Pontius Pilate

[J.Alco]

Something I discovered and just gotta share.

Anyone who's familiar with biblical stories, or who's ever leafed through the bible, or has watched the Passion, or even has a bit of knowledge about the crucifixion, will know that Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor of Judea, is always portrayed (in the bible stories) as a good, kind man, a competent ruler, who has to crucify Jesus Christ essentially because his hands are tied by the matter. He laments the whole state of affairs and then washes his hands clean before ordering the crucifixion. Anyone who's familiar with christian mythology will already know all this I've said.

Now, all of us who've had the great fortune to see Monty Python's Life of Brian will surely remember Michael Palin's delicious performance as Pilate (particularly his accent: 'Bwian?' :laugh4: ). Of course, if you look past the whole R pronounced as a W thing (and the Bigus Dickus moment) you see that the Pilate portrayed in Life of Brian is vain, pompous, cruel (he has a soldier dragged off to the 'ciwcus' for laughing at him and, on meeting the Brian, often has a centurion beat him for imagined offences), generally incompetent at managing a city, and there are even hints of anti-semitism in his character (observe the sneering way he addresses Brian as 'Jew' when he meets him for the first time).

Anyways, leafing through various history books, sources, and talking with people who know of the matter, I've discovered that, and this really did surprise me, Monty Python's portrayal of Pilate is probably closer to historical truth than any Bible version of the Roman governor! :dizzy2: (now, I'm not sure about the accent, though anything's possible :laugh4: )

I really just had to share that, because I'm still kinda amazed that a comedy film came closer to portraying a historical character's true nature than any 'serious' biblical story.

[Justinian II]

Something I discovered and just gotta share.

Anyone who's familiar with biblical stories, or who's ever leafed through the bible, or has watched the Passion, or even has a bit of knowledge about the crucifixion, will know that Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor of Judea, is always portrayed (in the bible stories) as a good, kind man, a competent ruler, who has to crucify Jesus Christ essentially because his hands are tied by the matter. He laments the whole state of affairs and then washes his hands clean before ordering the crucifixion. Anyone who's familiar with christian mythology will already know all this I've said.

Now, all of us who've had the great fortune to see Monty Python's Life of Brian will surely remember Michael Palin's delicious performance as Pilate (particularly his accent: 'Bwian?' :laugh4: ). Of course, if you look past the whole R pronounced as a W thing (and the Bigus Dickus moment) you see that the Pilate portrayed in Life of Brian is vain, pompous, cruel (he has a soldier dragged off to the 'ciwcus' for laughing at him and, on meeting the Brian, often has a centurion beat him for imagined offences), generally incompetent at managing a city, and there are even hints of anti-semitism in his character (observe the sneering way he addresses Brian as 'Jew' when he meets him for the first time).

Anyways, leafing through various history books, sources, and talking with people who know of the matter, I've discovered that, and this really did surprise me, Monty Python's portrayal of Pilate is probably closer to historical truth than any Bible version of the Roman governor! :dizzy2: (now, I'm not sure about the accent, though anything's possible :laugh4: )

I really just had to share that, because I'm still kinda amazed that a comedy film came closer to portraying a historical character's true nature than any 'serious' biblical story.


Well, my understanding is that some of the members of the group were History majors, at some point. My Medieval History professor has actually flat out stated in class that "Quest for the Holy Grail" is actually the most accurate medieval movie out there.

[Geoffrey S]

The fact that the group could make political satire of the situation hundreds of years ago, and make it funny to modern day audiences says quite a bit about their talents in my opinion.

[Respenus]

Now, I don't want to insult anyone by saying this, yet it is my sound belief that the Bible can be taken as a "serious" historical account. Not offense, yet I have yet to see someone waking from the death and walking on water. It's it deep cultural influence on todays Western culture is what interested in.

In regard to Monty Python, I must seriously watch it sometimes. Yes, bad me for not doing it before.

[Megas Methuselah]

it is my sound belief that the Bible can be taken as a "serious" historical account

No offence taken. But I think you mean it cannot be taken as a serious historical account.

[russia almighty]

Depends on which parts . The migration out of Egypt sure. But the whole Israel being split up between 12 factions . Their conflicts with the Canaanites , getting conquered by Assyria , Babylon , bowing willingly to Persians and their uprising against the Seleucid's is VERY real .


This is coming from an atheist btw .

[Chaotix]

Well, when you consider the fact that the Bible was edited by the Romans after it was composed, it's not that surprising that he's portrayed as a generally just person.

[pezhetairoi]

The old testament is a very valid historical document, I agree. It's the new testament that must be taken with a pinch of salt because it was written evangelically, with an intention to 'sell', for want of a better word, the religion to the people. It is strange though, that they edited Pontius Pilate's character and not the scourging, or the crucifixion.

This is coming from a once-Catholic religious cynic, by the way. No offence meant, if any was taken. It's just where I stand personally on the matter.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

Well the Bible was not written by a single person. It wasn't even compiled until it became a mainstream religion. (I think the council of Niceia but I could be wrong).

Some parts were obviously written focusing on the miraculous (ie, the Gospels). However there is no reason why some, particularly the Old Testament wasn't written by Historians who had faith, recording faithfully (in their eyes), the events of their time.

Meaning is all about context. NB: using this as an example only, I don't mean to offend anybody. Living now and viewing the war in Iraq, a general view is that it was a mistake. 1000 years down the line you could have the view that it was necessary, or that it was a disaster that led indirectly to world war 3. We don't know what is going to happen in the future, all we can do is evaluate events by generally accepted attitudes, and the like. The context of now.

Obviously the authors of the Bible believed that they were writing a true history of their time, or a time before theirs. So the Bible can be used as a serious historical account, by the people of the time. That we don't believe it, or know that it did not happen is our choice with the knowledge that we have now.

So the Bible is useful in that it gives us an insight into what some people believed was history. Hence it is a historical document. That said it is only a viewpoint of what happened, like all other documents.

I'd also like to point out before anybody asks, no I am not a Christian.

Back to the point, I believe Pilate is viewed kindly in the Bible due to his actions with respect to the Crucifixion. The fact that he tried to spare Jesus meant that contemporary Christians may have felt that he was indeed a kind man, regardless of what happened before or after.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

Sorry, forget the last bit. I'm not overly familiar with the Bible, sorry.

[antisocialmunky]

The New Testament isn't really a historical document. Its mostly letters dealing with issues within Christianity that you can glean a little history from.

As for the Old Testament, its pretty good historical document since it lines up with archeology fairly well during the Assyrian, Babylonian periods, and early Persian periods. Before that evidence is a little sparse. :-\

Just look at all the stuff that corroberates that part of the Old Testament including the things that it brought up that were unknown in any other source but were confirmed by evidence that has been found within the last 200 years.

[Cyclops]

I am an agnostic humanist. I respect other peoples faith as it gives them strength. Speaking from a critical secular veiwpoint though I feel the Bible is a most misrepresented collection of works.


The New Testament isn't really a historical document. Its mostly letters dealing with issues within Christianity that you can glean a little history from.

The new testament is a narrative account of the life and teachings of a religious leader (the gospels) and his followers (Acts) and a number of letters attributed to those closest followers (letters and the Apocalypse). I think it is an historical document: it is flawed and has synoptic problems, and some pretty obviously mis-attribution (or even forgeries?), but it narrates a course of events and quotes primary sources.


As for the Old Testament, its pretty good historical document since it lines up with archeology fairly well during the Assyrian, Babylonian periods, and early Persian periods. Before that evidence is a little sparse. :-\

The old testament is a gaggle of court histories, wisdom literature, erotic poetry, creation myths (most likely written with an eye to discrediting rival religion's practices), genealogies (most likely written to justify land-grabs), prophecy (some of it perhaps backdated to make it look better), a couple of different lawcodes apparently by the same bloke (never mind the anachronisms) and a folksy story directly contradicting one of the law codes (Ruth), all edited, revised, assembled and reassembled many times over. its more like a weeks worth of net-surfing than a history book.


Just look at all the stuff that corroberates that part of the Old Testament including the things that it brought up that were unknown in any other source but were confirmed by evidence that has been found within the last 200 years.

The stuff about the Maccabees smashing the Seleukids is over-stated to say the least. People hunt for history in a story like Job that starts with Satan teasing God into torturing a good man, or Jonah where a fella survives inside a sea monster.

There's a handful of major things like "oh, really, there actually were Assyrians?" but usually when people say "history proves Bible right" its a tenuous link, eg a grave marked "Goliath" with a 6 foot bloke in it from 600 or more years after David lived.

More often its utter nonsense like "there were giants" "they had a box that shot lightning" or "there's a boat big enough to hold 2 of every animal parked halfway up Mt Ararat".

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

@ Cyclops

Its still a historical document. It documents the thoughts and prejudices and attempts at justification of a people. Yes there are legends, David and Goliath, the trek out of Egypt etc. but these could be metaphors/ exaggerations.

Everyone exaggerates, its human nature. I definately do! :yes:

:smash: I'm not saying (and I doubt that antisocialmunky is too) that it is a definitive history of the world! Merely that it can be useful in understanding the mindset of the people at the time, not to mention the way of life etc.:smash:

History is written by the victors, is a well-known saying but I'd say more that history is written in every book, computer, construction etc. that is left behind/ recorded. It just offers differing opinions.

In truth I agree with your representation of the New Testament as a historical document for the same reasons given above.

I don't see how you can accept one and not the other, particularly when the the other is the one that is supposed to be historical (at least in part).:wall:

I'm sorry I'm rambling...

:oops:

... I'll shut up now.

[pezhetairoi]

:smash: I'm not saying (and I doubt that antisocialmunky is too) that it is a definitive history of the world! Merely that it can be useful in understanding the mindset of the people at the time, not to mention the way of life etc.:smash:

... I'll shut up now.

Don't worry, nothing wrong you said. Keep talking, Curio!

The Bible definitely isn't a definitive history of the world, because there are definitely justifications and backdating and selective censorship/editing in there. Depending on your faith, you may or may not take the parting of the Red Sea, the smiting of Jericho, the crushing of the Assyrians, et al as gospel truth (pun not intended). That's a personal choice of belief. But it is nevertheless an interpretation of the truth, and we 21st-century students of history are certainly experienced enough in historiography and historical inquiry to be able to filter our fact from fiction as long as we set aside the absoluteness of blind faith (because faith by definition requires belief in something that cannot be conclusively proven) and adopt a critical, cynical POV if only for the duration of the analysis.

