Christians: Your Thoughts

First salient point: Christianity was a religion chosen (as an 'opium of empire') for its appeal to middle-class housewives and young idealists.
Discuss.
 
No, there doesn't seem to be a tidal wave of interest by historians in the hypothesis that Jesus was Julius Caesar, are you saying Julius Caesar was actually the first Pope, or something?
Click to expand...

Interesting to note that Julius Caesar also held the title of "son of god".
 
What is unique about the same old predator/prey ideology? Nothing. Jesus Christ is the sacrifice and the prey so others can "feed" off his "virtue," his "life-giving" qualities of "divinity."

The only difference is it has window dressing. Similar to when you go to a grocery store and you see the meat saran-wrapped and packaged oh so nicely.

I'd rather take a vitamin (it actually gives me a high), recycle my own garbage, and be responsible for my own actions and I expect others to do the same.

tooda loo
 
Oniw17 said:
Being young is no reason to be disrespectful. I've been on a lot of forums in the past few years, and for some reason everytime I got into an argument with the neo-nazis, my age was somehow part of the argument. Be happy that sciforums isn't like that. Just how young are you by the way?
Click to expand...

I do not know about redefined but I am 17. So why didnt you respond to my post earlier?
 
Medicine*Woman said:
*************
M*W: Unfortunately, it's not my own idea. Other scholars have already written about it:

Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy To Invent Jesus, by Joseph Atwill, Ulysses Press, 2005.

Jesus Was Caesar: On the Julian Origin of Christianity: An Investigative Report, Francesco Carotta, Aspekt, 2005.
Click to expand...

What qualifies a person to become a scholar? Did you say earlier that you believe what can be proven by science?

Thank you,
His Son,
><>Warrior61<><
 
Warrior61 said:
What qualifies a person to become a scholar? Did you say earlier that you believe what can be proven by science?

Thank you,
His Son,
><>Warrior61<><
Click to expand...

*************
M*W: Reading, reading, reading! Following that, writing, writing, writing! Following that, discussing, discussing, discussing!

Although that will only help one to become an amateur scholar, it is important to research the works of the real scholars and archeologists. One only requires a desire to learn to be a scholar as far as I'm concerned. For example, I'm a medical professional, but I spend more time reading about religions than I do about my profession. I still keep up professionally by reading and attending conferences and sometimes speaking, but my passion is figuring out religion. As we say in the medical field, "see one, do one, teach one."
 
Well there's biological evolution and cultural evolution (including the evolution of techniques, rituals and technology).
My original point, that you quote, refers to the idea that it is environmental variables that decide the fitness of a particular version of the bible (or an other text or ideology)...not man.
 
Oniw17 said:
Being young is no reason to be disrespectful. I've been on a lot of forums in the past few years, and for some reason everytime I got into an argument with the neo-nazis, my age was somehow part of the argument. Be happy that sciforums isn't like that. Just how young are you by the way?
Click to expand...

As I said earlier, everytime I am at odds with an atheist, I realize the worst thing you can do to them is talk down.

" Ahh I hope God opens your eyes one day my lost wondering friend "

Patronizing them get's them riled up and they resort to more "fuck you, fuck jesus blah blah" and less actual debate. and once that happens it's no difficult task to determine the more intellectual one, itleast in terms of civilized conversation.
 
zenbabelfish said:
Well there's biological evolution and cultural evolution (including the evolution of techniques, rituals and technology).
My original point, that you quote, refers to the idea that it is environmental variables that decide the fitness of a particular version of the bible (or an other text or ideology)...not man.
Click to expand...
Fully understood.

Both, imho.

Man shapes his environment and culture as much as they shape him - feedback system.
 
Well one can freely think of man as separate or integral - depends on how useful the thought. Not sure which is better here. Nevertheless, I agree. ;)
 
I disagree - the idea that a human is distinct from their environment is an illusion.
 
Redefine91 said:
As I said earlier, everytime I am at odds with an atheist, I realize the worst thing you can do to them is talk down.

" Ahh I hope God opens your eyes one day my lost wondering friend "

Patronizing them get's them riled up and they resort to more "fuck you, fuck jesus blah blah" and less actual debate. and once that happens it's no difficult task to determine the more intellectual one, itleast in terms of civilized conversation.
Click to expand...

So your plan is to piss them off and show that they are stupid by bickering. Your whole point is to show who is more intellectual? The stupid thing is that alot of people either "red hair" the argument or just stop responding. This thread has evoled into people bickering hardly anyone has stuck to the topic. This is a "common thread" in this forum. Now that is what is stupid.

Thank you,
His son,
><>Warrior61<><
 
Medicine*Woman said:
*************
M*W: Reading, reading, reading! Following that, writing, writing, writing! Following that, discussing, discussing, discussing!

Although that will only help one to become an amateur scholar, it is important to research the works of the real scholars and archeologists. One only requires a desire to learn to be a scholar as far as I'm concerned. For example, I'm a medical professional, but I spend more time reading about religions than I do about my profession. I still keep up professionally by reading and attending conferences and sometimes speaking, but my passion is figuring out religion. As we say in the medical field, "see one, do one, teach one."
Click to expand...

My question was to what degree of a scholar do you have to be where people start using you for truth? Again I ask did you say that you only believe what can be proven by science?

Thank You,
HIs son,
><>Warrior61<><
 
Warrior61 said:
My question was to what degree of a scholar do you have to be where people start using you for truth? Again I ask did you say that you only believe what can be proven by science?

Thank You,
HIs son,
><>Warrior61<><
Click to expand...

*************
M*W: That depends on who's listening. If you're talking to a christian, they already have pre-set boundaries of what they're willing to hear (Note: I did not say 'believe'). So, most of the time, anything anyone of any level of knowledge will fall on deaf christian ears.

Those who are more inclined to read and research will listen with open ears, and hopefully discuss and share knowledge.

Some atheists, on the other hand, don't want to discuss religious matters, simply because they're not interested and even coming from another atheist can fall on deaf atheist ears.

If I want to make a point, depending on who's listening, I use a combination of the works of legitimate scholars and what I glean for myself if it applies. I don't usually come up with my own theories, but if I feel what I'm thinking applies to other scholarly research, then I'll express it.

I love to read and research. I've learned a lot, and I would like to share it, especially to those who turn a deaf ear. I believe they are the ones who would benefit most from what I have to say. I love the discussions. It doesn't really matter who is right or wrong. I respect those individuals more who will at least listen whether they end up agreeing or not. I think it's said when some refuse to listen, because they show they are close-minded. I was like them at one time, so I understand where they're coming from. I am truly thankful I listened when I did.

Regarding believing what science can prove, I am an advocate for evidence based knowledge. Because I'm in the medical field, science has special meaning to me. I want to know how good medicine comes to be and how we can eliminate bad medicine. I respect biblical scholars and archeologists for the training they've had and for the work they do. They don't necessarily set out to prove this or prove that, they set out to find out what the truth is to their findings, regardless of which way it turns out. They don't conclude such things as did Jesus exist or did the Exodus really happen. They take the tangible evidence (if any) and base their conclusions on the science behind the artifacts they study.

I don't usually form my own opinion from one scholar saying this or the other scholar saying that. I prefer to read everything I can find and base my opinions on what seems logical to me. Sometimes I may be right, and sometimes I may be wrong, but I never stop searching. I believe there are just some things that have been handed down to us that we best not take at face value. I just don't have that kind of naive faith. I need to have it proven to me with evidence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top