 101. The inconsequential nature of such a subject to the reality of Bhopal and HIV transmission makes me blush in embarrassment on you behalf.

Wake up and smell our roses then venture 5000km NW and smell necrotic human flesh.

Bill Gletsos
06-12-2004, 12:03 AM
Is that a crime?
No just a sign of what a fool you are.
A fool with no credibility.


smell necrotic human flesh.
I keep telling you to get your head out your a.se but you obviously wont listen.

Alan Shore
06-12-2004, 12:09 AM
Is that a crime?

Not in the Aus. legal system but it cetainly wrecks your credibility.



I would not and have not ever tried to debate Bible Studies 101. The inconsequential nature of such a subject to the reality of Bhopal and HIV transmission makes me blush in embarrassment on you behalf.

Wake up and smell our roses then venture 5000km NW and smell necrotic human flesh.

101? You asswipe, I know more than you could ever hope to in a lifetime. It's painfully obvious you haven't a clue about philosophy, religion or independent rational thought other than what your little scientific textbooks tell you. I hope for your sake you wake up one day and realise the answers just aren't there and never fully will be.

Bill Gletsos
06-12-2004, 12:13 AM
It's painfully obvious you haven't a clue
You could have stopped there. ;)


I hope for your sake you wake up one day
Matt, wake up?
Get serious, Bruce.
That would have to be the day hell freezes over.

PHAT
06-12-2004, 12:42 AM
Not in the Aus. legal system but it cetainly wrecks your credibility.

You appear to be under the misapprehention that I neither seek nor covert "creadability". I am comfortable with knowing that I do not delude myself that I am important. :cool:


101? You asswipe, I know more than you could ever hope to in a lifetime.

Knowledge is not wisdom.


It's painfully obvious you haven't a clue about philosophy, religion or independent rational thought other than what your little scientific textbooks tell you.

1. You can read as much filozofy as you like. It doesn't mean you know the answers to "Who am I, what is my purpose and where am I going."

2. Those little scientific text books sum to a huge wave of truth that has your puny god (of the gaps) suffering acute claustraphobia.


I hope for your sake you wake up one day and realise the answers just aren't there and never fully will be. Defeatist

JGB
06-12-2004, 12:45 AM
blah blah ...sent to Does God exist Thread

thats agreat way of getting ones post count high really quick. ;) ...write everything once,copy and paste it in different threads! Imaginitive!?

Alan Shore
06-12-2004, 12:59 AM
You appear to be under the misapprehention that I neither seek nor covert "creadability". I am comfortable with knowing that I do not delude myself that I am important. :cool:

There never would be any danger of such a delusion in your case, when there was nothing there to begin with.


Knowledge is not wisdom.

Funny that you've somehow grasped this concept now yet conveniently forgot it in your previous posts. Why don't you go back and now apply this principle?


1. You can read as much filozofy as you like. It doesn't mean you know the answers to "Who am I, what is my purpose and where am I going."

It cetainly does a better job than your own style of blindfolding yourself and using the 'pin the tail on the donkey' method of your scientific 'inference to the best explanation = fact' bullcrap. The longer you cling to science as your own god, the more fundamentalist you shall become yourself.


2. Those little scientific text books sum to a huge wave of truth that has your puny god (of the gaps) suffering acute claustraphobia.

Since you don't even know my position on 'God', the fact that you try and ridicule what I say only shows your ignorance. Of course you wouldn't even care though - my own views aren't statistically quantifiable in your little Junior Encyclopaedia of Science. Just like that mind of yours...


Defeatist

Hardly - you've yet to show any real substance to any of your arguments. My reccomendation of FO'ing out of this thread still stands. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

PHAT
06-12-2004, 01:24 AM
It cetainly does a better job than your own style of blindfolding yourself and using the 'pin the tail on the donkey' method of your scientific 'inference to the best explanation = fact' bullcrap. The longer you cling to science as your own god, the more fundamentalist you shall become yourself.

Look at me Kimmy, look at meeee. I 've got one word to say to you. Law of parsimony.

There's a rule/law in science and philosophy that says that entities should not be needlessly multiplied. This rule means that the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable. Furthermore an explanation for unknown phenomena should be made firstly in terms of what is already known.

Unfortunately for you, faith ain't fact.

Now go and pray that you lose your faith - if you have the guts.

Cat
06-12-2004, 07:19 AM
Dickinson]By all means Baz, allow me. ;)



I think you are a little confused about the nature of the word 'Logos'. Translated, Logos means 'word', specifically, it refers, in Greek New Testament texts to the 'word' of God, i.e. Jesus as a representative figure of this 'word'. If you note John 1, 'Logos' appears in most translations as 'Word' capitalised such.