It seems to me that the Old and New Testaments are simply two kinds of history: one a typical modern-day compilation of historical essays, edited by a person or organisation. Each person contributes an essay, on a particular period. Hence each guy gets a say over what goes into his period without intervention from other writers. The other, on the other hand, is made of essays of the same period, but with different interpretations by different people. If I understood Cyclops rightly, he sees the Old Testament as being a lot less truthful than the New.

May I be so bold as to say that I feel at the least they are pretty on par. Consider that the Old Testament, for all its editing and censorship and apologia, has come down to us more or less faithfully from the 'not-one-word-more, not-one-word-less' faithful copyings of the Torah. The only issue being the veracity of the original document.

Whereas the New Testament is actually (if I may use the word) unworthy to be called a historical document in the sense it was originally intended. The number of books that have been cut out from it, forbidden and made practically heresy to even read, is probably the biggest and most wide-ranging historical act of censorship there has ever been in human history in consideration of the people it has affected directly or indirectly throughout the centuries.

On a nearly unrelated note, it's amazing how you can find said Forbidden Books of the New Testament readily available on Project Gutenberg.

[Respenus]

No offence taken. But I think you mean it cannot be taken as a serious historical account.

:oops: Yeh. See what tiredness does?!

[alatar]

The old testment is about as unbiased as mien kamf.

God takes active parts in wiping out enemiescomments genocide and is basicly one long justification of itself.
However thats not to say it isn't a historical source, just that don't trust i unless it has alot of backing evidence.

[Watchman]

Even devoutly Christian historians often observe readily enough the OT has its fair share of half-assed excusing of gruesome massacres. (Then again, boasting of your gruesome massacres was all the rage back those days in any case.)

That aside, a fair bit of the major events can be cross-referenced to Egyptian, Assyrian and Babylonian (plus sundry) sources for proof and an alternate perspective, and the thing is one of the precious few surviving written records concerning the Middle East around early Iron Age. You just need to filter out a lot of blatant propaganda and the usual other crud, but scholars are supposed to do that anyway.

[antisocialmunky]

The stuff about the Maccabees smashing the Seleukids is over-stated to say the least. People hunt for history in a story like Job that starts with Satan teasing God into torturing a good man, or Jonah where a fella survives inside a sea monster.

There's a handful of major things like "oh, really, there actually were Assyrians?" but usually when people say "history proves Bible right" its a tenuous link, eg a grave marked "Goliath" with a 6 foot bloke in it from 600 or more years after David lived.

More often its utter nonsense like "there were giants" "they had a box that shot lightning" or "there's a boat big enough to hold 2 of every animal parked halfway up Mt Ararat".

I was thinking about Nabonidius, Belshazzar, the fall of Babylon without a major siege from Daniel. The account in Jonah refering to the size of the Ninevah megalopolis. Genesis names of cities match closely with the naming conventions(as far as can be told) used in the 4th millenium. The accounts of Ur being a rich city. The political situation during the Assyrian perios to the early Persian period. Etc.

As for stuff 'cut' from the New Testament... well aren't most of them works after the first century, nostic, or obvious forgeries by Greeks?

As for faith, its defined as an asured expectation of unseen things IE: you believe things will happen, the common misconception is that there's no basis for it. Faith often has a basis for it IE: I trusting your friend because you know his character - I have faith in him. Blind faith should not be representative of the idea of faith but an abberation. Otherwise you get the commonly held view that faith is for the ignorant which I can quite assure you that it is not as we all have faith in something whether it be God, gods, goverment, or each other.

[Justinian II]

The New Testament isn't really a historical document.


True, but as both a Christian and a Historian, you can see some tidbits about what WAS going on in Jesus's lifetime; societal movements, religious movements, and it provides, weirdly enough, a "snapshot" (albeit blurry) of the life of what amounts to the average citizen in the Roman world: the poor, disgruntled peasant which is always walked over.

This, IMO, does make the gospels valuable for historical research. Whether what it says about Jesus is true or not is irrelevant for the historian, IMO, and only relevant for the believer.

[unreal_uk]

Never let the truth get in the way of a good yarn.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Even devoutly Christian historians often observe readily enough the OT has its fair share of half-assed excusing of gruesome massacres. (Then again, boasting of your gruesome massacres was all the rage back those days in any case.)

You called?:beam:

Okay, seriously now. The OT is a mess, flat out. Even things from the time of Soloman are diffivult to corroborate. After that things get better and the Apothryca (between OT and NT) is okay.


That aside, a fair bit of the major events can be cross-referenced to Egyptian, Assyrian and Babylonian (plus sundry) sources for proof and an alternate perspective, and the thing is one of the precious few surviving written records concerning the Middle East around early Iron Age. You just need to filter out a lot of blatant propaganda and the usual other crud, but scholars are supposed to do that anyway.

The NT is a mixture of biography and philosophy. Inherrent in it's formation and use of four divergent accounts is an admission of fallability, in my view at least.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

The old testment is about as unbiased as mien kamf.

God takes active parts in wiping out enemiescomments genocide and is basicly one long justification of itself.
However thats not to say it isn't a historical source, just that don't trust i unless it has alot of backing evidence.

Biased yes, but as I said before everything is biased.

I'm going to expand on something I said earlier. The 'God taking part in wiping out people' stuff, could be metaphor. The smiting of Jericho, for example, could have been due, in part, to an eathquake. The Hebrews were performing a religious ceremony, an earthquake struck, the Hebrews out in the open were relatively unaffected but the walls of Jericho came tumbling down?:idea2: The Great flood, occured long before the Bible was compiled, could have been a massive and devastating flood, didn't cover the earth but could have caused a lot of damage, caused people to question their faith. Look at the Black Death and the Flagellants.

Yes it justifies, but who realistically, in a religion that is about loving thy enemies and caring and turning the other cheek, wants to be known as a cold-hearted and ruthless murderer?:thumbsdown:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The only problem with the walls of Jericho coming down is they weren't up to begin with. Either Exodus etc happened at another time or in another way than advertised.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

:embarassed: oops there I go again...

[antisocialmunky]

The only problem with the walls of Jericho coming down is they weren't up to begin with. Either Exodus etc happened at another time or in another way than advertised.

Well, archeologiests date the Hebrew presences about 4-500 years after the bible's genological records do. The last destruction is only around 1550 or so. Exodus dates it to around 1400-1500 and archeology puts the Hebrew presense to 1000ish.

Though, Jericho's an interesting place since its a contender for the oldest city on earth. The side effect is that it was burned down lots and lots of times.

As for divergent accounts, well all the Gospel writers focused on different aspects and if all are who tradition were, their own view points. Try to ask two people about something that happened 20+ years ago with some records and see how well their stories match up.

That being said, Luke is the most interesting one IMHO, the intro indicates he did research for someone (evidently somewhat prominient or wealthy) on the origin and progression of Christianity. He also mentions that many people did the same.(Luke 1:1-3)

I guess if you had to risk your life because you believed in something, it only makes sense that you're believing something accurate.:whip:

[chairman]

It's seem's that the general opinion here is that the Bible inherently needs to be proved by other sources, but these other sources don't need proof to use them. However, the OT (in the form of the Torah) is one of the most widely copied and distributed texts from antiquity. And the NT also has one of the largest amounts of identical manuscripts of the Classical period. This means that while we are dealing a handful or if lucky a few hundred copies a "Author"s "History of the X People", we are dealing with thousands of copies of the Bible. And just as we use Herodotus, Thucydides and Xenophon to tell us about the Persian Wars and use Appian, Arrian, Livy, Plutarch and Polybius to tell us about Rome, we use Matthew, Mark, Luke and John to tell us about Jesus, Peter, and John the Baptist. The inclusion of four Gospels is the NT's way of validifying itself by showing multiple viewpoints to tell about a particular series of events and people.

By the way about the OP's topic: one reason that Pontius Pilate "seems" to be better than he was in real life is that he isn't portrayed like this. If read correctly, the Gospels paint a picture and indecisive, arrogant governor who dislikes the local population and prefers to avoid dealing with them. As much as he can, Pilate tries to shove Jesus off on other people, rather than deal with the issue himself. Firstly, he attempts to have the Sadducees take Jesus back and work it out. When that doesn't work, he sends Jesus to see Herod, the ruler of Galilee (nowhere near the kind of ruler that his namesake was), but Herod says that it's not his problem either. The Gospels also show Pilate's arrogance and contempt when he tells Jesus that he has the power of life and death over him. Jesus responds by saying that Pilate's power is temporary. This has two meanings: first in the purely religious sense of spiritual and temporal power, but also showing that the Jews could tell that Pilate's days as governor were numbered. Only a few years later, the incompetant prefect was shamefully recalled to Rome by the emporer, who was not happy with him. Apparently, the people of Judea knew that the emporer was fully aware of how bad a job Pilate was doing:no: .

Just a few thoughts.

Chairman

[Cyclops]

The OT is flawed as history but obviously has points of interest if you can contextualise it a bit. Eg in the book of Ruth there's some interesting details on legal procedure and inheritance: but are they relevant to the time it was composed (600-400BC?) or 4 generations before David (pre-1000 BC sometime)? Is it an actual legal tradition or a fiction interpolated to to justify a reform?

If you're relying on it for a narrative of the course of politcal events in the Near East then you're in trouble.

Its extremely rare to find anything in the OT that's usable history. More often its "oh here's a Babylonian poem that has been copied in Psalms" or 'here's a place name vaguely similar to one mentioned in the Bible 1000 years out of context".

There's a nice debunk in Robin Lane Fox's The Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible . He poses two questions: Is the Bible true? Did the authors think it was true when they wrote it? His answer on both points is usually often No, and its quite convincing.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

That sounds interesting Cyclops, I'll give it a look. :book:

Thanks.

