Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

1…7980828485…196

Comments

  • #4052
    Wh1stler
    Closed Accounts Posts: 276 ✭✭Wh1stler


    PDN wrote: »
    I've already said on several occasions that I told Morbert what I think. It is considered poor etiquette on boards.ie to suggest that someone is lying.

    I wouldn't say you were lying as such but I do think that you fail to test the rigour of what you believe.

    I'm sorry if I caused you any offense in that regard.

    (I really did think that the part you have since edited out was quite clever and very amusing. I had a genuine belly-laugh when I read it; I think it was the timing. I would have taken it in good part. Sometimes these discussions become a little too emotive and you provided some welcome levity. ;):):cool:)


  • #4053
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    The Marriage Feast of Cana - How many attended ? 100 ? 200 ? More ?
    Not one eyewitness account or reference .

    The Miracle of the loaves and fishers - how many were present ? 4000 ? 5000 ?
    Not one eyewitness account or reference.

    These two miracles in particular are interesting as there were substantial numbers of people present .These people were of all ages I presume , so they could well have been living years after the events.

    Yet there is'nt one contempory account or any recollection afterword from any of these people. Such wondrous happenings, you would think , would have caused someone at the time to make some record of them.


  • #4054
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    marienbad wrote: »
    Such wondrous happenings, you would think , would have caused someone at the time to make some record of them.

    They did. That is why you are talking about them. Or are we back to excluding anything in the Bible because it in the Bible?


  • #4055
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    They did. That is why you are talking about them. Or are we back to excluding anything in the Bible because it in the Bible?


    Of course Fanny, we may as well give the same credibility to The Iliad and The Odyssey otherwise .


  • #4056
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    marienbad wrote: »
    Of course Fanny, we may as well give the same credibility to The Iliad and The Odyssey otherwise .

    I'm not sure what your point is. Both of those were written as epic poetry and understood as such. They may have contained historical elements, but they weren't written as history. This is unlike the various miracle accounts that were recorded in the NT. These were written and understood to be accounts of actual historical events. So when the Gospel authors record the feeding of the multitudes, the raising of Lazarus and the resurrection of Jesus they aren't playing with metaphor, they are claiming that these things actually happened as recorded. You don't have to believe them true, all you have to do is recognise the difference between the genres of epic poetry and history.

    But all this is contrary to the point at which I entered. You asked for accounts of specific miracles, and you have them. In the case of the feeding of the multitudes you have 4 different accounts (with an additional recordings of a separate miracle in found in Matthew and Mark).

    The problem in your case is not the number of accounts we do or don't have. It's that you don't accept miracles can happen and therefore no number of testimony will undermine your a priori naturalistic convictions. Just say this instead of demanding further accounts when we already know that if they were produced you would dismiss them.


  • Advertisement
  • #4057
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,727 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    I'm not sure what your point is. Both of those were written as epic poetry and understood as such. They may have contained historical elements, but they weren't written as history. This is unlike the various miracle accounts that were recorded in the NT. These were written and understood to be accounts of actual historical events. So when the Gospel authors record the feeding of the multitudes, the raising of Lazarus and the resurrection of Jesus they aren't playing with metaphor, they are claiming that these things actually happened as recorded. You don't have to believe them true, all you have to do is recognise the difference between the genres of epic poetry and history.
    This is of course when the bible is speaking in metaphor when it describes events that are ridiculous and are evidently untrue, such as a global flood that covered mountains and that creation happened in a nonsensical order we know isn't true. Right?


  • #4058
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    I'm not sure what your point is. Both of those were written as epic poetry and understood as such. They may have contained historical elements, but they weren't written as history. This is unlike the various miracle accounts that were recorded in the NT. These were written and understood to be accounts of actual historical events. So when the Gospel authors record the feeding of the multitudes, the raising of Lazarus and the resurrection of Jesus they aren't playing with metaphor, they are claiming that these things actually happened as recorded. You don't have to believe them true, all you have to do is recognise the difference between the genres of epic poetry and history.

    But all this is contrary to the point at which I entered. You asked for accounts of specific miracles, and you have them. In the case of the feeding of the multitudes you have 4 different accounts (with an additional recordings of a separate miracle in found in Matthew and Mark).

    The problem in your case is not the number of accounts we do or don't have. It's that you don't accept miracles can happen and therefore no number of testimony will undermine your a priori naturalistic convictions. Just say this instead of demanding further accounts when we already know that if they were produced you would dismiss them.

    Because something is written as history does not make it history . And looking at the historicity of the two miracles I have referred to, witnessed by thousands and we don't have one independant item of corroboration.

    As for my a priori naturalistic convictions - I don't see the relevance . I could just as easily say that because you are a believer you are predisposed to believe the miracles and no amount of evidence I produce to show you the water cannot be turned into wine or that a few loaves and fishes can be increased enough to feed a multitude will dissaude you.

    So it is not just a question of demanding evidence, if you had such evidence you would produce it, would you not ?

    It was put to me that that era was sparse of any evidence for most any event . I have shown that that is not the case , and I could go on posting links but I don't think it is required . There is plenty of evidence for any and all kinds of things. But for the key elements of the Bible, witnessed by thousands and over an extended period of time - than Jesus was a God and had the powers of a God- not a jot.