Ok, from the bible itself;
( Greek“word,” “reason,” or “plan”)
plural logoi
in Greek philosophy and theology, the divine reason implicit in the cosmos, ordering it and giving it form and meaning. Though the concept defined by the term logos is found in Greek, Indian, Egyptian, and Persian philosophical and theological systems, it became particularly significant in Christian writings and doctrines to describe or define the role of Jesus Christ as the principle of God active in the creation and the continuous structuring of the cosmos and in revealing the divine plan of salvation to man. It thus underlies the basic Christian doctrine of the preexistence of Jesus.
The idea of the logos in Greek thought harks back at least to the 6th-century-BC philosopher Heracleitus, who discerned in the cosmic process a logos analogous to the reasoning power in man. Later, the Stoics, philosophers who followed the teachings of the thinker Zeno of Citium (4th–3rd century BC), defined the logos as an active rational and spiritual principle that permeated all reality. They called the logos providence, nature, god, and the soul of the universe, which is composed of many seminal logoi that are contained in the universal logos. Philo of Alexandria, a 1st-century-AD Jewish philosopher, taught that the logos was the intermediary between God and the cosmos, being both the agent of creation and the agent through which the human mind can apprehend and comprehend God. According to Philo and the Middle Platonists, philosophers who interpreted in religious terms the teachings of the 4th-century-BC Greek master philosopher Plato, the logos was both immanent in the world and at the same time the transcendent divine mind.
In the first chapter of The Gospel According to John, Jesus Christ is identified as “the Word” (Greek logos) incarnated, or made flesh. This identification of Jesus with the logos is based on Old Testament concepts of revelation, such as occurs in the frequently used phrase “the Word of the Lord”—which connoted ideas of God's activity and power—and the Jewish view that Wisdom is the divine agent that draws man to God and is identified with the word of God. The author of The Gospel According to John used this philosophical expression, which easily would be recognizable to readers in the Hellenistic (Greek cultural) world, to emphasize the redemptive character of the person of Christ, whom the author describes as “the way, and the truth, and the life.” Just as the Jews had viewed the Torah (the Law) as preexistent with God, so also the author of John viewed Jesus, but Jesus came to be regarded as the personified source of life and illumination of mankind. The Evangelist interprets the logos as inseparable from the person of Jesus and does not simply imply that the logos is the revelation that Jesus proclaims.
The identification of Jesus with the logos, which is implied in various places in the New Testament but stated specifically in the Fourth Gospel, was further developed in the early church but more on the basis of Greek philosophical ideas than on Old Testament motifs. This development was dictated by attempts made by early Christian theologians and apologists to express the Christian faith in terms that would be intelligible to the Hellenistic world and to impress their hearers with the view that Christianity was superior to, or heir to, all that was best in pagan philosophy. Thus, in their apologies and polemical works, the early Christian Fathers stated that Christ as the preexistent logos (1) reveals the Father to mankind and is the subject of the Old Testament manifestations of God; (2) is the divine reason in which the whole human race shares, so that the 6th-century-BC philosopher and others who lived with reason were Christians before Christ; and (3) is the divine will and word by which the worlds were framed.


Is that a complete enough definition?



Given, those who spoke thus were often seen as sages. Jesus himself spoke in hyperbole and parables some 70% of the time in the NT texts. I think however you still cling to the idea that Christianity evolved out of Greek thoought, something I do not accept based upon the ideology of the majority of present-day scholars.

The present-day scholars you refer to are presumably the Theologians who are indeed facing something of a crisis given the body of historical evidence available over the last 40 years. But I don't think anything I wrote in my previous post made any reference to the origins of Christianity, did it? Thats another matter, on which I would be happy to espouse my opinion and happy to reference.



While this is accurate enough I fail to see the relevance of your point. Non-religious writings have also survived, even in the Bible itself (Esther, Ecclesiastes etc.). What are you really trying to allude to here?

The point was to clarify the fact that early man was surrounded by chaos, there was little reasoned thought and little social structure. Religion was part of the process of civilisation, an important part.

PHAT
06-12-2004, 07:39 AM
The point was to clarify the fact that early man was surrounded by chaos, there was little reasoned thought ...

Sounds like modern man too. It seems that religion hasn't cured that.



The point was to clarify the fact that early man was surrounded ... little social structure. Religion was part of the process of civilisation, an important part.

But religion didn't/doesn't have to be.

arosar
06-12-2004, 08:15 AM
You asswipe, I know more than you could ever hope to in a lifetime.

Get real BD. Whaddya really know?

AR

Cat
06-12-2004, 08:51 AM
=Matthew Sweeney]Sounds like modern man too. It seems that religion hasn't cured that.

Absolutely, which is why understanding mechanisms that helped support and sustain civiliisations need to be properly understood. We're living in social quicksand, and until we properly understand our history, its difficult to gain perspective. The religious sentimentalise our history its true, but so too is any attempt to minimise the place of religion in the creation of our social order also sentimental. The truth is that human civilisation is a very fragile thing, we are very limited beings that have simply been duped by apparent technological sophistication into imagining we are more rhobust than we really are. Until we take off the blinkers and properly understand the weaknesses of our nature we will continue to sleepwalk into the future.



But religion didn't/doesn't have to be.

Yes but there's no society yet that I am aware of that has evolved without religion. It may be possible, but religion is certainly a catalyst for social development.

Alan Shore
06-12-2004, 01:59 PM
Get real BD. Whaddya really know?

AR

I meant in terms of philosophical insight into life, not necessarily factual knowledge. I'm not claiming to be a sage but if people choose to stay ignorant of things then they'll always be behind the eight-ball one way or another.

Even so, I'd bet on myself to thrash you at general knowledge trivia ;)

Alan Shore
06-12-2004, 02:09 PM
[Lines of text]

Is that a complete enough definition?

I don't see anything in that passage to contradict what I was saying, it appears to give an accurate account of Logos. It simply depends upon how you interpret the word based upon your own cultural/religious understanding. Most specifically it refers to an agent of God, a method by which God can act physically in the world depite being somehow removed from it. Christian writers also interchanged 'Sophia' (the personification of Wisdom in the Bible) with Logos when referring to Jesus, however this was not as popular as they did not want Jesus identified with a feminine entity. You can see Proverbs 8 for a more detailed account of Sophia's roles.


The present-day scholars you refer to are presumably the Theologians who are indeed facing something of a crisis given the body of historical evidence available over the last 40 years. But I don't think anything I wrote in my previous post made any reference to the origins of Christianity, did it? Thats another matter, on which I would be happy to espouse my opinion and happy to reference.

Because I remember from months ago in another thread you took that very view, hence it seemed you were further talking up your viewpoint.


The point was to clarify the fact that early man was surrounded by chaos, there was little reasoned thought and little social structure. Religion was part of the process of civilisation, an important part.

It'd be interesting to ask some anthropological historians/archaeologists if there were many cultures not centred around religion. I suppose it also depends upon what you class as civilised and what belief structures purport this.

arosar
06-12-2004, 02:12 PM
Even so, I'd bet on myself to thrash you at general knowledge trivia ;)

You talk too much about yourself mate. THis is not the done thing.