[chairman]

Saying that the OT is flawed is an awefully strong criticism to be making. How do we know that what the Bible tells us about the ancient levent isn't true? It's not like we have detailed accounts written by Babylonian historians on the peoples around them like we do for the Greeks and Romans. What we have in the way of textual evidence from that time period is mostly Egyptian, Babylonian and Assyrian court records that are more concerned with the matters of "big picture" geopolitics and such. None of the documents covers in any scale of detail the area of Palestine and Syria, especially the Israelites. So, in the OT, we have a set of documents written from the emic perspective about the history, culture, religion, politics, laws, wars, and life of the Israeli people. Not only does the OT cover an area and people not heavily discussed by the contemporary texts, but it is also written, not by the court scribes of major empires, but by relatively less significant people. So, the OT is talking more about the daily lives of people in Palestine and less about dynasty engrandising issues. This is similar to the hundreds of thousands of cuniform tablets from Mesopotamia that deal mainly with individual economic transactions. In many ways, the OT is complete history, ethnography, theological summary and collection of cultural songs, poems and sayings. If we were to discover a similar document from ANY other people in that time period or any period, we would call it the find of the millenium! Arrian's lost "Alanica" or Polybius's other works would pale in comparison to a similar text for any of the peoples in that part of the world.

Chairman

[Kολοσσός]

I always imagine Pilate as David Bowie in a toga...what movie was that?

[Intranetusa]

f we were to discover a similar document from ANY other people in that time period or any period, we would call it the find of the millenium!
Chairman

Don't neglect the fact that overall, the OT is still a religious text. It does have recorded history, but it also stresses a certain viewpoint, and would be just as bias, if not more than other texts out there.

[RomulusAugustusCaesar]

Okay, I've seen a lot in here that as a firm Fundamentalist Christian and truth-seeking historian I heartily disagree with. But it's too late at night for me to be getting involved, I'll have to really join in tomorrow. But I simply could not let this one thing go any longer unanswered:

Well, when you consider the fact that the Bible was edited by the Romans after it was composed, it's not that surprising that he's portrayed as a generally just person.:book: Where on earth is this coming from? There is absolutely no proof for such a claim. There are, to this day, orginal texts of both the Old and New Testaments. Original, obviously, means the very first, and therefore the... wait for it... unedited texts. Even these unedited texts portray Pilate in such a light. And yet many people miss a crucial point, that though Pilate was not a villain, he really wasn't a hero, either. When it comes down to it, he ordered the execution of an innocent man in order to save his own ass. Now, thankfully, this was part of God's plan, for Christ had to suffer and die as an innocent for our sins. But even that does not excuse Pilate for condemning an innocent, and not one of the Gospels tried to excuse Pilate.

Also, there are some records (yes, I'm aware they're not undisputed fact, but they still exist) which indicate that Pilate later became a Christian and was in fact martyred, which could also explain why the man was depicted in a good light, as he was among the early Christian martyrs.

[Horst Nordfink]

I really just had to share that, because I'm still kinda amazed that a comedy film came closer to portraying a historical character's true nature than any 'serious' biblical story.

It stands to reason that Pilate would have been an aloof, arrogant, racist bastard. He was a Roman Governor!

Jesus, if he existed, would have been seen as a troublemaker and rabble rouser, and the easiest thing to do would be to have him executed to keep the peace. Pilate would've wanted his Governorship of Iudaea to go as smoothly as possible, and allowing a man to swan around causing trouble and claiming to be King of the Jews would have caused more trouble than he was worth.

I don't know if I would consider the New Testament, or the Old Testament for that matter, to be historical pieces in the same vein as something by Livy or Josephus. I think if pushed, I'd probably consider them works of fiction. And like all good works of fiction, there's a little bit of fact thrown in to keep it believable. But not enough to spoil the story.

But what do I know? That's just my opinion...

[pezhetairoi]

Perhaps not as extreme as Horst's is my view. I got the feeling that it was a damn good story grounded in fact, thus if you look past the story, and filtered out any editings, you would see the facts.

Pilate became a Christian? Please tell more. I wasn't aware of this part of him. I wonder how he dealt with the guilt of being indirectly responsible for the death of the head of his religion, though... o.O

[L.C.Cinna]

No Pilatus did not become a Christian. that's Christian Romantics....like so many stories (marthyrs come to mind). anyway...

the reason why the Romans/ Pilatus are the good people while the jews are bad are quite obvious. Ever since Paulus (the man who invented christianity, after all Jesus was just one out of 100s of jewish religious leaders who thought they'd have to change the jewish religion; it was Paulus, the outsider, who invented all the weird things about this new faith)....ok I have to continue...

Paulus and everyone after him changed their focus on the Romans. they wanted new members and spread their religion in the empire. their biggest problem: everyone thought they were jews. this was especially bad because the times were many parts of the NT were written saw uprisings in Judaea (under Nero, Traian, Hadrian).... the early Christians, being a fundamentalist group of people who told everyone that "the end is near" (yes they thought it would happen every minute, and some of them DID cause problems because of that), were already seen as something "weird" and "unfitting". So they had to get rid of the image of being "rebellious jews"....or like Domitian calls them in an edict: "the group of jews who pretends they are not [jews] because they don't want to pay the tax" :inquisitive:

So the main goal for early Christians was to make the Romans see the difference between them and the Jews. that'S why Pilatus is (comparatively) nice...

[antisocialmunky]

Pilatus disappears after he got repremanded to Syria for complaints against him by the Jews.

I guess replacing 'weird Jews' with 'traitorous non-emperor-worshippers' was the way to go to be really popular with the Romans then. Atleast if Pliny and Trajan are to be believed.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well, archeologiests date the Hebrew presences about 4-500 years after the bible's genological records do. The last destruction is only around 1550 or so. Exodus dates it to around 1400-1500 and archeology puts the Hebrew presense to 1000ish.

Though, Jericho's an interesting place since its a contender for the oldest city on earth. The side effect is that it was burned down lots and lots of times.

As for divergent accounts, well all the Gospel writers focused on different aspects and if all are who tradition were, their own view points. Try to ask two people about something that happened 20+ years ago with some records and see how well their stories match up.

That being said, Luke is the most interesting one IMHO, the intro indicates he did research for someone (evidently somewhat prominient or wealthy) on the origin and progression of Christianity. He also mentions that many people did the same.(Luke 1:1-3)

I guess if you had to risk your life because you believed in something, it only makes sense that you're believing something accurate.:whip:

Actually, Exodus only starts around 1200 ish and the actual leaving Egypt can be resonable said to be contemperous with the wall of Troy (roughly 1150). So the Hebrew presence is less of a problem than the fact that the city wasn't occopied when they arrived, i.e. no conquest.

Luke is, irrc, thought to have been a Greek doctor.

[Magister Militum Titus Pullo]

[QUOTE=RomulusAugustusCaesar]Okay, I've seen a lot in here that as a firm Fundamentalist Christian and truth-seeking historian I heartily disagree with. But it's too late at night for me to be getting involved, I'll have to really join in tomorrow. But I simply could not let this one thing go any longer unanswered:
:book: Where on earth is this coming from? There is absolutely no proof for such a claim. There are, to this day, orginal texts of both the Old and New Testaments. Original, obviously, means the very first, and therefore the... wait for it... unedited texts. Even these unedited texts portray Pilate in such a light. And yet many people miss a crucial point, that though Pilate was not a villain, he really wasn't a hero, either. When it comes down to it, he ordered the execution of an innocent man in order to save his own ass. Now, thankfully, this was part of God's plan, for Christ had to suffer and die as an innocent for our sins. But even that does not excuse Pilate for condemning an innocent, and not one of the Gospels tried to excuse Pilate.

Also, there are some records (yes, I'm aware they're not undisputed fact, but they still exist) which indicate that Pilate later became a Christian and was in fact martyred, which could also explain why the man was depicted in a good light, as he was among the early Christian martyrs.[/QUO


I realize that this is beside the point of this whole thread, but I was wondering, how could a man whom lived two millenia ago possibly die for the "sins" of millions of people who were born after the fact? Sounds like a complete waste of time if you ask me.

Also, if Yahwah is the ultimate and one true god, then why are there so many different theologies in the world that contradict that story?

Why would Pontius Pilatus need to save his ass? He was the prefect of Judea. He commanded a corps of Auxilia. Certainly protection enough from a gaggle of disgruntled jewish clerics.

[Justinian II]

[QUOTE]


I realize that this is beside the point of this whole thread, but I was wondering, how could a man whom lived two millenia ago possibly die for the "sins" of millions of people who were born after the fact? Sounds like a complete waste of time if you ask me.

Also, if Yahwah is the ultimate and one true god, then why are there so many different theologies in the world that contradict that story?

Why would Pontius Pilatus need to save his ass? He was the prefect of Judea. He commanded a corps of Auxilia. Certainly protection enough from a gaggle of disgruntled jewish clerics.


There's theological explanations for that and whatnot, but I don't feel that this is really the place to discuss such matters--after all, we're here for history, and this is what I'm going to poke at.

In the case of Pontius Pilate, it's merely a matter to look and SEE how explosive the general situation of the Jews in Judea was at that time. They HATED the Romans. They're awaiting a Messiah to liberate them. There's been a couple claimants before, but they've come to naught. So they're desperate.

If there's a constant of history, it's this: Desperate people do desperate things. Pontius was desperate to keep order. The Jews were desperate to be free of the Romans.

Now in comes a man who talks about the Kingdom of God being above the kingdom of the earth. Who then starts a small riot in the temple (re: the moneychangers incident). The romans are TERRIFIED that this is going to bring an armed conflict, and the NT says itself that the Romans (and the Jewish Authorities) were looking to kill him after that, but couldn't, because he was loved by the people.

Imagine now, that you're a peasant. And you think that this fellow is the Messiah.

Wouldn't you do anything for him?

In short--it wasn't a rabble of Jewish Clerics that Pilate feared. It was the people of his province. And History also demonstrates what could happen when this went so far--the Judean revolts under Nero and later Hadrian.

[Magister Militum Titus Pullo]

I never seem to get an answer with that.

"Gentle Jesus" causes a riot in a temple? Well theres a misnomer.

I thought Pilate was persuaded by the native Judean Priesthood that Jesus' had to be executed, therefore he was more worried about the influence they wielded locally, and what they would do with it, if he denied them their wish. But Pontius is an imperial official, he could call upon the Legions in Syria and Egypt. Or was the tactical manpower situation abroad such, that he was afraid of doing that, thus giving the impression to his superiors in Rome that he couldn't hack it as a governor?

If I was a peasant back then, I doubt I would have rallied to Jesus' cause. I don't trust people whom claim to be the Son of God. He could claim to be the son of Odin and I still wouldn't take his word at face value.