    I take it you do not believe the Koran is the word of God, Why is that ? Why not accept the Koran as history in the same way as the Bible ?


  • #4059
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    King Mob wrote: »
    This is of course when the bible is speaking in metaphor when it describes events that are ridiculous and are evidently untrue, such as a global flood that covered mountains and that creation happened in a nonsensical order we know isn't true. Right?

    You realise that the Bible is a collection of books written over centuries by multiple authors employing numerous literary styles? The reason I ask is because your post seems to suggest that you aren't' aware of this.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_genre

    Now if you are arguing that the Gospels were not intended to be understood as orderly historical accounts then show us your evidence. While you are at it, if you think that The Psalms, Song Of Solomon, Revelation and so forth somehow fit into the same literary genre then, again, show us why.

    And if you want to talk about the various interpretations of Genesis (rather than just making closed statements about what you think Christians should be thinking) I suggest you take it to the creationism thread. Better still, research for yourself.


  • #4060
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    marienbad wrote: »
    Because something is written as history does not make it history.
    Actually Marien it does
    It does not make it the past but history is not the past.
    I take it you do not believe the Koran is the word of God, Why is that ? Why not accept the Koran as history in the same way as the Bible ?

    The Koran is history as well.

    It happens to contradict the Bible history.

    And Muslims are much more fundamentalist in a literal sense about Scripture so things are not "the same" anyway.


  • #4061
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,727 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    You realise that the Bible is a collection of books written over centuries by multiple authors employing numerous literary styles? The reason I ask is because your post seems to suggest that you aren't' aware of this.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_genre

    Now if you are arguing that the Gospels were not intended to be understood as orderly historical accounts then show us your evidence. While you are at it, if you think that The Psalms, Song Of Solomon, Revelation and so forth somehow fit into the same literary genre then, again, show us why.

    And if you want to talk about the various interpretations of Genesis (rather than just making closed statements about what you think Christians should be thinking) I suggest you take it to the creationism thread. Better still, research for yourself.
    And that seems exactly like it's simply an excuse to use both the "it's a historical record" and the "it's a metaphor" arguments at the same time.
    Cause I have had Christians claim that the Flood account is a historical account while all the impossible stuff in the creation account was a metaphor.

    The difference between the genres seems to be pretty hazy and dependant on what is convenient.


  • Advertisement
  • #4062
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    marienbad wrote: »
    Because something is written as history does not make it history .

    Did you actually read my post? I didn't say that claiming something made it true. What I suggested was that even if you think the Gospels to be chock full of lies they are intended to be understood as orderly accounts of historical events. The same isn't true of epic poetry. Therefore your comparison between the Iliad and the Gospels is not valid.
    marienbad wrote: »
    And looking at the historicity of the two miracles I have referred to, witnessed by thousands and we don't have one independant item of corroboration.

    What difference would it make to you if the unearthed a sheadload of these reports tomorrow? We both know that we would still be having the same conversation the day after.
    marienbad wrote: »
    As for my a priori naturalistic convictions - I don't see the relevance . I could just as easily say that because you are a believer you are predisposed to believe the miracles and no amount of evidence I produce to show you the water cannot be turned into wine or that a few loaves and fishes can be increased enough to feed a multitude will dissaude you.

    You could say that, and you might be right. I'm happy to acknowledge it. That said, I don't think I need any evidence to show me that water can not be turned into wine - at least not by our hands. What I can't fathom is how you would go about providing evidence that God can do no such thing. Even conceptually I can't see why God, the greatest conceivable being, would somehow be incapable of changing matter A into matter B? What exactly would you base your evidence on?

    Let's be clear. You are the one asking for more documentation about an event that no amount of papyri dug up from the earth would begin to shift you from your position. That is the point I am making, marienbad.
    marienbad wrote: »
    So it is not just a question of demanding evidence, if you had such evidence you would produce it, would you not ?

    I don't think you are understanding me. No, it's not just a case of demanding evidence. It's a case of you demanding documentary evidence when you have decided that no amount of documentary evidence will do. If a certain document is reporting one of Jesus' miracles then they are reporting lies because miracles don't happen, right?


  • #4063
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    marienbad wrote: »
    The Marriage Feast of Cana - How many attended ? 100 ? 200 ? More ?
    Not one eyewitness account or reference .

    the Marriage of roxanne pof Persia and Alexander the Great.

    Not one extant eyewitness account.
    I suppose the best you can get is an account by arrian 300 years later but he does not supply a guest list.

    all he mentions is:
    Anabasis Book 4b
    CHAPTER XIX.ALEXANDER CAPTURES THE ROCK AND MARRIES ROXANA.

    The wives and children of many important men were there captured, including those of Oxyartes. This chief had a daughter, a maiden of marriageable age, named Roxana, who was asserted by the men who served in Alexander’s army to have been the most beautiful of all the Asiatic women whom they had seen, with the single exception of the wife of Darius. They also say that no sooner did Alexander see her than he fell in love with her; but though he was in love with her, he refused to offer violence to her as a captive, and did not think it derogatory to his dignity to marry her. This conduct of Alexander I think worthy rather of praise than blame....
    xyartes, hearing that his children were in the power of Alexander, and that he was treating his daughter Roxana with respect, took courage and came to him. He was held in honour at the king’s court, as was natural after such a piece of good fortune.