AR

Alan Shore
06-12-2004, 02:15 PM
You talk too much about yourself mate. THis is not the done thing.

AR

Maybe you're right.. I seem to project an image that I don't really want to. I just mentioned it cos we were playing trivia the other night. I wish Sale of the Century would come back on instead of Millionaire.

antichrist
06-12-2004, 06:15 PM
"There is no other sense or meaning of Being than the one we bestow on entities in our understanding." - Martin Heidegger

That is about Heidegger was ever on about - language, he flogged it to death -- boring! But I am sure you will come up with an exception

Alan Shore
06-12-2004, 11:59 PM
"There is no other sense or meaning of Being than the one we bestow on entities in our understanding." - Martin Heidegger

That is about Heidegger was ever on about - language, he flogged it to death -- boring! But I am sure you will come up with an exception

I'm sure you'd love Heidegger since he was a nazi... but no, he used ideas of consciousness based upon the early work of Edmund Husserl to develop an interesting model of what constitutes being (existing) and how we are limited by death in our pursuits of truth and meaning.

Rhubarb
07-12-2004, 12:28 AM
I'll let this go through to the keeper. Kegless?
Looks like second slip took a diving catch in front of me. Personally, I'm happy for Bruce to take the 'doctor' on, since any discussion with DR is pointless; no sooner have you refuted one point than he's off on another tangent, all the while chastising you, in his pompous fashion, for not having the same comprehensive, holistic worldview that he - and he himself alone - possesses.

Cat
07-12-2004, 09:00 AM
all the while chastising you, in his pompous fashion,

I'm so sorry, I thought pomposity and arrogance were the name of the game, I thought it was a prerequisite to entry on the BB. A genuine misunderstanding on my part, I'm so sorry. What's your excuse?



.....comprehensive, holistic worldview that he - and he himself alone - possesses.

Again this is remiss of me, from now on I'll adopt a completely parochial view. In fact, I'll try to develop an entirely Sydney-centric view of the Universe, that seems to cut some mustard around here.


any discussion with DR is pointless; no sooner have you refuted one point than he's off on another tangent,

How rude of me to provide counter-argument, from now on I'll try to limit myself entirely to the paradigm you chose for me. I'm sure you'll feel more comfortable if we stay within your limits and it'll be more of a challenge for me.

Rhubarb
07-12-2004, 09:59 AM
I'm so sorry, I thought pomposity and arrogance were the name of the game, I thought it was a prerequisite to entry on the BB. A genuine misunderstanding on my part, I'm so sorry. What's your excuse?
I'm so sorry, David. To be sure, I will never again volunteer advice as to why you are so universally despised on this board. I suppose that you will have to work it out for yourself one day.


Again this is remiss of me, from now on I'll adopt a completely parochial view. In fact, I'll try to develop an entirely Sydney-centric view of the Universe, that seems to cut some mustard around here. If you really think that would make a difference, by all means feel free to attempt to expiate your insecurities.


How rude of me to provide counter-argument, from now on I'll try to limit myself entirely to the paradigm you chose for me. I'm sure you'll feel more comfortable if we stay within your limits and it'll be more of a challenge for me.Yes, it is rather a challenge keeping you on subject, I must admit, but never fear, there is hope for you. You have what's called a 'vivid imagination', but it's okay - the worst we do these days is let you out to pasture.

Cat
07-12-2004, 10:16 AM
I'm so sorry, David. To be sure, I will never again volunteer advice as to why you are so universally despised on this board. I suppose that you will have to work it out for yourself one day.

Yes, it is rather a challenge keeping you on subject, I must admit, but never fear, there is hope for you. You have what's called a 'vivid imagination', but it's okay - the worst we do these days is let you out to pasture.

Now you're simply trying to flatter me. You're a very sad man Mr Canfell.

arosar
07-12-2004, 10:23 AM
Now you're simply trying to flatter me. You're a very sad man Mr Canfell.

Mr Canfell is widely respected and even has his own fan base. In fact, on the train home last night, a very strong (but inactive) chess player and myself were just talking about Mr Canfell's superb chess abilities. We were talking about the Bekker International in North Sydney a few years back.

AR

Cat
07-12-2004, 10:37 AM
Mr Canfell is widely respected and even has his own fan base. In fact, on the train home last night, a very strong (but inactive) chess player and myself were just talking about Mr Canfell's superb chess abilities. We were talking about the Bekker International in North Sydney a few years back.

AR

You're right AR, a little extension of some respect throughout the BB would go a long way. My little quip was unwarranted, my apologies Mr Canfell.

Rhubarb
07-12-2004, 10:43 AM
You're right AR, a little extension of some respect throughout the BB would go a long way. My little quip was unwarranted, my apologies Mr Canfell.
Your olive branch is accepted, Dr Richards.

Alan Shore
07-12-2004, 01:16 PM
Thus endeth the soap opera?

antichrist
07-12-2004, 02:03 PM
Thus endeth the soap opera?

Please don't I prefer a good stosh anyday, except on Heidegger, those words of yours about his work - truth and meaning -- raises my blood pressure. Did you see that film on him, I was waiting anxiously for it because how often do we see something on a philosopher, he and the film was so boring I felt like throwing the TV out the window. If he was a Nazi, that would be a plus for the Jews wouldn't it, the Nazis would never get any runs on the board, just procastinate! Imagine a war crimes trial against him, ten years later the prosecutors would be jumping out the window just to escape trying to escape his qualifications of language etc.

antichrist
07-12-2004, 02:16 PM
Bruce, what is your opinion of post 36 in USA hegemony? That is that Jews are not a race of people.

Alan Shore
07-12-2004, 02:25 PM
Bruce, what is your opinion of post 36 in USA hegemony? That is that Jews are not a race of people.