[Jolt]

What 99.99% of the Christians in general fail to see (Because they even didn't know) is that Jesus is basically a copy of Horus.

Horus was born on 25th of December, of a virgin (Isis), in time had 12 disciples, performed miracles, was betrayed by some demi-god (Don't remember which one), was crucified, buried and resurrected after 3 days. Unless Horus was invented after Jesus, I think Jesus's history is pretty alike with Horus. Teehee!

[Tellos Athenaios]

Look, IMO, by and large all religions are somehow copies of another; but to say Jezus = Horus re-invented ? Nah, that's a bit strong for me before dinner, and I am not even religious myself.

[Justinian II]

I never seem to get an answer with that.

"Gentle Jesus" causes a riot in a temple? Well theres a misnomer.

I thought Pilate was persuaded by the native Judean Priesthood that Jesus' had to be executed, therefore he was more worried about the influence they wielded locally, and what they would do with it, if he denied them their wish. But Pontius is an imperial official, he could call upon the Legions in Syria and Egypt. Or was the tactical manpower situation abroad such, that he was afraid of doing that, thus giving the impression to his superiors in Rome that he couldn't hack it as a governor?

If I was a peasant back then, I doubt I would have rallied to Jesus' cause. I don't trust people whom claim to be the Son of God. He could claim to be the son of Odin and I still wouldn't take his word at face value.


I know--a lot of Christians dont' even think twice about it, but really, what he did was essentially start a riot. You can't add 1+1 and get three (and I'm saying this as a Christian, too; I just happened to have scholarly training in history/religious studies before becoming one.) There's also his statement that "I came not to bring peace, but the sword" which generally gets overlooked too.

You're correct in your last statement there: Pontius wanted to make Rome think he had it under control--incidentally, if i remember correctly, it was his actions that led him to be recalled to Rome ANYWAY precisely because the romans thought he had lost control of the game.

Actually, "Son of God" was a pretty common title for faith healers/holy dudes in Judea during the time of Jesus. It merely meant that someone was beloved of God, and was blessed by God with special attributes and abilities. It's the "Son of Man" title that (arguably, depending on your position) makes him the Messiah. So in essence, he was just claiming (though I don't recall him ever calling himself this, but I do need to re-read the gospels to make sure) that God granted him nifty superpowers of healing:-) And like it or not, his message (read the beatitutes--notice how they're against the rich, and pro-peasantry, and try to get into that ancient mindset) appealed to the peasantry--he was one of them, and he was telling them things that gave them hope.

[Justinian II]

What 99.99% of the Christians in general fail to see (Because they even didn't know) is that Jesus is basically a copy of Horus.

Horus was born on 25th of December, of a virgin (Isis), in time had 12 disciples, performed miracles, was betrayed by some demi-god (Don't remember which one), was crucified, buried and resurrected after 3 days. Unless Horus was invented after Jesus, I think Jesus's history is pretty alike with Horus. Teehee!


It's possible, yes. Doesn't detract from the general consensus among many historians that Jesus was a real person, at some point.

I will say that DEFINITELY the iconography for the Theotokos and Christ child is very much descended from traditional Isis/Horus iconography...though I'm more inclined to think that Zoroastrianism/Mithraism had a larger impact on the development of Christianity than did the traditional Egyptian religions.

And Seth is the Egyptian deity who cut Horus into Teeny-tiny pieces. 72 pieces, if I remember right...or was that the number of conspirators? Blast. I can't remember.

The Dead-and-ressurecting-and-then-leaving-and-coming-back god seems to be a part of many religious traditions, come to think of it. Once could make a case for Quetzalcoatl being in the same vein, though he didn't die--he just sailed away, promising to come back. And Odin, who hung himself on a tree to gain wisdom and the runes. Mithras fits somewhat well into this mode, and we've already touched upon Horus. I think it speaks to something in the Human psyche.

Edited for clarification.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This "Jesus is Horus reinvented" thing really gets on my nerves. It's a REAL stretch, for starters Horus didn't have 12 diciples, he wasn't the Sun God, he was chopped into little bits and there's a question-mark over the role of Isis. Certainly Egyption religion changes over time and there's an arguement that the "mystic" bit comes after Christianity pops up.

"Gentle Jesus" does not exist. I'm also not keen on people saying they want to be more "Christlike" because the Christ was not the nicest or gentlest of people, though he may have been fair, just and compassionate he was also harsh, unilatteral and judgemental.

The "I come not to bring peace..." statement refers to family strife specifically and nothing creates more strife in families than Christianity.

Christian dogma borrows heavily from other religions, fixing Christ's birth just after the Saturnalia because the Church fathers didn't know when it actually was is an excellant example of this.

In general those who attack Christianity as "fake" or "cobbled together" are usually attacking modern right-wing Evangelical Christianity.

Pullo, Jolt; I suggest you dig a lot deeper before making any pronouncements.

[Horst Nordfink]

Modern Right-wing Fundamentalist Christianity deserves to be brought to rights! Fundamentalism of any sorts is suspicious, and has no place in this modern world. Definitely not in politics; religion has no place in politics.

I think this thread is starting to deviate away from the original point...

[Reno Melitensis]

Well said Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla. As a christian, not a fundamental one of course, these comments about Jesus should be addressed in a way not to offend anyone. I too when was younger, now I am 35, maybe a veteran and a bit old to play EB, had my doubts about god and heaven, I am a bit of a scientist. But the OT is not only a book about historical facts which happened millenia ago, but also by prophets which had announced the arrival of the messiah. Jesus was not a common man, he was an extraordinary man, he had done and said things only a few could have imagined. At to those atheist out there, who I respect because I was one of them, what about Lourdes and Fatima, where those too invented by poor stupid christian fundamentalists.

Cheers.

[Horst Nordfink]

I am proud to call myself an atheist Reno, but I'm not quite sure what your point is regarding Lourdes and Fatima. Are you insinuating that they are proof that God exists?

I'm not too familiar with Fatima, but I have done some research on Lourdes. Since 1858, the Church has confirmed 66 miracles directly responsible to Lourdes. This may sound rather good until you see that the annual number of visitors to Lourdes is over 50,000 people. I don't think that 50,000 have visited Lourdes every year since 1858, but I think there have been at least 2-3 million visitors over the years. 66 "miracles" out of 2-3 million can not by any stretch of the immagination be considered proof of anything.

I think it is so low to be counted as coincidence.

[Reno Melitensis]

The point is that these days no one seem to bother about God. To be an atheist is your choice, which I deeply respect, but people, young people, should read and search before saying that God is an invention of the human mind and that Jesus was a fictional character, and that Saul of Tarsus reinvented all the christian faith to accommodate his own taste. What happened at Fatima and Lourdes should be enough prove that an Almighty One exists. And i am not referring to miracles, but to the events. Miracles are a tool, the few that occur are generally unexplained, but the spiritual impact of these holy places is unimaginable.


Cheers.

[Horst Nordfink]

I respect your belief Reno, and in no way am I attempting to turn you.

But using the fact that millions of people believe cannot be used as proof! If I manage to convince millions of people that have a unicorn under my stairs, it doesn't make it true.

Hundreds of thousands of people attended the Nuremburg Rallies, that doesn't make Nazism right.

[Reno Melitensis]

Maria Bernada Soubirous was too much a common girl to have invented every thing. Even when instructed to ask the lady her name, the "I am the Immaculate Conception" was by no means her invention. Only a few people in the church ranks knew about this, as the church was undergoing discussions about the ' born without a sin ' of Mary.

Cheers.

[Horst Nordfink]

I fear that if this thread doesn't return to the point, it will be closed by the moderators. Although, I am still insterested in continuing our conversation via private messages if you wish?

[Reno Melitensis]

As you wish, I have enjoyed every minute of our conversation, and it had been an honor to express my view with you. I am very sorry that this tread went this way.

Cheers.

[chairman]

Horst and Reno: thanks for your great example of a civilized, decent conversation and exchange of ideas. Too often, these subjects end in moderators closing a thread. I am impressed by the way that you two discussed differing opinions while maintaining a hospitable atmosphere! Thank you from the rest of us!:2thumbsup:

About Pilate: like I said earlier, the Gospels' description fits with incompetence and eventual recall. As others have said, Pilate was so concerned about keeping his superiors in the dark about the true circumstances of his governorship that he was willing to circumvent due process of Roman law. His collaboration with the Sadducees, indeciveness and his unwillingness to take responsibility for his decisions show a shamefully un-Roman character.

In response to the idea that early Christians wanted to distance themselves from the Jews to appease Roman sensibility, might I say that the Romans were much more comfortable with the Jews than they were with the Christians. Jews were the only people who were excepted from emporer worship and duty on the Sabbath while in the military. This is because the Romans, like the Ptolemies and Seleucids before them, recognized the vast fighting potential of the Jews, both within the Roman army and in rebellion. So the Romans appeased the Jews by giving them exemption from normal protocal. Also, for Paul there was no need to distance himself from the Jews because he was both Jewish, Roman as well as educated in Greek philosophy. So Paul could call himself both a Jew and a Roman citizen at the same time.

Jolt: I think you are confusing Horus with his father Osirus. Osirus was the King of the Egyptian gods until the rise of Amun-Ra. However, his brother Seth grew jealous and murdered him and cut him into small pieces. Osirus' wife Isis was so grieved that she searched the whole earth until she had gathered all of the pieces and used a spell to temporarily brought Osirus back to life long enough to become pregnent with their son, Horus. Osirus died again after the spell wore off and was established as the King of the Dead, where he judged souls who had died. So Horus wasn't actually born of a virgin and it was his father who was murdered and temporarily resurrected. It is true that the cult of Isis later game impetus to the semi-diefication of Mary in the Orthodox and Catholic churches. But it was not the original reason behind this.

Actually, I have heard a strange theory advocated by one historian who said that Jewish monotheism was derived from Akenaton's worship of the single god Aton. However, this seems to not be widely accepted among historians.

Just my mites.

Chairman

[Cyclops]

How would we represent PP as an FM?

He was accused of corruption but in the early Empire that just meant you had a bit of wealth: there were informers who made a living of accusing public officials on false grounds for reward money.

I doubt he was an attuned govenor, in fact he was probably culturally insensitive. However he did have the "famous warrior"" ancillary, one who "wanks as high as any in Wome".