    No guest list there either.
    The Miracle of the loaves and fishers - how many were present ? 4000 ? 5000 ?
    Not one eyewitness account or reference.

    Siege of Tyre Book 2b
    Alexander gave an amnesty to all those who fled for refuge into the temple of Heracles; among them being most of the Tyrian magistrates, including the king Azemilcus, as well as certain envoys from the Carthaginians, who had come to their mother-city to attend the sacrifice in honour of Heracles, according to an ancient custom. The rest of the prisoners were reduced to slavery; all the Tyrians and mercenary troops, to the number of about 30,000, who had been captured, being sold.
    Okay the King of Tyre is mentioned but 400 Macedonians dies not one mentioned and not a single name of any other amnesty or of any of the 30,000 sold into slavery.

    Yet there is'nt one contempory account or any recollection afterword from any of these people. Such wondrous happenings, you would think , would have caused someone at the time to make some record of them.

    wouldnt you think someone was around at the time of the Sogdian rock or siege of Tyre. Indeed unlike Jesus, Alexander had court historians who apparently recorded things (and altered the history) but we don't have anything from them on this either as far as I know.


  • #4064
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    marienbad: You have to be one of the greatest examples of confirmation bias I've ever seen. You're looking for reasons to justify your unbelief rather than looking at the discussion impartially.

    The Wedding of Cana was a local wedding in Galilee. Most people would not have been able to write, that might give you an indicator as to why it wasn't written about more prolifically.

    The Crucifixion of Jesus however, was high profile, that's why many historians wrote about it, and it is why we have historical evidence outside of the New Testament for that event.

    That's common sense.


  • #4065
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    King Mob wrote: »
    The difference between the genres seems to be pretty hazy and dependant on what is convenient.

    And you know this how? Through your vast research into Biblical literary genres?

    There is quite a bit of debate into how we interpret certain passages in the Bible, but it's not like we are fumbling in the dark. I'd expect nothing less than disagreement when a couple of billion people get together to decide about anything subject - be it talk about morality, the nature of reality or whether Ronaldo is better than Messi.


  • #4066
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,727 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    And you know this how? Through your vast research into Biblical literary genres?
    Observations of the arguments of Christians used on the forums.


  • #4067
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    King Mob wrote: »
    Observations of the arguments of Christians used on the forums.

    I see! An exhaustive search, so. (You know, I'd spare you the sarcasm if you didn't bring the attitude. ) OK, by way of introducing at least one alternative perspective (and I don't know if I agree with it myself because I'm still listening to it) comes from the always fascinating John Lennox.


  • #4068
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Did you actually read my post? I didn't say that claiming something made it true. What I suggested was that even if you think the Gospels to be chock full of lies they are intended to be understood as orderly accounts of historical events. The same isn't true of epic poetry. Therefore your comparison is not valid.



    What difference would it make to you if the unearthed a sheadload of these reports tomorrow? We both know that we would still be having the same conversation.



    You could say that, and you might be right. This is something I acknowledge. That said, I don't think I need any evidence to show me that water can not be turned into wine - at least not by me or you. What I can't fathom is how you would go about providing evidence that God can do no such thing, even conceptually. Why would God, the greatest conceivable being, be somehow unable to change matter A to matter B?

    Let's be clear. You are the one asking for more documentation about an event that no amount of papyri dug up from the earth. That is the point I am making, marienbad.



    I don't think you are understanding me. No, it's not just a case of demanding evidence. It's a of demanding documentary evidence when you have decided that no amount of documentary evidence will do. If a certain document is reporting one of Jesus' miracles then they are reporting lies because miracles don't happen, right? That is pretty much all I am saying.

    Of course I read your post Fanny, forget The Iliad and The Odyssey then, the point I am making is that for a book to be history it must have corroboration . The Bible has none . And as I have said the events it describes say there were 1000's of witnesses and yet we don't have one independant account. I believe that because this it so it is called Faith and not history.

    What relevance to the historicity of the bible is it whether or not I believe those shedload of reports ? I could just as well ask why you don't believe the Koran .

    So why don't you believe the Koran ? When you can answer that question you might understand why I have difficulty believing the bible (as history).


  • #4069
    Cossax
    Registered Users Posts: 2,055 ✭✭✭Cossax


    philologos wrote: »
    marienbad: You have to be one of the greatest examples of confirmation bias I've ever seen. You're looking for reasons to justify your unbelief rather than looking at the discussion impartially.

    The Wedding of Cana was a local wedding in Galilee. Most people would not have been able to write, that might give you an indicator as to why it wasn't written about more prolifically.

    The Crucifixion of Jesus however, was high profile, that's why many historians wrote about it, and it is why we have historical evidence outside of the New Testament for that event.

    That's common sense.

    Eh? We do?