It's not a clear-cut dichotomoy of race vs. religion. One is Jewish if one's mother is a Jew, or if one converts to Judaism.

antichrist
07-12-2004, 02:33 PM
It's not a clear-cut dichotomoy of race vs. religion. One is Jewish if one's mother is a Jew, or if one converts to Judaism.

But isn't there a controversy because the Orthodoxs don't accept these conversions? Even I am willing to concede that they are a race, or at least many of them. My friend a Moroccan Jew, looks exactly like an Arab, these Jews have a definite home in the Middle East and I think in many cases were only driven out of the Arab countries after the state of Isreal was created and mostly after the 1967 war. Which should not have happened of course, but re-actions are understandable.

PHAT
07-12-2004, 04:55 PM
I'm so sorry, David. To be sure, I will never again volunteer advice as to why you are so universally despised on this board.

My opinion on DR makes your opinion on DR unsubstanciable.

Bill Gletsos
07-12-2004, 05:39 PM
My opinion on DR makes your opinion on DR unsubstanciable.
You are a fool so who cares what you think.

You have no credibility and DR's credibilty is only slightly above yours.

Alan Shore
07-12-2004, 05:49 PM
But isn't there a controversy because the Orthodoxs don't accept these conversions? Even I am willing to concede that they are a race, or at least many of them. My friend a Moroccan Jew, looks exactly like an Arab, these Jews have a definite home in the Middle East and I think in many cases were only driven out of the Arab countries after the state of Isreal was created and mostly after the 1967 war. Which should not have happened of course, but re-actions are understandable.

That depends on the conversion itself based upon different streams of the religion. Those converting to Reform Judaism for instance do not have to undertake the traditional conversion rituals and if they do not are not recognised as Jews by the Orthodox faith.

There are black jews too representative of the region, even as far north as Ethipoia. There have been theories that Jesus was black too. So it is difficult to classify them as only a race such as Caucasian, Mongoloid etc.

Goughfather
08-12-2004, 10:26 AM
I'm sure you'd love Heidegger since he was a nazi... but no, he used ideas of consciousness based upon the early work of Edmund Husserl to develop an interesting model of what constitutes being (existing) and how we are limited by death in our pursuits of truth and meaning.

I long for the day that we start a Kierkegaard thread ...

antichrist
08-12-2004, 12:03 PM
I long for the day that we start a Kierkegaard thread ...

I used to be familar with his works but now out of reach, mentally and physically.

After Crissy maybe

antichrist
08-12-2004, 12:20 PM
I am ready to announce the Dumb and Dumber award for the year (before everyone goes on holidays) but you should be able to guess -- someone I have mentioned a few times (No! I can't nominate myself)

Cat
08-12-2004, 05:03 PM
My opinion on DR makes your opinion on DR unsubstanciable.

Thanks Matt

antichrist
09-12-2004, 09:14 PM
I long for the day that we start a Kierkegaard thread ...

Didn't he write a book titled something like "Attack on Christianity"? I have it somewhere.

Goughfather
10-12-2004, 01:23 AM
Didn't he write a book titled something like "Attack on Christianity"? I have it somewhere.

I believe it's entitled "Attack On Christendom". Some of his arguments are incredibly insightful and hold true in contemporary Christian culture. Because of its religious content, it probably stands as my favourite piece of Kierkegaardian writing, although you should try reading his stanza entitled "Subjectivity is Truth" in "Concluding Unscientific Postscript to the Philosophical Fragments" (1844). I also liked to read his early journal entries, which gives some degree of insight into the substantive influences upon the young Soren Kierkegaard without which one lacks the context of his later writings.

antichrist
10-12-2004, 10:54 AM
I will try to read after I am re-united with my books. A friend gave me "Conversations with God" yesterday, I can't bear to look at it, I left that world behind about 7 years ago after been totally submerged in for many years.

A flash flood destroyed many of treasured books so am further distanced.

This thread is becoming a bit too intellectual, contrarily to its title.

antichrist
10-12-2004, 11:04 AM
I am ready to announce the Dumb and Dumber award for the year (before everyone goes on holidays) but you should be able to guess -- someone I have mentioned a few times (No! I can't nominate myself)

A cryptic hint: SR

ursogr8
16-12-2004, 09:24 PM
I am ready to announce the Dumb and Dumber award for the year (before everyone goes on holidays) but you should be able to guess -- someone I have mentioned a few times (No! I can't nominate myself)

hi a/c

Perhaps you need to hold off on the announcement.
There are some late entrants making a strong run for the title this evening.
But if you are going to insist on a pair for the award then the tag team from NSW must be your choice. These days it does always seem to take the two of them to tackle the Goliath of the Gong.

Anyhow, your choice.


hi gg''

Did you design your signature line with anyone particular in mind?

starter

Garvinator
16-12-2004, 09:28 PM
hi gg''

Did you design your signature line with anyone particular in mind?

starter
how did you know i would be looking at this thread ;) just a general comment.

ursogr8
16-12-2004, 09:39 PM
how did you know i would be looking at this thread ;)

Well gg'', I was sitting here watching it unfold, nay, unravel, and various thoughts crossed my mind.

First......is it something in the air, north of my border, and south of yours.
Then I thought, it was one of those Silly Season things that people do.
Finally, it occurred to me, they were trying out for a/c's award.

And I just guessed you would go through the same thought process.
Here we are; on the same thread.

A poster who wants to be a mod.; and an admin. who wants to be a normal poster. :rolleyes:

a/c should have no trouble deciding.

regards
starter

Bill Gletsos
16-12-2004, 09:53 PM
A poster who wants to be a mod.; and an admin. who wants to be a normal poster. :rolleyes:
You are deluding yourself again starter.
The poster doesnt want to be a mod and the admin doesnt want to be a normal poster.

You should stick to something you know, like post counts.