Saying that the OT is flawed is an awefully strong criticism to be making.

Its a wonderful collection of documents, well worth a lifetimes study.

However its also a most misrepresented group of documents.

Its extraordinary the number of committed christians I know who have lost their faith after commencing Bible study.


How do we know that what the Bible tells us about the ancient levent isn't true?...

Geneisis begins with 2 versions of the creation of the world that flatly contradict one-another.

The OT is mostly not history. Even the history is deeply flawed and edited.

[TWFanatic]

I winced when I read "Bible mythology." It was inevitable that this thread would degrade into a slap-fight.:smash:

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

k I'm going to try and get back to the point here...

The thing I find interesting (having read the whole thread and learned a fair bit!) is that Pilate is treated so well when he did condemn Jesus, admittedly to save himself. The fact that he offered the crowd the chance to save Him, was to wash his hands of the matter and absolve himself of the blame. An intristically selfish motive, against the Christain faiths' basic values, and yet he is not condemned for it. Thats interesting, and seems to suggest that the authors of the Bible could be impartial at times.:idea2:

To Reno (and no offence is intended),as a young (18yo) atheist, I'd just like to say that I admit that Jesus was a great man, and that the values of the Christian faith are in fact good values to have. I agree with you that everyone has to take some time to to think about their faith, its not a snap desicion but a state of mind and being that affects your whole life.:saint:

[Cyclops]

Yep Jesus was crucified by the Romans: thats their MO for "rebels" and "traitors" (ie people who don't lick the Emperor's boots). If the Temple officials killed him it would've probably be stoning or some other traditional execution.

A very Roman solution. Hmmm theres some unrest in the city. Apprehend a rabbi and crucify him. That should calm everything down.


...Actually, I have heard a strange theory advocated by one historian who said that Jewish monotheism was derived from Akenaton's worship of the single god Aton. However, this seems to not be widely accepted among historians...

Yeah its more of a "might have been" scenario.

I have a vague memory it was Sigmund Freud. I think the dates are wrong but theres a scrap or two of evidence that make it possible. Moses is supposedly an Egyptian name originally.

Its possible to see Mose's story as a "substitution myth": Moses was raised as an Egytian prince: maybe he actually was one?

In this version of events Aaaron and Miriam were the actual leaders of the Hebrews. When Miriam gets leprosy Moses stages a coup (displacing the female religious/tribal leader), imposes monotheism (suppressing the male-led bull worshipping religion), introduces written rules (to a pre-literate society) and retells the escape narrative with himself as hero ("I told Aaaron to tell Pharoah to let my people go: I would've done it myself but I have this speech impediment"). The reed boat story serves to make Moses look like a Hebrew rather than a renegade Egyptian.

Its possible I suppose, but very untestable. Unless we find "The Secret diary of Moses aged 99 1/4" with chapters like How I Started Judaism, How I Built the Pyramids Without Alien Assitance and Bartix Overpowered?

[chairman]

I'd like to say that the Bible actually isn't any more biased than the great Livy himself. I think Horst mentioned Livy in contrast to the Bible but Livy was commisioned by Augustus to write an "official" history of Rome, both glorifying Julius Caesar and Octavian but also Roma and the Roman people. Livy's account also contains mythological versions of the founding of Rome, including Aeneas and the wolf twins, Romulus and Remus. Also, Livy is writing about some events that took place two to five hundred years before he was born. Much of the Bible is written within a generation of the events, especially the NT.

In dealing with sources, there are three main criteria of accuracy: proximity to the events, the ability to use hindsight, and the objectivity of the source. Obviously criteria 1 and 2 are quite opposite, but that just shows the difficulty in history of declaring something accurate or not. I'd say that Livy had the benefit of hindsight in writting his history, but his account is heavily biased. That's why Polybius is probably my prefered source when discussing Republican Roman history. For the Bible, much of it is either written contemporary to events (Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, the Gospels, Acts and the whole NT really, plus many other parts). Other parts of the Bible are written with useful hindsight that helps to show the succession of events (e.g. Genesis, Judges, Chronicles and Kings, much of the "histories" [a group of books in the OT], and several others). The level of bias is difficult to find, and probably depends on which book is under examination. Certainly, the Epistles were not meant to be histories, but just like any ancient document (including poetry, letters, etc.) can have useful clues so can the Epistles.

Obviously much of the Bible is written with the specific intent of admonition or instruction. However, so are many of the Greco-Roman historians, who also found fault or deficiancy in their nations and hoped through their insight to instruct or advise others on how to better conduct affairs. Vegetius, Livy, Cicero, Xenophon and Arrian are good examples of this concept.

These are good things to keep in mind, since historians don't judge the usefullness of a document by whether it is religious or whether it is a history, but instead on how much information and insight it can give us on how history actually happened :book: .

Chairman

[M V Agrippa]

I always imagine Pilate as David Bowie in a toga...what movie was that?

That would be The Last Temptation of Christ by: Martin Scorsese. Good movie too.

[Jolt]

Horst and Reno: thanks for your great example of a civilized, decent conversation and exchange of ideas. Too often, these subjects end in moderators closing a thread. I am impressed by the way that you two discussed differing opinions while maintaining a hospitable atmosphere! Thank you from the rest of us!:2thumbsup:

About Pilate: like I said earlier, the Gospels' description fits with incompetence and eventual recall. As others have said, Pilate was so concerned about keeping his superiors in the dark about the true circumstances of his governorship that he was willing to circumvent due process of Roman law. His collaboration with the Sadducees, indeciveness and his unwillingness to take responsibility for his decisions show a shamefully un-Roman character.

In response to the idea that early Christians wanted to distance themselves from the Jews to appease Roman sensibility, might I say that the Romans were much more comfortable with the Jews than they were with the Christians. Jews were the only people who were excepted from emporer worship and duty on the Sabbath while in the military. This is because the Romans, like the Ptolemies and Seleucids before them, recognized the vast fighting potential of the Jews, both within the Roman army and in rebellion. So the Romans appeased the Jews by giving them exemption from normal protocal. Also, for Paul there was no need to distance himself from the Jews because he was both Jewish, Roman as well as educated in Greek philosophy. So Paul could call himself both a Jew and a Roman citizen at the same time.

Jolt: I think you are confusing Horus with his father Osirus. Osirus was the King of the Egyptian gods until the rise of Amun-Ra. However, his brother Seth grew jealous and murdered him and cut him into small pieces. Osirus' wife Isis was so grieved that she searched the whole earth until she had gathered all of the pieces and used a spell to temporarily brought Osirus back to life long enough to become pregnent with their son, Horus. Osirus died again after the spell wore off and was established as the King of the Dead, where he judged souls who had died. So Horus wasn't actually born of a virgin and it was his father who was murdered and temporarily resurrected. It is true that the cult of Isis later game impetus to the semi-diefication of Mary in the Orthodox and Catholic churches. But it was not the original reason behind this.

Actually, I have heard a strange theory advocated by one historian who said that Jewish monotheism was derived from Akenaton's worship of the single god Aton. However, this seems to not be widely accepted among historians.

Just my mites.

Chairman

I heard some days ago there was a movie about these paralels. If you guys wanna see them (Since I only have net here in college, I'm unable to see it.)

http://zeitgeistmovie.com/

I heard it was well fundamented, and I suppose it should present the view points clearly. Then feedback it at me please. :P

[Reno Melitensis]

chairman said 'Horst and Reno: thanks for your great example of a civilized, decent conversation and exchange of ideas. Too often, these subjects end in moderators closing a thread. I am impressed by the way that you two discussed differing opinions while maintaining a hospitable atmosphere! Thank you from the rest of us! '


Well it was never and never it shall happen that I make enemies of people due to there views on religion and what god they worship. I had seen many of these movies when i was younger, The Last Temptation of Christ, the Live of Brian, and recently The da Vinci Code. If in the future enough info is found that Christ was married, I would not be surprised. In my opinian Jesus was human first, than son of God, so if got married, maybe to Mary of Magdalene, that would have been a natural thing, as almost all humans do. But of course I doubt, such a thing, and even more if he had children, they could not had vanished in obscurity, with all the hard line cristian cults around in the first millenium Anno Domini.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's a piece of Atheist fundalmentalist propeganda, and it really only speaks to the fundamentalist American Right.

Yes, the Roman state Church borrowed iconography from Mithras and Sol Invictus but that has been known since 334 AD.

[The Celtic Viking]

It's a piece of Atheist fundalmentalist propeganda

Atheist fundamentalist? Say what?! There needs to be a set of principles, rules or something like that for someone to be a fundamentalist. What principles do you think a fundamentalist atheist would cling to? (Hint: atheism is just not holding belief in any god.)

As for propaganda... sigh... no. It's no more propaganda than any history book you've read.

[antisocialmunky]

Sadly, 'fundementalist' is thrown around today too often. :-\ But these ideas are nothing new, they come around every few decades and people are like: "OMG This is a new understanding of stuff, I didn't know that, it must be true since we correct our understanding of the past all the time."

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Atheist fundamentalist? Say what?! There needs to be a set of principles, rules or something like that for someone to be a fundamentalist. What principles do you think a fundamentalist atheist would cling to? (Hint: atheism is just not holding belief in any god.)

As for propaganda... sigh... no. It's no more propaganda than any history book you've read.

Well, Fundalmentalist Anti-Deist then. They want to discredit God because they see belief in Him as the root cause of all evil. They are as missionary about their agenda as anyone.

As to the bias, well it mentions Dionysus as "born of a virgin" but he wasn't and it moves Exodus from around 1,200 to 2,500 BC in order to fit things together.

Now, don't sigh at me, don't pity me and don't patronise me. I am well aware there is no factual basis for my belief, I will even help you discredit parts of the Bible but this film is about attacking religion because you are scared or it.

It's as bad as anything coming from the christian right in America.

[CaesarAugustus]

Uhh BTW what is the proper way to pronounce "Pilate"? :inquisitive:

[Hax]

Pontius Pilatus.

The proper way :P

Bloody English, Anglicizing awesome Romani names.

[chairman]

I usually pronounce it with a capital "I" sound followed by either capital "A" or small "a" as in "at". Not terribly sure if this is the correct way or not.