  • #4070
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    marienbad wrote: »
    Of course I read your post Fanny, forget The Iliad and The Odyssey then, the point I am making is that for a book to be history it must have corroboration . The Bible has none . And as I have said the events it describes say there were 1000's of witnesses and yet we don't have one independant account. I believe that because this it so it is called Faith and not history.

    Who made the rule that for a book (and why stop with books?) to be history it must be corroborated? Do you apply this to all areas of history and witness accounts?

    As I've said already, the NT contains 4 accounts and another 2 for the feeding of the masses. This is multiple attestation. The reason you don't accept what is written as truth is because you think miracles impossible. And you know, that is just fine. What gets my goat is

    a) You asking for document x, y and z because you have assumed that such documents must have been written (and continue to exist!) if the story is true.

    b) We both know that if further accounts were produced tomorrow then it would not make a jot of difference to you argument. You would dismiss them just like you dismiss each and every supernatural account ever written.
    marienbad wrote: »
    What relevance to the historicity of the bible is it whether or not I believe those shedload of reports ? I could just as well ask why you don't believe the Koran .

    So why don't you believe the Koran ? When you can answer that question you might understand why I have difficulty believing the bible (as history).

    I've no idea what this has to do with this thread. I'm not one the Islam forum demanding evidence that I have already determined wont make any difference to my position.


  • #4071
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    marienbad wrote: »
    Of course I read your post Fanny, forget The Iliad and The Odyssey then, the point I am making is that for a book to be history it must have corroboration . The Bible has none .
    The Cyrus Cylinder, discovered in 1879, records Cyrus' overthrow of Babylon and his subsequent deliverance of the Jewish captives.

    The Rosetta Stone, discovered in 1799 in Egypt by Napoleon's scientists, was written in three languages: hieroglyphics, demotic, and Greek. It unlocked the mystery of the hieroglyphics which have helped confirm the authenticity of the Bible.

    The Moabite Stone discovered in 1868 at Dibon, Jordan, confirmed Moabite attacks on Israel as recorded in 2 Kings 1 and 3.

    The Lachish Letters, discovered in 1932-1938, 24 miles north of Beersheba, described the attack of Nebuchadnezzar on Jerusalem in 586 BC

    Extra Biblical New testament history has been referenced earlier in this thread and on this forum.
    And as I have said the events it describes say there were 1000's of witnesses and yet we don't have one independant account. I believe that because this it so it is called Faith and not history.

    And so you have faith Alexander the great Married Roxanne . You just believe it because you have no actual witness accounts?
    So why don't you believe the Koran ? When you can answer that question you might understand why I have difficulty believing the bible (as history).

    But i assume he does believes the Koran as history; He believes Mohammed existed and lived in Medina and Mecca. He might not believe the Koran was dictated verbatim by an angel.


  • Advertisement
  • #4072
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    philologos wrote: »
    marienbad: You have to be one of the greatest examples of confirmation bias I've ever seen. You're looking for reasons to justify your unbelief rather than looking at the discussion impartially.

    The Wedding of Cana was a local wedding in Galilee. Most people would not have been able to write, that might give you an indicator as to why it wasn't written about more prolifically.

    The Crucifixion of Jesus however, was high profile, that's why many historians wrote about it, and it is why we have historical evidence outside of the New Testament for that event.

    That's common sense.

    Confirmation bias ! You must be joking .

    Cana, the loaves and fishes, the virgin birth, Lazarus , walking on water, curing the blind curing lepers , the resurrection and on and on , and all this over a period of years and there is not one independant item of corroboration, not one and you accuse me of bias.


    Are you seriously suggesting that a man that feeds 4000 people with a few loaves and fishes would not have been high profile ? Such an event was bound to be recorded and discussed , by those believing in Jesus and opposed to Jesus , never mind the Romans .

    As for the evidence for the Crucifixion outside the New Testament- what is that then ? The Josephus passages ? I have no issue at all with accepting that a man called Jesus existed and he was probably a good and a wise man and was crucified . I just have trouble accepting he was God .

    Can I ask you Philologos why don't you believe the Koran ?


  • #4073
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Cossax wrote: »
    Eh? We do?

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77932308&postcount=3882

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76173084&postcount=1465

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76175697&postcount=1467

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76178230&postcount=1470


  • #4074
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Who made the rule that for a book (and why stop with books?) to be history it must be corroborated? Do you apply this to all areas of history and witness accounts?

    As I've said already, the NT contains 4 accounts and another 2 for the feeding of the masses. This is multiple attestation. The reason you don't accept what is written as truth is because you think miracles impossible. And you know, that is just fine. What gets my goat is

    a) You asking for document x, y and z because you have assumed that such documents must have been written (and continue to exist!) if the story is true.

    b) We both know that if further accounts were produced tomorrow then it would not make a jot of difference to you argument. You would dismiss them just like you dismiss each and every supernatural account ever written.



    I've no idea what this has to do with this thread. I'm not one the Islam forum demanding evidence that I have already determined wont make any difference to my position.

    All accepted history books are corroborated in some shape or form ,and even allowing for the different standards required between ancient and modern history there is none for the key events in the Bible - none. And yes I apply it to all areas of history and most particularly to witness accounts .

    Surely it is not unreasonable to approach any book with the belief that miracles are impossible ? You seem to be saying that to do so is unreasonable ? Are I being unreasonable or are you ?