Bill Gletsos
16-12-2004, 09:54 PM
But if you are going to insist on a pair for the award then the tag team from NSW must be your choice. These days it does always seem to take the two of them to tackle the Goliath of the Gong.
It doesnt take much for anyone to tackle the drunken neanderthal from the Gong.

Rincewind
16-12-2004, 10:03 PM
You should stick to something you know, like post counts.

Or hitting the Latin classics. ;)

antichrist
22-12-2004, 06:35 PM
I long for the day that we start a Kierkegaard thread ...

This is all you will get from me on Kierkegaard, from Intro to Western Philos.

"You know the story: An angel commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son; and obedience was obligatory if it really was an angel who had appeared andsaid, 'Thou , Abraham, shalt sacrifice thy son!' But anyone in such a case would wonder, first, whether it was indeed an angel and, secondly, whethr I am really Abraham." In the original account of what Kierkegaard calls "the anguish of Abraham", which occurs in Genesis 22, the voice was not of an angel but God himself. It is, of course, for this sort of emphasis on angonizing decisions that both arch-Protestant Kierkegaardt and the Cathlic Pascal are regarded as existentialist forerunners..."

Now onlookers, a rationalist like myself reads this and thinks that angels and god does not exist so we would go to the shrink. But the over-emotional, will internalise and go further off the rails and waste further time. This is at the core of the difference between atheists and believers.

antichrist
22-12-2004, 06:40 PM
Paul Biongiorno(?) that reporter was originally a Catholic priest in a rural area. And why did he leave?

Because the graziers used to come in to the confessional and tell of what perverted things they used to do to their sheep, only the pretty ones of course. He could not take it anymore.

Cat
22-12-2004, 08:35 PM
Now onlookers, a rationalist like myself reads this and thinks that angels and god does not exist so we would go to the shrink. But the over-emotional, will internalise and go further off the rails and waste further time. This is at the core of the difference between atheists and believers.

Abraham never existed either, the whole story is entirely symbolic and as such makes a lot of sense. At this time these stories were passed from generation to generation by word of mouth and fanastic stories are a great way of presenting ethical and moral dilemmas to the next generation. To create figures like Abraham was of immense importance culturally, because he becomes symbolic, the personification of a particular ethos within the culture, like Woden or Thor in Norse mythology. These stories have stood the test of time and are immensely popular and outrageously believable today. It has given rise to a sense of purpose & helped maintain a culture within a group of people (the Jews) who would have otherwise lost their identity long ago. It's brilliant stuff!

Spiny Norman
23-12-2004, 09:05 AM
Abraham never existed either ...

Your evidence for this is .... ?

Cat
23-12-2004, 10:28 AM
Your evidence for this is .... ?

I think it's fair to say that this is probably maintstream opinion, people like Don Cupitt in the UK, probably even the Bishop of Durham.

Alan Shore
23-12-2004, 01:11 PM
I think it's fair to say that this is probably maintstream opinion, people like Don Cupitt in the UK, probably even the Bishop of Durham.

How about Jesus, did he exist? :P

Cat
23-12-2004, 05:46 PM
How about Jesus, did he exist? :P


Not the biblical Jesus - not in a material sense anyway. He exists in the hearts and minds of Christians as the personification of the logos (the Christos), but was there a man born in Bethleham, who walked in Gallilee as described in the gospels, I'd have to say no.

Spiny Norman
23-12-2004, 05:57 PM
I think it's fair to say that this is probably maintstream opinion, people like Don Cupitt in the UK, probably even the Bishop of Durham.

Mmmm. I think we have vastly differing opinions of what is mainstream.

antichrist
23-12-2004, 09:05 PM
Abraham never existed either, the whole story is entirely symbolic and as such makes a lot of sense. At this time these stories were passed from generation to generation by word of mouth and fanastic stories are a great way of presenting ethical and moral dilemmas to the next generation. To create figures like Abraham was of immense importance culturally, because he becomes symbolic, the personification of a particular ethos within the culture, like Woden or Thor in Norse mythology. These stories have stood the test of time and are immensely popular and outrageously believable today. It has given rise to a sense of purpose & helped maintain a culture within a group of people (the Jews) who would have otherwise lost their identity long ago. It's brilliant stuff!

But it still happens now, someone is told to kill someone by God so they do the performance and get jailed by a spoilsport.l But where KierG went further off the rails was his wondering if he was Abraham. He had problems that guy if he never even knew who he was.

Come on Goughfather, defend the idiot.

Goughfather
23-12-2004, 09:40 PM
Abraham never existed either

Frosty was asking you for the substance of your claim, not a loose association of individuals, who for one reason or another reject the historicity of an individual named Abraham. One such hurdle for such critics to deal with concerns the extremely detailed geneology of the Israelite people. I'm inclined to think that legendary development would fail to present such a sophisticated and specific family tree. Why go to such lengths to establish precise lineage, even to the point at which the book of the Torah were written?


Not the biblical Jesus - not in a material sense anyway. He exists in the hearts and minds of Christians as the personification of the logos (the Christos), but was there a man born in Bethleham, who walked in Gallilee as described in the gospels, I'd have to say no.

You are trolling, right?

You may wish to deny that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messianic fulfillment of the Jewish Scriptures. You may wish to reject the attestation of Jesus performing miracles as suggested in the canonised gospels. Indeed many have done so, and made quite plausible arguments in this direction. But to suggest that Jesus of Nazareth never existed? To place faith in such a line, one would have to account for:

a) The movement located in Jerusalem, which originated shortly after Pentecost around 33AD, which seemed, by various accounts to be centred around a particular individual
b) The writings of historians, such as Josephus and Tacitus, who, while denying Jesus as the fulfillment of Messianic prophecies (especially in the case of Josephus) refer to an individual by the name of Jesus, who led a group of followers

Perhaps I should point out again: The existence of Jesus as a historical figure does not confirm his Messianic, or divine status. But let's start here, nonetheless, David.

Cat
23-12-2004, 09:50 PM
Mmmm. I think we have vastly differing opinions of what is mainstream.