Chairman

[Intranetusa]

christian, not a fundamental one of course, these comments about Jesus should be addressed in a way not to offend anyone. I too when was younger, now I am 35, maybe a veteran and a bit old to play EB, had my doubts about god and heaven...to those atheist out there, who I respect because I was one of them, what about Lourdes and Fatima, where those too invented by poor stupid christian fundamentalists. Cheers.

Doubting the existence of God doesn't make you an atheist. Atheists believe there is no God (whereas anti-theist go futher). Mother Teresa doubted Jesus quite often...?

Now my question is, if you were an atheist, how did you jump from atheism to Christianity? :dizzy2:



"there needs to be a set of principles, rules or something like that for someone to be a fundamentalist. What principles do you think a fundamentalist atheist would cling to? (Hint: atheism is just not holding belief in any god."

Well, there is a branch of atheism that is considered a religion, called anti-theism. Whether or not that's fundamentalist is up for debate.

[Intranetusa]

Well, Fundalmentalist Anti-Deist then. They want to discredit God because they see belief in Him as the root cause of all evil. They are as missionary about their agenda as anyone..

It's not fundamentalist anti-Deist. It's Anti-Theist (specifically Judeo-Christian).

A Deist believes in an all powerful creator God that set into motion the events involved in the creation of the universe, but does not intervene afterwards with divine intervention. The God in Deism isn't the same god in the Abrahamic religions.

[antisocialmunky]

Did you just pretty much say that the Deistic God uses autocalc while the Abrahamic God fights all battles?:laugh4:

[Intranetusa]

Did you just pretty much say that the Deistic God uses autocalc while the Abrahamic God fights all battles?:laugh4:

lol, that's an oversimplification of terms, but yeh - pretty much. :yes:

The Deist God uses RTW's built in mathematical formulas to calculate world events.

Whereas the Abrahamic God goes into the console to type "auto_win," "add_money, Jews 99999" or "Jericho" to help out the people who worship him. :D

[antisocialmunky]

lol, that's an oversimplification of terms, but yeh - pretty much. :yes:

Sometimes the Abrahamic God goes into the console to type "auto_win," "add_money, Jews 99999" or "Jericho" to help out the people who worship him. :)

Don't forget the "create_character, Messiah."

[Intranetusa]

Don't forget the "create_character, Messiah."

That's been done to death... The Abrahamic God should just go into desc_export units and give the Messiah/his Chosen People unit(s) 100 hp, 100 shield, and 100 armor, so they doesn't keep getting killed by the Romans.

Defeating the Egyptians via "add_plagues" and then getting steam rolled by Babylonians the next turn seems to be very inefficient. :2thumbsup:

[antisocialmunky]

Then there was "give_trait, hates_babylonians 3 Cyrus"

[Foot]

OMG, love the last few posts.

As for the topic, I would heartily suggest Geza Vermes' "Jesus the Jew" as an excellent introduction into New Testament Study, particularly focusing on the gospels and the life of jesus. In it, you really get to hear some of the true words of Jesus of Nazareth, the man. The comparisons between Jesus and a singular type of Jewish Rabbi really are quite striking.

As for the OT, it was a key part in the discovery of Urartu, which was a kingdom, rivalling the Assyrian Empire in power at times, that until the early 20th century had been completely forgotten. Mentions of Ararat in the Bible along with a few mentions in Assyrian texts put the archaelogists and historians onto the track of one of the greatest kingdoms of the ancient world. The Persian title of "King of Kings" actually comes from the title given to the Urartean King, and Urartu herself brought the Assyrian Empire to its knees before finally succumbing to bad leadership and the nomadic raides of the Cimmerians and the Scyths. To discount the OT is a mistake, light can be gleamed from it, but not as a definitive work of history but rather as a collection of misfit tales that were written during a time and a mindset quite alien to our own, but that were still written during that time.

Foot

[chairman]

Thanks for that bit on Urartu, Foot. I didn't know that. It's true though. People these days totally ignore important empires like Urartu, Mitanni, Elam, Media, and sometimes even the Hittites :no: .

LOL, that is too funny about if God were playing EB. The question I have though, is which faction would he play? Mighty Roma? Great Arche Seleukia? Distant Lusotannon? Or the awesome Bartixian Space Empire with their impotent laser beams and 20W light bulbs?! Please, members, tell me who do you think God would play?

Chairman

[Gaius Valerius]

i suppose the OT has many interesting features in it referring to the political constellation of those times. but you have to realise it was written later. as i recall the actual OT came into being during the babylonian exile (ending with the persian conquest) which grouped the whole hebrew elite together. i think the only historical thing about the OT is mentioning for example urartu. like biblical accounts of 'gods' miraculous intervention during warfare.

like this one: the liberation of jerusalem from the assyrian siege under Sennacherib (701 bce) in 2 Kings 19:35 "the angel of the lord set out and struck down one hundred eighty-five thousand in the camp of the assyrians", thereafter Sennacherib went back to Nineveh. divine intervention! or not... in 2 Kings 18:14-16 King Hezekiah of Judah pays Sennacherib a great tribute to leave.

the OT however a lot more historically valable than the NT; just think of all the inner conflicts amongst Jesus his followers.

as atheïst i have a hard time accepting biblical accounts, not enough 'hard' evidence you know.

rather than posing the judeans modelled their religoin after that of the heretic pharao Akenaton, he modelled his religion after the many 'monotheïstic' inspired sun-cults in the east (not truly monoth. since they didn't necessarily banned other gods). the hebrew god was probably originally one of many gods, eventually their polytheïsm evolved into a polytheïsm with a supreme god, finally ending in monotheïsm. i doubt Akenatons policy would have been of much influence since he reigned so shortly and the priest of Amon were pretty pissed at him, erasing his heresy as much as they could.

[The Celtic Viking]

I will try to keep this short and without inciting more answers, because this doesn't belong in here. I just feel obliged to answer what claims have already been made.


Well, there is a branch of atheism that is considered a religion, called anti-theism. Whether or not that's fundamentalist is up for debate.

There are no "branches" in atheism no more than there are branches in aSantaClausism.


Doubting the existence of God doesn't make you an atheist. Atheists believe there is no God (whereas anti-theist go futher). Mother Teresa doubted Jesus quite often...?

Wrong. Look at the word! The prefix a- means without, and theism is the belief in one or more gods. Atheism thus means "without belief in one or more gods". That's not the same as believing there is no gods, and while those are also atheists, they are a minority amongst us. The majority of atheists thinks that there could be a god or many gods for that matter, but they just don't hold belief in any because there is no evidence for one.


Well, Fundalmentalist Anti-Deist then.

No. Again with the fundamentalism. What set of rules/principles does anti-deism (btw, Christianity isn't a deistic faith) have?


They want to discredit God because they see belief in Him as the root cause of all evil. They are as missionary about their agenda as anyone.

No. They don't want to "discredit god because they see him as the root cause of all evil" because there is not a one god to discredit. They want to remove religion (that includes all millions of gods that's being worshipped today, not just your's) because they see that as a big cause of evil, but not the only one.

What it's trying to do is to shed light on delusional beliefs. Nothing more.


Now, don't sigh at me, don't pity me and don't patronise me. I am well aware there is no factual basis for my belief, I will even help you discredit parts of the Bible but this film is about attacking religion because you are scared or it.

I didn't mean to patronise you, I was honestly just tired of hearing such baseless accusations. I respect you as a person - it's your beliefs I don't respect.

Can we agree that this is the last thing to be said in this debate? Or at least open up a new thread somewhere else and continue it there instead.

[J.Alco]

I will try to keep this short and without inciting more answers, because this doesn't belong in here. I just feel obliged to answer what claims have already been made.

There are no "branches" in atheism no more than there are branches in aSantaClausism.

Wrong. Look at the word! The prefix a- means without, and theism is the belief in one or more gods. Atheism thus means "without belief in one or more gods". That's not the same as believing there is no gods, and while those are also atheists, they are a minority amongst us. The majority of atheists thinks that there could be a god or many gods for that matter, but they just don't hold belief in any because there is no evidence for one.


Actually, that's where YOU'RE wrong. Atheist does indeed mean that one does not believe in any god, but it means that one believes there IS NO god. Not believing in a god, yet not rejecting the existence of a god/gods, is called Agnosticism, which is a belief in which one has no need to deny, or accept and praise, the existence of a higher power. If you don't believe me, wiki the term.

And you have to accept that atheism is, in its own way, a system of belief, in which one believes in the non-existence of gods, therefore, it is logical that there are what could be called 'branches' in atheism where there are those atheists who simply do not believe in god/s, and those who strive to disprove religion and belief systems of a higher power, because in your words they are 'delusional'.

It's also contradictory, not to mention rude, to say to a person that you 'respect them as a person but don't respect their beliefs'. I think you meant to say, or if not then it is more accurate and respectful to say, that you respect that person but do not AGREE with their beliefs. Saying you do not 'respect' a person's beliefs is tantamount to not respecting the person, since beliefs, of any kind, are a large part of what makes a person.

And by using that phrase, and mentioning 'delusional beliefs' and 'shedding light on all religions', you have pretty much proven yourself to be an anti-theist, which is someone who, as I mentioned before, is of the opinion that belief in any god, or adherence to any religion, is erroneous.

[antisocialmunky]

i suppose the OT has many interesting features in it referring to the political constellation of those times. but you have to realise it was written later. as i recall the actual OT came into being during the babylonian exile (ending with the persian conquest) which grouped the whole hebrew elite together. i think the only historical thing about the OT is mentioning for example urartu. like biblical accounts of 'gods' miraculous intervention during warfare.

like this one: the liberation of jerusalem from the assyrian siege under Sennacherib (701 bce) in 2 Kings 19:35 "the angel of the lord set out and struck down one hundred eighty-five thousand in the camp of the assyrians", thereafter Sennacherib went back to Nineveh. divine intervention! or not... in 2 Kings 18:14-16 King Hezekiah of Judah pays Sennacherib a great tribute to leave.


With the dating of the "silver scrolls" that were found in the valley of Hinnom 25ish years ago, there's now circumstantial evidence that places the Torah text the bible before the fall of Jerusalem. So I wouldn't say that all its writing was definitively placed after 607 BCE.

