»How Christianity started«
|
|||
 Here's what I read at  A sarcastic view of how Christian religion came about: "Take several non-eyewitness accounts of some obscure events, none of which even remotely agree with each other, wait 300 years and have a convention of beauracrats in Nicea decide what should and should not be in the good book, rewrite them, expurgate stuff you don't like and make the texts homogeneous, still fail to make texts agree with eachother, sell it by force to all of Europe, kill millions in the process, stifle scientific inquiry for a thousand years, subjucate the native peoples of countless foreign shores, then preach brotherhood." 
Praise the Lord, who is Jesus, who came back after 2 days posted by knn |
|||
|
|
|||
| in-my-opinion.orgReligion and Mysteries, from worship to werewolvesReligious & Philosophical TopicsHow Christianity started |
|
|||
 What the hell is that all about...? posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote: What the hell is that all about...? About the past 2000 years posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
I do not see any link between what you've quoted above and anything that has happened in the last 2000 years. posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote: do not see any link between what you've quoted above and anything that has happened in the last 2000 years. Why not? Isn't that the way how the bible was compiled and how Christianity started? posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 But of course. Christianity was started in any way that you, your wife, or your internet friend thinks is appropriate. posted by ralph_angelus |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 Well it's killed more than it's saved. posted by hungarian kid |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Take several non-eyewitness accounts of some obscure events, none of which even remotely agree with each other" I'd hardly call the coming of God in human form and the salvation of humankind 'some obscure event'. Be fair here please... "wait 300 years and have a convention of beauracrats in Nicea decide what should and should not be in the good book, rewrite them, expurgate stuff you don't like and make the texts homogeneous, still fail to make texts agree with eachother" The council of Nicea didn't rewrite the texts. What they did was decide whose interpretations were best. There was a big scism because much of the debates ended up coming down to semantics. "sell it by force to all of Europe, kill millions in the process" The first of those did not always go with the other. In Africa many people were happy to be greeted with the Bible. You may notice that crucifixes have become incorporated into some voodoo rituals. However, it must be accepted that the behaviour of many missionaries was very regrettable. "stifle scientific inquiry for a thousand years" Not all scientific inquiry. I do believe that the Roman Catholic Church - as well as being sceptical of some scientific programmes - was involved in financing a great deal of scientific research. "subjucate the native peoples of countless foreign shores" That's the dodgy missionary problem again. You can't blame the whole religion for that can you? "then preach brotherhood." Don't you think this part of the religion deserves a bit more notice? posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 fatpie42: I'd hardly call the coming of God in human form and the salvation of humankind 'some obscure event'. Be fair here please... I beg to vehemently disagree with that statement. Assuming that Jesus was indeed God in human form, how many people found out that He had been on Earth? At absolute most, a few thousand, in one single country. This event was so obscure that it took the rest of the world hundreds of years to hear about the event. posted by Tiefling |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
1. It would be really boring if he just held a press conference and told everybody across the world that he was god. 2. God likes fractals. Believers increasing exponentially 3. God chose to the Incarnation be relatively obscure(in the beginning at least) so that people would have to make a choice whether they want to believe in him or not. If everybody heard of it at once there wouldn't be any point to 'faith' posted by ralph_angelus |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
It only seems to be Pauline Theology which seems to suggest that mankind NEEDS to know about Jesus in order to be saved. Surely if Jesus was God dying to save us then our knowledge of this event makes little difference to whether we are saved or not. Seems a bit weird to me. posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 fatpie42: It only seems to be Pauline Theology which seems to suggest that mankind NEEDS to know about Jesus in order to be saved. Surely if Jesus was God dying to save us then our knowledge of this event makes little difference to whether we are saved or not.
Seems a bit weird to me. Makes perfect sense to me. 
posted by Echelon |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
So is it impossible for someone to save you while you are unconscious - since you would have no knowledge of it... posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 fatpie42: I'd hardly call the coming of God in human form and the salvation of humankind 'some obscure event'. Be fair here please... Unfortunately, this is part of the problem. I don't accept the Bible to be the word of God, so "The coming of god..." part has no meaning for me since I see nothing to support this claim that doesn't originate from the thing I don't accept. Q.E.D. posted by Marl64 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 Quote: "Take several non-eyewitness accounts of some obscure events, none of which even remotely agree with each other"
I'd hardly call the coming of God in human form and the salvation of humankind 'some obscure event'. Be fair here please... His coming would be a great event, no one would doubt that I think. The only problem is that even though it was such a life-changing event and thousands of people were supposed to witness it, there's no actual proof that a real person with that name lived at that time. It's kind of expected that there would be some evidence, something about Him in other than the Bible texts. There is thus no independent historical testimony on Jesus from non-Christian sources. How are we to interpret this? It shows that Jesus never made an appreciable impact during his lifetime either on the Romans or the Jews. His band of followers must have been pretty insignificant for them to be missed by contemporary Jewish writers such as Philo, Justus and Josephus. His impact on the Romans must be even lesser still for both Tacitus and Suetonius had no independent historical source on Jesus and relied on popular opinion for information on the founder. From this we can conclude that during his lifetime and for a few years after his death Jesus remained an obscure Galilean prophet. There are only two historical references to Jesus found outside of religious materials. One is a statement about a sect of Romans who follow "Christos"; and the other a brief passage in a historical work by Josephus which some scholars strongly believe was actually later written by Christians and inserted in the text of Josephus's work. There are no non-religious historical documents which give any detail at all about Jesus; everything about him is from a religious text or tradition. posted by mymla |
|||
|
|||
1, 2, 3 Next
Goto page
1, 2, 3 Next
 Register Log in |
The time now is 18 May 2012, 14:33 php B.B. |