He's the Dean of Cambridge, for God's sake, pretty mainstream in anyone's book, progressive maybe.

Rincewind
23-12-2004, 09:54 PM
Frosty was asking you for the substance of your claim, not a loose association of individuals, who for one reason or another reject the historicity of an individual named Abraham. One such hurdle for such critics to deal with concerns the extremely detailed geneology of the Israelite people. I'm inclined to think that legendary development would fail to present such a sophisticated and specific family tree. Why go to such lengths to establish precise lineage, even to the point at which the book of the Torah were written?

Because the early Israelites were more geneologically perverse then the baptists?

Just a question though, what is the evidence that he (Abraham) did exist?

Cat
23-12-2004, 10:03 PM
[QUOTE=Goughfather]

You are trolling, right?

Being cheeky perhaps, but Dion has been pushing me!



You may wish to deny that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messianic fulfillment of the Jewish Scriptures. You may wish to reject the attestation of Jesus performing miracles as suggested in the canonised gospels. Indeed many have done so, and made quite plausible arguments in this direction. But to suggest that Jesus of Nazareth never existed? To place faith in such a line, one would have to account for:

a) The movement located in Jerusalem, which originated shortly after Pentecost around 33AD, which seemed, by various accounts to be centred around a particular individual
b) The writings of historians, such as Josephus and Tacitus, who, while denying Jesus as the fulfillment of Messianic prophecies (especially in the case of Josephus) refer to an individual by the name of Jesus, who led a group of followers

Perhaps I should point out again: The existence of Jesus as a historical figure does not confirm his Messianic, or divine status. But let's start here, nonetheless, David.

I'm not trying to deny anything, people hold different interpretations of history. Dion asked me directly for my opinion and I'd have to say on balance I find no real evidence of a material Jesus. You mention Josephus, but there's only a paragraph in literally thousands of pages on the history of the Jews. I think the oldest translations are around the 16th century and I think little weight can really be placed on this entry - objectively speaking. As far Tacitus, there is again only a brief and obtuse reference to a spiritual leader of the Christians, but no detailed account and I don't even think he names this figure.

The only way I can make sense of the ancient writings is when one views Jesus as a re-incarnation of the Pagan archetypal man, the personification of the ideal individual. But look, this is only my opinion.

Spiny Norman
23-12-2004, 10:13 PM
He's the Dean of Cambridge, for God's sake, pretty mainstream in anyone's book, progressive maybe.

Like I said, I think we have very different views on what constitutes "mainstream" Christianity. I closely equate mainstream with "traditional".

Cupit over the years has moved further and further away from the traditional views of Christianity until there's basically little left that anyone would recognise as being Christianity.

A quick search via Google turns up widely differing views about him. Here's a fairly restrained discussion (http://www.faithnet.org.uk/AS%20Subjects/Ethics/cupittethics.htm) of some of his writings for anyone who isn't familiar with him.

Mainstream? Not in my book. Pretty radical actually. If you asked my local minister he'd probably take the view that Cupit is as nutty as a fruitcake.

Alan Shore
24-12-2004, 01:55 PM
DR seems to be holding a more Gnostic belief than mainstream Christian...

I would probably disagree and say Jesus did exist, yet many of the qualities attributed to him were likely the result of parallels drawn with previous elevated patriarchs/prophets such as Elijah; one example is bringing the widow's son to life.

Goughfather
24-12-2004, 04:18 PM
I would probably disagree and say Jesus did exist, yet many of the qualities attributed to him were likely the result of parallels drawn with previous elevated patriarchs/prophets such as Elijah; one example is bringing the widow's son to life.

Interesting perspective.

Bruce, have you heard of "type" theology? Basically, the idea is that a large number of figures in the Jewish Scriptures share characteristics with Jesus, who in a sense embodies a number of these figures. For instance, Jeremiah is referred to as "Son of Man" - a popular title applied to Jesus himself. Paul refers to Jesus as the "Second Adam". Read through the book of Hebrews, and you'll find that Jesus is likened to Moses (Chapter 3), Melchizadek (Chapter 7), and generically, like the High Priest (4:14 - 5:10). Indeed, Jesus likens himself to Jonah by referring to "the sign of the fish", a suggestion that he will be a source of good news to the Gentiles. Finally, Jesus is likened to Isaac, who was going to be sacrificed by his father Abraham, symbolic of the sacrifice of Jesus, Son of God by his own Father on the Cross. I'm sure that with a little research, numerous other forerunners, or "Christ-types" could be found.

Spiny Norman
24-12-2004, 04:54 PM
I'm sure that with a little research, numerous other forerunners, or "Christ-types" could be found.

For example, right back where this little bit of discussion kicked off:

- Isaac ... submitted himself to Abraham as a sacrifice (though was spared)

- Joseph ... sold into slavery in Egypt yet rose to lead a nation and redeemed his own people (his family, their kin)

Some will say that later writers painted Jesus a particular way in the light of these forerunners. An alternative view is that God prepared the way for Jesus to be recognised by bringing the types along first.

No doubt the former view will appeal to some, and the latter to others.

Rincewind
24-12-2004, 10:26 PM
- Joseph ... sold into slavery in Egypt yet rose to lead a nation and redeemed his own people (his family, their kin)

I'd be very interested in any secular evidence of Joseph. After all there is quite a bit known about Egyptian history, given so much of what they made was so bloody durable. However, no Joseph figure is self-evident as far as I know from Egyptian sources.

From my understanding, there are a couple of competing theories that have been proposed in various dynasties. But no outright figure which everyone says, yep, that was Joseph.

Moses is another figure which not much evidence can be found for in Egyptian sources. You would think that if only half of the stories around the emancipation of the Israelites were true, there should be heaps. Again, Egyptian sources are low key at best. As far as I know most theories can be put down to post hoc speculation.

If anyone has some good info on either Joseph or Moses from Egyptian sources please write back.