    As it happens I did'nt always not believe , but in time the empiricle evidence was undeniable.


  • #4075
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    marienbad wrote: »

    As it happens I did'nt always not believe , but in time the empiricle evidence was undeniable.

    so what makes you believe in Socrates or Alexander the Great?

    You dont have any writings about them from their own time either do you?

    And you have been shown several extra biblical historians that referred to Jesus and you already accepted them. Now you are denying any evidence exists?


  • #4076
    Sonics2k
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,257 ✭✭✭Sonics2k


    ISAW wrote: »
    so what makes you believe in Socrates or Alexander the Great?

    You dont have any writings about them from their own time either do you?
    Ugh, before this crap kicks off again.
    These two men are not portrayed as God or the Son of God, or the way to enlightenment or any of that stuff.
    They existed, this is fact. The odds are quite good that the man Jesus also existed, but there is no direct evidence of his miracles outside of the Bible.
    ISAW wrote: »
    And you have been shown several extra biblical historians that referred to Jesus and you already accepted them. Now you are denying any evidence exists?
    Marianbad has stated numerous times he accepts the likely existence of the man.


  • #4077
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Sonics2k wrote: »
    Ugh, before this crap kicks off again.
    These two men are not portrayed as God or the Son of God, or the way to enlightenment or any of that stuff.
    Wrong!
    http://grad.usask.ca/gateway/archive25.htm
    Therefore, to conclude there is enough evidence to support the claim that Alexander the Great genuinely believed in his own divinity.

    There is ample historical evidence of Alexander being portrayed as a god.


  • #4078
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Sonics2k wrote: »
    Marianbad has stated numerous times he accepts the likely existence of the man.

    and then denied accepting it later by saying it is uncorroborated and not proper history.


  • #4079
    Sonics2k
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,257 ✭✭✭Sonics2k


    ISAW wrote: »
    Wrong!
    http://grad.usask.ca/gateway/archive25.htm


    There is ample historical evidence of Alexander being portrayed as a god.

    What part of "believed in his own divinity" makes you think I was wrong, or are there maybe some underlying reading problems here?

    Thousands of people (especially Kings and Emperors) have believed they are. But my point still stands, there is not a religion based around these men.
    Alexander may have been treated as a 'God' by his subject, but that was not uncommon, and his following stopped quite quickly after his death.

    You're comparing Apples and Oranges.


  • #4080
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Sonics2k wrote: »
    What part of "believed in his own divinity" makes you think I was wrong, or are there maybe some underlying reading problems here?

    the part wher in reference to alexander the great you wrote of him as one of a group of
    "men are not portrayed as God or the Son of God, or the way to enlightenment or any of that stuff. "
    Thousands of people (especially Kings and Emperors) have believed they are. But my point still stands.

    your point that alexander the Great was " not portrayed a god or , or the way to enlightenment or any of that stuff."

    when clearly even for years after he died he WAS portrayed as a god. As several gods actually. Heracles and Athena and Zeus being some. In addition to believing it himself.


  • Advertisement
  • #4081
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    ISAW wrote: »
    and then denied accepting it later by saying it is uncorroborated and not proper history.

    Not so, this a simplistic version of what I am saying.


  • #4082
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Sonics2k wrote: »
    Alexander may have been treated as a 'God' by his subject, but that was not uncommon, and his following stopped quite quickly after his death.

    http://www.coinsoftime.com/Articles/Coins_of_Alexander_the_Great.html

    Alexander died at the age of 33 in 323 BC.

    Alexander "lifetime issue" coins minted when he was alive are exceedingly rare.

    After his death, Greek rulers and cities throughout the former Alexandrian Empire produced Alexander coinage at 52 mints at its peak. In all about 91 different mints produced Alexander coinage over the 250 years. The last Alexanders were minted at Mesembria around 65 B.C.

    So your definition of "quite quickly" is 250 years later?


  • #4083
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    marienbad wrote: »
    Not so, this a simplistic version of what I am saying.

    Ironically i am being criticises for being brief :)

    Please feel free to clarify what you are saying about historicity of Jesus not being valid compared to other history.


  • #4084
    Sonics2k
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,257 ✭✭✭Sonics2k


    ISAW wrote: »
    your point that alexander the Great was " not portrayed a god or , or the way to enlightenment or any of that stuff."


    Sonics2k wrote: »
    These two men are not portrayed as God or the Son of God, or the way to enlightenment or any of that stuff.
    They existed, this is fact. The odds are quite good that the man Jesus also existed, but there is no direct evidence of his miracles outside of the Bible.


    Underlined it in the hopes you'll at least attempt to read it again.
    Again, I'm talking about the PRESENT tense. Stop ignoring this obvious fact in order to attempt to distort what I've been saying.


  • #4085
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Sonics2k wrote: »
    Underlined it in the hopes you'll at least attempt to read it again.

    LOL. So because both Socrates AND Alexander (who I picked as a sample of two people for which we have little or no existing written historical evidence) are not BOTH worshipped as gods you think that disproves the claim (the one YOU made _ that there is noone else in history like Jesus based on him being worshipped as a god)
    you reitterated this by saying "my point still stands, there is not a religion based around these men. " i;e; as compared to Jesus who does have a religion based around him.