As for the accounts of Sennacharib, something happened during the siege that caused Sennacharib to withdraw and gloss over the outcome of the siege from his records. Herodotus records divine retribution by Seth when the Assyrians fought the Egyptions:


when Sanacharib, king of the Arabians and Assyrians, marched his vast army into Egypt, the warriors one and all refused to come to his [i.e., the Pharaoh Sethos'] aid. On this the monarch, greatly distressed, entered into the inner sanctuary, and, before the image of the god, bewailed the fate which impended over him. As he wept he fell asleep, and dreamed that the god came and stood at his side, bidding him be of good cheer, and go boldly forth to meet the Arabian host, which would do him no hurt, as he himself would send those who should help him. Sethos, then, relying on the dream, collected such of the Egyptians as were willing to follow him, who were none of them warriors, but traders, artisans, and market people; and with these marched to Pelusium, which commands the entrance into Egypt, and there pitched his camp. As the two armies lay here opposite one another, there came in the night, a multitude of field-mice, which devoured all the quivers and bowstrings of the enemy, and ate the thongs by which they managed their shields. Next morning they commenced their fight, and great multitudes fell, as they had no arms with which to defend themselves. There stands to this day in the temple of Vulcan, a stone statue of Sethos, with a mouse in his hand, and an inscription to this effect - "Look on me, and learn to reverence the gods."

In all likelyhood, something happened to that army, no one knows what exactly though. So its not without historic significance.:smash:

[Justinian II]

With the dating of the "silver scrolls" that were found in the valley of Hinnom 25ish years ago, there's now circumstantial evidence that places the Torah text the bible before the fall of Jerusalem. So I wouldn't say that all its writing was definitively placed after 607 BCE.

As for the accounts of Sennacharib, something happened during the siege that caused Sennacharib to withdraw and gloss over the outcome of the siege from his records. Herodotus records divine retribution by Seth when the Assyrians fought the Egyptions:



In all likelyhood, something happened to that army, no one knows what exactly though. So its not without historic significance.:smash:


I heard a recent theory that they left because the Kushite/Nubian allies of the Israelites marched up into the Levant to pwn the Assyrian Menace....but whether this is true or not, I have not the foggiest idea.

[antisocialmunky]

I don't think anyone will know for a very long time.

[Magister Militum Titus Pullo]

"Gentle Jesus" does not exist. I'm also not keen on people saying they want to be more "Christlike" because the Christ was not the nicest or gentlest of people, though he may have been fair, just and compassionate he was also harsh, unilatteral and judgemental.

The "I come not to bring peace..." statement refers to family strife specifically and nothing creates more strife in families than Christianity.


In general those who attack Christianity as "fake" or "cobbled together" are usually attacking modern right-wing Evangelical Christianity.

Pullo, Jolt; I suggest you dig a lot deeper before making any pronouncements.


I never thought that Jesus was "gentle". Thence the quotation marks. I have personally always thought of him as an unhinged demagogue of sorts.

I think Christianity was false and cobbled together from the very beginning.

Philipus Vallinderus Calicula; I suggest you get off your high-horse.

[J.Alco]

I never thought that Jesus was "gentle". Thence the quotation marks. I have personally always thought of him as an unhinged demagogue of sorts.

I think Christianity was false and cobbled together from the very beginning.

Philipus Vallinderus Calicula; I suggest you get off your high-horse.


Please, let's keep things respectful here. Oh, and you're right, christianity WAS, in a way, cobbled together from the very beginning, but then, so has every other religion that has ever existed on this planet. Name me but ONE religion, polytheistic or monotheistic, that you think is entirely original, and you will be met with a barrage of proof that shows it in fact built itself out of pre-existing beliefs, values, stories, and then used those elements to build its own identity.

[Magister Militum Titus Pullo]

Please, let's keep things respectful here. Oh, and you're right, christianity WAS, in a way, cobbled together from the very beginning, but then, so has every other religion that has ever existed on this planet. Name me but ONE religion, polytheistic or monotheistic, that you think is entirely original, and you will be met with a barrage of proof that shows it in fact built itself out of pre-existing beliefs, values, stories, and then used those elements to build its own identity.



I don't think anyone religion as original or genuine, but Christianity is one truly well documented example of a patchy faith, so it deserves mention on that.

You want me to be respectful? Well I don't exactly appreciate being shot down by some high-strung arsehole, telling me "I'm wrong" every fucking time I post here. This place knows how to make a man feel welcome. Theres my fucking respect. Bye bye.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I never thought that Jesus was "gentle". Thence the quotation marks. I have personally always thought of him as an unhinged demagogue of sorts.

I think Christianity was false and cobbled together from the very beginning.

Philipus Vallinderus Calicula; I suggest you get off your high-horse.

:inquisitive: Did you actually read what I wrote? Go back and take another look. I have admitted the dubious nature of the early religion. However, it was always admitted those things were borrowed. The Arch Bishop of Canterbury recently said (over Christmas in fact) that he's fairly sure Jesus wasn't born of 25/12/00. In the same vein, the Church has always known that our calender is miscalculated by five years.

My point was that the fundamentalist Evangelical groups in America take the end result dogma and preach it as scripture. So saying "Jesus' birthday is on a pagan holiday" to me or the Pope, or any other serious theologin will simply recieve a "yes, and?" If you want to be an atheist fine, but you have to do a lot of reading, both Christian and non-Christian before you have a grasp of the arguements against belief.

I'm sorry, but thus far you haven't demonstrated that reading. May I suggest you begin with Epicurus, google him and you'll likely find his disproof of a good God fairly easily.

[Gaius Valerius]

I heard a recent theory that they left because the Kushite/Nubian allies of the Israelites marched up into the Levant to pwn the Assyrian Menace....but whether this is true or not, I have not the foggiest idea.


at the time of Sennacherib the 25th dynasty ruled. they weren't egyptian, well, by means of defining them based upon location, since they were nubian/kushite and came from way beyond the 4th cataract (Napata), from Meroë. they were of course 'egyptian' in culture, and for that, very orthodox ones. they marched from the south to the delta, reuniting egypt with their divine mission by amon and later got their ass kicked by the assyrians, the farao ran away to nubia never to return :laugh4: :egypt:





- actually debating christiany, or any faith is realy impossible. as an atheïst i believe you are wrong. there is no god, no divine judgement, no afterlife - you die its over it sucks but its true, no fairy tales. ppl dont walk over water, nor do they change it into wine. the funny thing with miracles is they all happened in times they couldn't be recorded. any footage of miracles? video-images? no... since we have photo and camera miracles seemed to have disappeared. and if they happen nobody can prove them.

and thats the point. you wanna believe? fine. i think your beliefs are wrong, but that doesn't make them necessarily bad, if it helps ppl to live their lives. but you cant convince a believer to not believe. rational arguments dont work cause religion is irrational, it has no scientific basis.

historically religious documents can shed interesting light, if you approach them with the necessary scepticism.


SO PPL WTF ARE YOU/WE DOING DISCUSSING FAITH... loooool


its easier to explain the basics of quantumphysica to a retarded squirrel than to try to convince ppl in religious matter.

PS: the squirrel is entirely fictional, as of yet nobody has tried to do so and i also have no knowledge of any existence of a retarded squirrel :clown:

[Hax]

- actually debating christiany, or any faith is realy impossible. as an atheïst i believe you are wrong. there is no god, no divine judgement, no afterlife - you die its over it sucks but its true, no fairy tales. ppl dont walk over water, nor do they change it into wine.

Imagine a swimming pool of wine...

Oh, yon Hangovers!

[Gaius Valerius]

Imagine a swimming pool of wine...

Oh, yon Hangovers!

i think i'd die in there :dizzy2: :laugh4:

[The Celtic Viking]

Actually, that's where YOU'RE wrong. Atheist does indeed mean that one does not believe in any god, but it means that one believes there IS NO god. Not believing in a god, yet not rejecting the existence of a god/gods, is called Agnosticism, which is a belief in which one has no need to deny, or accept and praise, the existence of a higher power. If you don't believe me, wiki the term.
Wrong again. Agnosticism and atheism are not on the same scale. Agnosticism handles knowledge, atheism handles belief. They are not mutually exclusive.

Look at what you're saying. Atheism means not holding a belief in a god or gods, or "not-theism". So you're saying that agnosticism is not theism, but not "not-theism" either? But due to double negativity, that would make it theism!

It's just a common misconception to think that agnosticism is somewhere in between, some middle ground. It's not. You can believe that you can't know if there is a god or not, but believe in one anyway. (Agnostic theist.) You can also think that you can't know if there is a god or not and not believe in one. (Agnostic atheist.)

Oh, and by the way, you conceeded that atheism means that one does not believe in any god. But that includes those who just don't believe, the very people you call agnostics!


And you have to accept that atheism is, in its own way, a system of belief
So you're saying that not holding a belief is a belief. Brilliant.


in which one believes in the non-existence of gods
Already answered this.


therefore, it is logical that there are what could be called 'branches' in atheism where there are those atheists who simply do not believe in god/s
Wait... a theist talks about LOGIC? That's a laugh!

But anyway, since atheism is just a negative category there can't be any branches of it. There CAN'T. See, for there to be "branches", there must be a "trunk". There is no such thing in atheism, or in any other negative category.


and those who strive to disprove religion and belief systems of a higher power, because in your words they are 'delusional'.
Was that an attempt to shift the burden of proof? Because it's the one making the positive claim who has the burden to proof it. The theist claims that there is a god. If you cannot prove it, it is to be concidered false.

And you are delusional.


It's also contradictory, not to mention rude, to say to a person that you 'respect them as a person but don't respect their beliefs'.
Oh, please! No belief deserves respect. If that were so, please don't tell the guy who believes that all Americans are idiots he's wrong, because you should respect his beliefs! Don't bother telling people that Santa Claus doesn't exist, because that's their belief! Don't you dare tell people that there is not a china teapot between Earth and Mars orbiting the sun too small for our telescopes to see, it's their belief! Don't be rude, man!

How is it contradictory, by the way?


I think you meant to say, or if not then it is more accurate and respectful to say, that you respect that person but do not AGREE with their beliefs. Saying you do not 'respect' a person's beliefs is tantamount to not respecting the person, since beliefs, of any kind, are a large part of what makes a person.
If I believed that killing Christians is the very essence of good, and refraining to do so when given a chance is the very essence of evil, and I based my whole life on it, should we "respect my beliefs" then? Or should we classify me as mental and lock me up?