Alan Shore
24-12-2004, 10:51 PM
Interesting perspective.

Bruce, have you heard of "type" theology? Basically, the idea is that a large number of figures in the Jewish Scriptures share characteristics with Jesus, who in a sense embodies a number of these figures. For instance, Jeremiah is referred to as "Son of Man" - a popular title applied to Jesus himself. Paul refers to Jesus as the "Second Adam". Read through the book of Hebrews, and you'll find that Jesus is likened to Moses (Chapter 3), Melchizadek (Chapter 7), and generically, like the High Priest (4:14 - 5:10). Indeed, Jesus likens himself to Jonah by referring to "the sign of the fish", a suggestion that he will be a source of good news to the Gentiles. Finally, Jesus is likened to Isaac, who was going to be sacrificed by his father Abraham, symbolic of the sacrifice of Jesus, Son of God by his own Father on the Cross. I'm sure that with a little research, numerous other forerunners, or "Christ-types" could be found.

It would certainly account for the early worship of Jesus out of a monotheistic religion, with such figures as Melchizedek and Elijah being elevated to an almost divine status, perhaps representative of the Logos/Sophia coming from God. Paul certainly built upon the connection in Hebrews 7 as you've already mentioned. There are other little things, such as the deliverance of the Sermon on the Mount, where mountains appear biblical passages as places of divine inspiration, i.e. Moses, Elijah etc. I tend to agree with scholars such as Hurtado that Christianity has its origins firmly in Judaism rather than DR's view that Hellenistic/pagan influences shaped the worship of and idea of Jesus.

Alan Shore
24-12-2004, 10:56 PM
If anyone has some good info on either Joseph or Moses from Egyptian sources please write back.

This could prove rather difficult.. Joseph really was not a figure of importance in Christian theology since, well, Catholics at least believed him to have not had a genetic relationship with Jesus. Despite this, Matthew 1 talks of him being descended from King David.

With Moses, Egyptian arachaeology really hasn't turned up much evidence of the Israelites having been there. Then again, would you really want to chronicle a big embarassment like that as part of your history? ;)

Rincewind
24-12-2004, 11:05 PM
Then again, would you really want to chronicle a big embarassment like that as part of your history? ;)

This sounds like a cop out to me. :)

Spiny Norman
26-12-2004, 12:46 PM
With Moses, Egyptian arachaeology really hasn't turned up much evidence of the Israelites having been there. Then again, would you really want to chronicle a big embarassment like that as part of your history? ;)

There was an interesting program on the TV a week or so ago, talking about the biblical 10 plagues, the exodus of the Israelites, etc.

There was a lot I didn't like about the program, but a lot of interesting stuff also. In particular the geological evidence of a massive volcanic eruption NW of Egypt in the Greek islands, evidence of major Egyptian cavalry/chariot stables (up to 500 strong) when most archeologists had previously said that none of the Pharaohs had anything like that number available (Exodus says that around 600 chariots were sent after the fleeing Israelites), and so on.

The interesting thing about archeology is that there's a lot of stuff we haven't found yet (its buried in the sand, or destroyed, or when it is found it is misinterpreted until someone takes a fresh look at it years later). I wonder how much evidence we'll find for our important events (e.g. 9/11, invasion of Iraq, Desert Storm) if we went looking for them in 2000-4000 years time? If we did find that evidence, would we interpret it correctly?

Cat
27-12-2004, 09:06 PM
I'd be very interested in any secular evidence of Joseph. After all there is quite a bit known about Egyptian history, given so much of what they made was so bloody durable. However, no Joseph figure is self-evident as far as I know from Egyptian sources.

From my understanding, there are a couple of competing theories that have been proposed in various dynasties. But no outright figure which everyone says, yep, that was Joseph.

Moses is another figure which not much evidence can be found for in Egyptian sources. You would think that if only half of the stories around the emancipation of the Israelites were true, there should be heaps. Again, Egyptian sources are low key at best. As far as I know most theories can be put down to post hoc speculation.

If anyone has some good info on either Joseph or Moses from Egyptian sources please write back.

I think you're taking it far too literally BJC, perhaps an indication of how deeply Christian culture has penetrated the psyche. One has to be systematic in examining ancient beliefs and stories and apply the same critical reasoning one might for any other culture an religion that is not our own.

For example, one first has to examine the basic premises and question are they valid. Maybe one may question whether a God exists, whether there was a virgin birth, or indeed a resurrection?

Now if all these points seem implausible, what about the rest of it? How much credulity can be given to other biblical assertions. One must look for corroborative text elsewhere in the known historical record, independant of the religious sources. If this is not substantial, then one needs to place the stories alongside parallel stories of the time, how reliably can we view these tales. For example, Norse mythology is generally considered to be myth, legend, nothing more. Are there really any reasons we should not consider contemporaneous Christian stories not to have had a similar genesis. They were similar peoples, writing and behaving in similar ways, yet we scoff at the Norsemen and regard Biblical narratives as gospel!

Then we need to examine the peoples who created these texts, what were they trying to do, what was their style, what was their purpose. At this time in the Eastern Mediterranean people were struggling to find ways of living in social harmony. They were looking for alternatives to war, they were searching for meaning in their lives, seeking ethical truisms and social justice, pretty much the same as today.

Most importantly, their writings were heavily symbolic. We're probably all aware of the Greek mythological tradition, etc. This was the crucible that spawned the Christian religion, this is how we must approach our examination of what was a pretty amazing period of human history, and the writings that this period delivered.

Rincewind
27-12-2004, 09:36 PM
I think you're taking it far too literally BJC, perhaps an indication of how deeply Christian culture has penetrated the psyche. One has to be systematic in examining ancient beliefs and stories and apply the same critical reasoning one might for any other culture an religion that is not our own.

I don't take it literally at all. In fact I consider 95% of the bible to be fanciful and rest speculation. But I like to keep an open mind as the genesis of these stories might has some for of factual basis.