    But you are clearly wrong! People worshiped Alexander as a god and people depicted himl as one.

    Trying to sideslip out of you r slaim by the "but i leand didnt worship both alexander and Socrates both as a gods at the same time" is just being silly and fooling only yourself.

    Are you seriously trying to say that you didnt mean that either Alexander or socrates or anyone else was not worshiped as a god and that is what made them historically different to jesus?
    Again, I'm talking about the PRESENT tense. Stop ignoring this obvious fact in order to attempt to distort what I've been saying.

    Oh so now it is "nobody else in history is TODAY being worshiped as a God except Jesus Christ"?

    first of all that isnt necessarily true. raelians etc even cults about the Queen of englands husband exist.

    But it doies point to one observation i make. How is it the "valisd history" argument is only made about Jesus Christ and not about socrates Alexander etc. clearly the people making it in many instances are anti christian or anti religion. they arent interested in discussing history so much as attacking religion. If they were interested in the historicity argument they would argue about it for other people in history. But no only Jesus. and when pressed n it this poster specifically makes the point that his interest in opposing Jesus historically is that Christians claim he is God and not a historicity point at all!

    thanks for revealing you true anti christian motivation and agenda.


  • #4086
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    marienbad wrote: »
    Confirmation bias ! You must be joking .

    Cana, the loaves and fishes, the virgin birth, Lazarus , walking on water, curing the blind curing lepers , the resurrection and on and on , and all this over a period of years and there is not one independant item of corroboration, not one and you accuse me of bias.

    Yes I do, because you're more interested in looking for reasons to justify your unbelief rather than seeking out Jesus Christ for yourself.

    By the by, miracles are not ridiculous if one believes that there is a Creator God. If the world was created by God, and that seems a lot more likely than other alternatives, then it is entirely possible that God can work and operate in it as He deems fit.

    If God doesn't exist, sure, it's silly. However, I think it's silly to make that assumption from the get go.
    marienbad wrote: »
    Are you seriously suggesting that a man that feeds 4000 people with a few loaves and fishes would not have been high profile ? Such an event was bound to be recorded and discussed , by those believing in Jesus and opposed to Jesus , never mind the Romans .

    Well, how high profile do you want? So high profile that we have more manuscripts of the New Testament than any other ancient text in the world? I think the very fact that we have far far far more manuscripts than any other is a sign that Jesus was high profile.

    Why is it that you refuse to consider the New Testament on its own terms even?
    marienbad wrote: »
    As for the evidence for the Crucifixion outside the New Testament- what is that then ? The Josephus passages ? I have no issue at all with accepting that a man called Jesus existed and he was probably a good and a wise man and was crucified . I just have trouble accepting he was God.

    That's why one needs to look at what the Bible actually says and determine if is logical. If you are really interested in finding out about Jesus you will seek after Him.
    marienbad wrote: »
    Can I ask you Philologos why don't you believe the Koran ?

    I find Christianity much more compelling over it. I've had a look at the Qur'an and I've talked with Muslims about the Qur'an. However, I find that it is difficult to believe that the Qur'an is correct concerning Jesus. You can pop over to the Islam forum if you want to see more of what I think.


  • Advertisement
  • #4087
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    philologos wrote: »
    Yes I do, because you're more interested in looking for reasons to justify your unbelief rather than seeking out Jesus Christ for yourself.

    By the by, miracles are not ridiculous if one believes that there is a Creator God. If the world was created by God, and that seems a lot more likely than other alternatives, then it is entirely possible that God can work and operate in it as He deems fit.

    If God doesn't exist, sure, it's silly. However, I think it's silly to make that assumption from the get go.



    Well, how high profile do you want? So high profile that we have more manuscripts of the New Testament than any other ancient text in the world? I think the very fact that we have far far far more manuscripts than any other is a sign that Jesus was high profile.

    Why is it that you refuse to consider the New Testament on its own terms even?



    That's why one needs to look at what the Bible actually says and determine if is logical. If you are really interested in finding out about Jesus you will seek after Him.



    I find Christianity much more compelling over it. I've had a look at the Qur'an and I've talked with Muslims about the Qur'an. However, I find that it is difficult to believe that the Qur'an is correct concerning Jesus. You can pop over to the Islam forum if you want to see more of what I think.


    Whatever my motivation is. or people think it is. is quite irrelevant to the historicity of the bible, or it should be. And the fact that it is continuously remarked on shows a weakness in your own argument. Waterloo happened and my saying it did'nt and why I say it should not matter in the slightest. So less on my motives, if you would, and more on the arguments.

    It was you brought up the high profile aspect philologus re the crucifixion and now I am asking you why not the same non biblical sources for what was surely another high profile event, The loaves and fishes and the 4000 witnesses . A much higher profile event ,as a crucifixion could be seen every week.

    I do consider the bible on its own terms, and then like any other book that makes claims to be historically true I look for sources,. references, corroboration. There is none - citing itself is not corroboration.