And by using that phrase, and mentioning 'delusional beliefs' and 'shedding light on all religions', you have pretty much proven yourself to be an anti-theist, which is someone who, as I mentioned before, is of the opinion that belief in any god, or adherence to any religion, is erroneous.
Only a half-right there, but that's better than nothing. Anti-theism would be someone who is against theism. It could be because it's erroneous, it could be because much pain and suffering is caused by it, it could be because it's a great tool for controlling people, it could be for the brainwashing, it could be because of the unconstitutional special rights theists get, it could be because many faiths, such as Christianity, are truly disgusting and call for all sorts of hineous crimes, it could be because religion creates bigotry, holier-than-thou mentality, it could be because it removes all critical thinking of a person, it could be because... all of these things and more!

But you're right, I am anti-theist in the sense that until theists learn to keep their ignorant faith completely for themselves (and that includes saving their own children from their indoctrination), I will continue to oppose theism in any shape or form it may occur. If it ever truly comes to that, I would think that, given that everyone gets a a good education, theism would die of itself.

Oh crap, you made me respond OT again! Please, stop doing it! Don't force me to contact the Holy God of Topic Keeping - he would smite thee asunder! (And he would give me a good deal of spanking, too.)

[Hax]

Atheism, as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of god or rejects theism. When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities, alternatively called nontheism. Although atheism is often equated with irreligion, some religious philosophies, such as secular theology and some varieties of Buddhism such as Theravada, either do not include belief in a personal god as a tenet of the religion, or actively teach nontheism.


Agnosticism (from the Greek a, meaning "without", and gnosticism or gnosis, meaning "knowledge") is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims—particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of god, gods, deities, or even ultimate reality—is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently unknowable due to the nature of subjective experience.

Clear now?

(From Wikipedia)

[Starforge]

Wrong again. Agnosticism and atheism are not on the same scale. Agnosticism handles knowledge, atheism handles belief. They are not mutually exclusive.

Look at what you're saying. Atheism means not holding a belief in a god or gods, or "not-theism". So you're saying that agnosticism is not theism, but not "not-theism" either? But due to double negativity, that would make it theism!

It's just a common misconception to think that agnosticism is somewhere in between, some middle ground. It's not. You can believe that you can't know if there is a god or not, but believe in one anyway. (Agnostic theist.) You can also think that you can't know if there is a god or not and not believe in one. (Agnostic atheist.)

Oh, and by the way, you conceeded that atheism means that one does not believe in any god. But that includes those who just don't believe, the very people you call agnostics!


So you're saying that not holding a belief is a belief. Brilliant.


Already answered this.


Wait... a theist talks about LOGIC? That's a laugh!

But anyway, since atheism is just a negative category there can't be any branches of it. There CAN'T. See, for there to be "branches", there must be a "trunk". There is no such thing in atheism, or in any other negative category.


Was that an attempt to shift the burden of proof? Because it's the one making the positive claim who has the burden to proof it. The theist claims that there is a god. If you cannot prove it, it is to be concidered false.

And you are delusional.


Oh, please! No belief deserves respect. If that were so, please don't tell the guy who believes that all Americans are idiots he's wrong, because you should respect his beliefs! Don't bother telling people that Santa Claus doesn't exist, because that's their belief! Don't you dare tell people that there is not a china teapot between Earth and Mars orbiting the sun too small for our telescopes to see, it's their belief! Don't be rude, man!

How is it contradictory, by the way?


If I believed that killing Christians is the very essence of good, and refraining to do so when given a chance is the very essence of evil, and I based my whole life on it, should we "respect my beliefs" then? Or should we classify me as mental and lock me up?


Only a half-right there, but that's better than nothing. Anti-theism would be someone who is against theism. It could be because it's erroneous, it could be because much pain and suffering is caused by it, it could be because it's a great tool for controlling people, it could be for the brainwashing, it could be because of the unconstitutional special rights theists get, it could be because many faiths, such as Christianity, are truly disgusting and call for all sorts of hineous crimes, it could be because religion creates bigotry, holier-than-thou mentality, it could be because it removes all critical thinking of a person, it could be because... all of these things and more!

But you're right, I am anti-theist in the sense that until theists learn to keep their ignorant faith completely for themselves (and that includes saving their own children from their indoctrination), I will continue to oppose theism in any shape or form it may occur. If it ever truly comes to that, I would think that, given that everyone gets a a good education, theism would die of itself.

Oh crap, you made me respond OT again! Please, stop doing it! Don't force me to contact the Holy God of Topic Keeping - he would smite thee asunder! (And he would give me a good deal of spanking, too.)

/chuckle

Talk about contradictory. Christians should keep their beliefs to themselves but he's also advocating telling people how they have to raise their own children.

Ah well - discussion of faith brings out loons of all sorts - be it Christian or Athiest.

OT - I have little doubt that the PP portrayed in the NT is distorted to broaden Christian appeal to the Romans. My OP, of course.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

Just about time for: :dancinglock:

[J.Alco]

Just about time for: :dancinglock:

I gotta say I agree with that. I tried to tell Magister etc Titus Pullo, rather forcibly, to cool it, and he told me, essentially (let's be polite) to screw off, though not using those exact words. The themes that have arisen here are better discused via pm's than on the thread.

On a side note, I just wanna say that I never intended all of this when I started the thread, though I gotta say I shoulda seen it coming.

[Cyclops]

I'd like to say that the Bible actually isn't any more biased than the great Livy himself.

Yep, Livy is a very flawed source for history. Parts of the Bible are at least that bad.


... For the Bible, much of it is either written contemporary to events (Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, the Gospels, Acts and the whole NT really, plus many other parts)....

I disagree, based on the source I mentioned above..


...I have little doubt that the PP portrayed in the NT is distorted to broaden Christian appeal to the Romans. My OP, of course.

I feel you are correct.

Funny how no-one has mentioned those exercises he invented.

[Gaius Valerius]

lol has anyone ever tried to claim Livy was flawless??????? he's writing an apologetic history of rome, without factual basis, since archives from that length didn't exist. BUT there is still a difference between a religious document and a semi-historical document. Livy is a flawless source for how contemporary romans looked back at their history. the bible tells us to KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL TURN OTHER CHEEK KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL... even if you disagree... all ppl ever did since the 'oh so tolerant christian church' became statereligion, was destroying and persecuting all other religions who tolerated them. christianity was intolerant from the start. hypocritical by accepting slavery, jesus would have been pissed i suppose though i dont know his view on slavery.



however i respect your choice to believe, but it should be kept indoor in the private sphere of society. i dont blame all you believers for your ancestors faults, your not to blame of course. :book:

[Intranetusa]

There are no "branches" in atheism no more than there are branches in aSantaClausism.

Wrong. Look at the word! The prefix a- means without, and theism is the belief in one or more gods. Atheism thus means "without belief in one or more gods". That's not the same as believing there is no gods, and while those are also atheists, they are a minority amongst us.


Atheism is a philosophical belief. Like any belief, its adherents belief's alter slightly. That would be called the branches of atheism.

As for your second part, that's exactly what I just said. I said the branch of atheism that says there is no gods is called Anti-Theism.


'majority of atheists thinks that there could be a god or many gods for that matter but they just don't hold belief in any because there is no evidence for one'

lol, I think you're mistaking your definition of atheism. That's actually agnosticism. Agnostics don't hold belief for or against the existence of God(s) due to a lack of evidence.




No. Again with the fundamentalism. What set of rules/principles does anti-deism (btw, Christianity isn't a deistic faith) have?

What set of principles does anti-agnosticism have? Not every philosophy has a contradictory opposite.

[Watchman]

Agnosticism is more a lack of interest in the whole issue. Eg. insofar as I'm concerned it's one and the same whether the divine exists or not, and if then in what form - but I know that if it turns out it does I'm going to complain about grossly defective information distribution to someone. That aside it seems pointless to me to claim the existence or nonexistence of something that cannot be perceived or proven; IMO you might as well be arguing passionately over the intimate life of the Alpha Centaurians who may or may not exist.

Atheism, as far as I understand it, is the position that the divine definitely does not exist; which insofar as I can see is equally a matter of sheer subjective faith as claiming it definitively does.

Although in all honesty I find the religious more annoying than the anti-religious, chiefly because the former much more commonly demonstrate a bad habit of claiming dumb things on really dodgy premises and arguments also in contexts which their divine hobby horse has no business with. I often find their lines of argumentation to personally insult my intellect.

The fervent atheists tend to be almost as annoying in discussions involving the issue of religion, but are far less prone to displaying structurally buggered reasoning in other matters.

[Intranetusa]

Atheism, as far as I understand it, is the position that the divine definitely does not exist...The fervent atheists tend to be almost as annoying in discussions involving the issue of religion, but are far less prone to displaying structurally buggered reasoning in other matters.

To my understanding, I believe the branch of atheism that says God(s) definitely do not exist and can be disproved is 'Anti-Theism,' and is a religion itself.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

As far as I'm concerned theres religous people who follow an organised religion on whatever level. Theres agnostic people who are at a loss as to whats going on or aren't sure whether a God or Gods exist. There's atheists, like me, who believe that there is no God for whatever reason and don't necessarily push other people to believe that. And then theres the apatheteic who really just don't care!

Secular as it may sound people have a right to believe whatever they want. Its not down to me (or anyone else) to change their minds.

[Watchman]

To my understanding, I believe the branch of atheism that says God(s) definitely do not exist and can be disproved is 'Anti-Theism,' and is a religion itself.*shrug* Semantics never interested me. I just call the counter-believers "atheists" and the indifferent (or undecided, if you prefer) "agnostics".

I mean, if I'm going to be disinterested in the existence or lack thereof of something as potentially heavy duty as the divine, it makes little sense to mince words over the exact taxonomy of unbelievers right ? :laugh4:

[Cyclops]

As far as I'm concerned theres religous people who follow an organised religion on whatever level. Theres agnostic people who are at a loss as to whats going on or aren't sure whether a God or Gods exist. There's atheists, like me, who believe that there is no God for whatever reason and don't necessarily push other people to believe that. And then theres the apatheteic who really just don't care!....

Yeah and then there's the midnight Catholics like me. When its daylight I'm a condescending agnostic know-all (yep I know, oxymoron, but thats me OK), but in the midnight hour, after a beer or two or maybe an Alien movie, all of a sudden I remember the words to the Hail Mary a whole lot better...

[Teleklos Archelaou]

If MAA and the thread starter are asking for it to be closed, let it be so!