As far as I know the main theory on anything pre-Babylonian enslavement was borrowed or stolen from common mythology of the Babylonians. That would make the entire Pentateuch completely fabricated at a much later date. However not sure how this fits in with the dead sea scrolls. Perhaps that theory is now old hat.

Always happy to hear other points of view. Especially ones with archeologocal evidence.

Cat
28-12-2004, 12:09 AM
I don't take it literally at all. In fact I consider 95% of the bible to be fanciful and rest speculation. But I like to keep an open mind as the genesis of these stories might has some for of factual basis.

As far as I know the main theory on anything pre-Babylonian enslavement was borrowed or stolen from common mythology of the Babylonians. That would make the entire Pentateuch completely fabricated at a much later date. However not sure how this fits in with the dead sea scrolls. Perhaps that theory is now old hat.

Always happy to hear other points of view. Especially ones with archeologocal evidence.

I'm not so well aquainted with the older Eastern religions, but virtually all the religions of antiquity borrowed from each other. One of the most important events, I suspect, in mono-atheism gaining popularity in Europe, were the conquests of Alexander the Great. Many eastern myths found their way back at this time.

However, I don't believe the gospels stories of Jesus in Nazareth really emerged until around 150AD - I suspect Justin Martyr was a major contributor to this. Until this time, the only references I have found to Jesus are metaphysical (or metaphorical), even the authentic writings of Paul. The Gnostic scriptures at Nag Hammadi are of the type, 'Jesus said'..., with little or no reference to what Jesus was or anything about his life.

Elaine Pagels (Prof Theology from Harvard, interpreted the text in her book The Gnostic Gospels, for which she won the Pulitzer Prize) says about the text at Nag Hammadi that it assumes the reader is already acquainted with life and crucifiction. That's certainly one intepretation, but the other way of looking at it is to wonder whether the life and crucifiction were yet to be written, which is my suspicion.

I suspect the story borrows heavily from orthodox religions, in order to give this fledgling faith gravitas. For example, Gautama's birth was heralded by a celestial body and a wise man. Jesus gets a celestial body, 3 wise men and 3 shephards to boot. Gautama and Hermes mother was Myra, Jesus mother was Mary and so on.

St Augustine put the bible together about 390AD after being a disciple (if you like) of Plato, and he was said to have constructed it in such a way as to ensure the message was Platonic.

arosar
29-12-2004, 01:24 PM
How about Jesus, did he exist? :P

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1072-1414557,00.html

AR

antichrist
29-12-2004, 05:41 PM
Originally Posted by Bruce Dickinson
How about Jesus, did he exist?

My reading of Tacitus was that there were about five Jesus figures, peachers/prophets but none of them tallied up with Jesus of Nazareth.

antichrist
15-01-2005, 03:48 PM
I have just read how Bob Marley died! Apparently his religion (Rustafarian?) was against cutting things off, for e.g., hair and parts of body.

So when he got skin cancer in this toe he refused to have it amputated as recommended by medicos -- the skin cancer spread to his whole body and he died. What a hero!

antichrist
18-02-2005, 08:00 AM
In the program of the Spanish Armada last week on TV it stated how the Armada had more priests on board than gunners, so when came to the crunch, the British - with fewer guns - outgunned them.

JGB
18-02-2005, 01:42 PM
In the program of the Spanish Armada last week on TV it stated how the Armada had more priests on board than gunners, so when came to the crunch, the British - with fewer guns - outgunned them.

a few interesting facts, thanks AC, keep it up :clap:

Garvinator
18-02-2005, 01:53 PM
a few interesting facts, thanks AC, keep it up :clap:
dont believe everything ac says ;) :P

Denis_Jessop
18-02-2005, 02:19 PM
In the program of the Spanish Armada last week on TV it stated how the Armada had more priests on board than gunners, so when came to the crunch, the British - with fewer guns - outgunned them.

Does that mean that the priests were not loaded? :rolleyes:

Denis Jessop

antichrist
18-02-2005, 02:25 PM
Does that mean that the priests were not loaded? :rolleyes:

Denis Jessop

Priests always have loaded guns but no one to shoot at. Is that what you mean?

antichrist
30-07-2006, 08:55 PM
the Australian Israeli who got shot whilst attacking Lebanon

antichrist
13-10-2009, 03:09 PM
It is reported today how a New Age/Apache group in USA has mass sweats in - this time they overdone it, and a few died and many ended up in hospital.

antichrist
13-12-2009, 07:31 PM
A president Zuma of South Africa was charging with raping a distant relo who was known to be AIDS positive, so he had a good shower afterwards to lower the risk

antichrist
13-12-2009, 08:26 PM
western guys who ring up for phone sex and not knowing that they are talking to female impersonators

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
13-12-2009, 09:15 PM
western guys who ring up for phone sex and not knowing that they are talking to female impersonators

how much did the call cost you ?

antichrist
13-12-2009, 09:18 PM
how much did the call cost you ?

No I know one such gay who works in one of the centres, he wants me to be his suggar daddy

Desmond
13-12-2009, 11:18 PM
No I know one such gay who works in one of the centres, he wants me to be his suggar daddy
Well I bet you don't get an offer like that every day!

antichrist
13-12-2009, 11:22 PM
Well I bet you don't get an offer like that every day!

he is using his salary for sex changes operation. He has a brother also a gay and a sister a lesbian, then one "normal" sister as well. And his parents are conventional.

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
13-12-2009, 11:26 PM
he is using his salary for sex changes operation. He has a brother also a gay and a sister a lesbian, then one "normal" sister as well. And his parents are conventional.

typical suburban family unit.

antichrist
16-05-2010, 07:40 PM
he is now migrating to Canada as a hairdresser, he uses his spare cash in Philippines to buy pretty young boys - hope he does not do the same in Canada or may be deported quick smart.