    So then you don't believe the Koran then ? Why do you find it difficult to believe , That too is full of facts and if you would only look correctly maybe you would believe. Is it because you already have your mind made up and are only looking to find reasons for it not to be true.? And then bear in mind it has also a hell of a lot of manuscripts too , probably second only to the Bible .


  • #4088
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Who made the rule that for a book (and why stop with books?) to be history it must be corroborated? Do you apply this to all areas of history and witness accounts?

    As I've said already, the NT contains 4 accounts and another 2 for the feeding of the masses. This is multiple attestation. The reason you don't accept what is written as truth is because you think miracles impossible. And you know, that is just fine. What gets my goat is

    a) You asking for document x, y and z because you have assumed that such documents must have been written (and continue to exist!) if the story is true.

    b) We both know that if further accounts were produced tomorrow then it would not make a jot of difference to you argument. You would dismiss them just like you dismiss each and every supernatural account ever written.



    I've no idea what this has to do with this thread. I'm not one the Islam forum demanding evidence that I have already determined wont make any difference to my position.


    Fanny - just on the Koran issue - you were the one that dismissed the Iliad and The Odyssey when I raised them , why would the Koran be any different ?

    As for demanding evidence - is that not what the thread is all about- where atheists debate the existance of God ?

    So then Fanny - why do you not accept the Koran as fact ?


  • #4089
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    marienbad wrote: »
    Whatever my motivation is. or people think it is. is quite irrelevant to the historicity of the bible, or it should be. And the fact that it is continuously remarked on shows a weakness in your own argument. Waterloo happened and my saying it did'nt and why I say it should not matter in the slightest. So less on my motives, if you would, and more on the arguments.

    It was you brought up the high profile aspect philologus re the crucifixion and now I am asking you why not the same non biblical sources for what was surely another high profile event, The loaves and fishes and the 4000 witnesses . A much higher profile event ,as a crucifixion could be seen every week.

    If that is the case wher are the weekly historical sou_rces of weddings in minor villages and crusifictions from that period.

    As for feeding 5000. I hav epointed out here before that maybe some peoplke brought lots of food and others had none and Jesus encouraged people to share which was a "miracle" but not a supernatural one counter to the laws of physics.
    I do consider the bible on its own terms, and then like any other book that makes claims to be historically true I look for sources,. references, corroboration. There is none - citing itself is not corroboration.

    Not for every event in the bible no; But no have other non Biblical histories such corroboration.


  • #4090
    Pace2008
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,587 ✭✭✭Pace2008


    ISAW wrote: »
    LOL. So because both Socrates AND Alexander (who I picked as a sample of two people for which we have little or no existing written historical evidence) are not BOTH worshipped as gods you think that disproves the claim (the one YOU made _ that there is noone else in history like Jesus based on him being worshipped as a god)
    you reitterated this by saying "my point still stands, there is not a religion based around these men. " i;e; as compared to Jesus who does have a religion based around him.

    But you are clearly wrong! People worshiped Alexander as a god and people depicted himl as one.

    Trying to sideslip out of you r slaim by the "but i leand didnt worship both alexander and Socrates both as a gods at the same time" is just being silly and fooling only yourself.

    Are you seriously trying to say that you didnt mean that either Alexander or socrates or anyone else was not worshiped as a god and that is what made them historically different to jesus?



    Oh so now it is "nobody else in history is TODAY being worshiped as a God except Jesus Christ"?

    first of all that isnt necessarily true. raelians etc even cults about the Queen of englands husband exist.

    But it doies point to one observation i make. How is it the "valisd history" argument is only made about Jesus Christ and not about socrates Alexander etc. clearly the people making it in many instances are anti christian or anti religion. they arent interested in discussing history so much as attacking religion. If they were interested in the historicity argument they would argue about it for other people in history. But no only Jesus. and when pressed n it this poster specifically makes the point that his interest in opposing Jesus historically is that Christians claim he is God and not a historicity point at all!

    thanks for revealing you true anti christian motivation and agenda.
    I don't think you've realised that Soniks2k stepped in at some stage over the last page or so, and you're not arguing with Marienbad here. I've compiled the former poster's contributions:
    Sonics2k wrote: »
    Ugh, before this crap kicks off again.
    These two men are not portrayed as God or the Son of God, or the way to enlightenment or any of that stuff.
    They existed, this is fact. The odds are quite good that the man Jesus also existed, but there is no direct evidence of his miracles outside of the Bible.

    Marianbad has stated numerous times he accepts the likely existence of the man.
    Sonics2k wrote: »
    What part of "believed in his own divinity" makes you think I was wrong, or are there maybe some underlying reading problems here?

    Thousands of people (especially Kings and Emperors) have believed they are. But my point still stands, there is not a religion based around these men.
    Alexander may have been treated as a 'God' by his subject, but that was not uncommon, and his following stopped quite quickly after his death.

    You're comparing Apples and Oranges.
    Sonics2k wrote: »
    Underlined it in the hopes you'll at least attempt to read it again.
    Again, I'm talking about the PRESENT tense. Stop ignoring this obvious fact in order to attempt to distort what I've been saying.

    So what the poster has clearly stated is that they believe Jesus, Alexander and Socrates all existed, but Jesus differs in that people in the present day believe he was a deity who performed supernatural feats.

    As you can hopefully see, nothing you're saying here relates to the posts quoted. "Anti-Christian agenda" in particular is a bit of a stretch, to put it mildly.


  • #4091
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Pace2008 wrote: »
    I don't think you've realised that Soniks2k stepped in at some stage over the last page or so, and you're not arguing with Marienbad here. I've compiled the former poster's contributions:

    i realise it quite well since he followed me from the A&A forum.
    So what the poster has clearly stated is that they believe Jesus, Alexander and Socrates all existed, but Jesus differs in that people in the present day believe he was a deity who performed supernatural feats.

    no he didnt clearly state that since he clarified it later. In any case i dont think he needs you to tell him what he is saying.

    But as i have already stated, there ARE people today who claim to be god and that people believe are at least godlike e.g. Rael, David Koresh, Jim Jones. There are also neo pagans.
    As you can hopefully see, nothing you're saying here relates to the posts quoted. "Anti-Christian agenda" in particular is a bit of a stretch, to put it mildly.

    It related quite clearly "this crap" which was referred to relates to an earlier discussion about comparing the historicity of Jesus with other historical figures. In fact the nail is quite clearly hit on the head when the MAIN REASON for a posters interest only in Jesus if the fact that people believe he was Christ. so they are only opposing his historicity based on the ACTUAL FACT as yo pointed out and the poster also stated of people believing he is Christ.

    How can one get any more anti Christian than actually admitting the central reason for opposing someones existence in history as distinct from someone else s is because people believe they are Christ and the others they don't oppose are NOT believed to be Christ?


  • Advertisement
  • #4092
    Pace2008
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,587 ✭✭✭Pace2008


    ISAW wrote: »
    i realise it quite well since he followed me from the A&A forum.
    I had a cursory glance over their past month's history of posting in the A&A forum and there doesn't seem to be much to back up what you're saying. If they "followed" you here they must have a fairly gimpy leg.

    Maybe there's something there from earlier posts but if we all started cross-referening months-old threads we'd end up with a wreck.
    no he didnt clearly state that since he clarified it later. In any case i dont think he needs you to tell him what he is saying.
    The use of "are," as in the present tense should have been clarification enough. People should not have to "clarify" positions that have been fabricated for them by someone else.

    I'm not acting as ambassador to Sonkc2k, I'm highlighting the fact that your attempts to misrepresent other people's sentiments or fabricate them entirely are not escaping without notice.
    But as i have already stated, there ARE people today who claim to be god and that people believe are at least godlike e.g. Rael, David Koresh, Jim Jones. There are also neo pagans.
    Yes, and everyone but their tiny set of followers denies their godlike status. Nobody but pagans take pagans seriously. How does this relate to anything the poster you quoted said? Where did they claim that Jesus is unique in that he is regarded by some as a deity incarnated on earth?
    It related quite clearly "this crap" which was referred to relates to an earlier discussion about comparing the historicity of Jesus with other historical figures. In fact the nail is quite clearly hit on the head when the MAIN REASON for a posters interest only in Jesus if the fact that people believe he was Christ. so they are only opposing his historicity based on the ACTUAL FACT as yo pointed out and the poster also stated of people believing he is Christ.

    How can one get any more anti Christian than actually admitting the central reason for opposing someones existence in history as distinct from someone else s is because people believe they are Christ and the others they don't oppose are NOT believed to be Christ?
    Start rounding up believers in Christ and nailing them to crosses, I suppose.

    Seriously, please point out where you're getting this from based on the 3 posts I've quoted above. I'm at a loss here.


  • #4093
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Pace2008 wrote: »
    I had a cursory glance over their past month's history of posting in the A&A forum and there doesn't seem to be much to back up what you're saying. If they "followed" you here they must have a fairly gimpy leg.
    Let me be quite clear and correct me if wrong.

    I believe they posted in threads in a&A that I was postinbg.
    I believe after that I then posted this thread and that AFTER that they posted on what I was posting.
    That is what I mean by "followed" their post followed my post.
    Maybe there's something there from earlier posts but if we all started cross-referening months-old threads we'd end up with a wreck.

    I dont think i would. It is how I operates.
    As i said maybe Im wrong but I dont think so.
    Not alone that but there is a broad swathe of what i believe are anti christian posters. But that is a broader issue best left to others.
    The use of "are," as in the present tense should have been clarification enough. People should not have to "clarify" positions that have been fabricated for them by someone else.

    that seems a bit rich considering it is coming from the person who posted "what the poster has clearly stated is that they believe..."

    Are you telling sonik what he clearly stated or is it your own fabrication?
    You speak for him do you?
    I'm not acting as ambassador to Sonkc2k, I'm highlighting the fact that your attempts to misrepresent other people's sentiments or fabricate them entirely are not escaping without notice.

    If you actually agree that what he meant was -YOUR words no fabrication
    Jesus differs in that people in the present day believe he was a deity who performed supernatural feats.


    then they are illustrating a difference solely based on the idea of Jesus being christ. ie their argument of opposing historicity of Jesus is admittedly anti christian by its very definition. -that the difference between Jesus and others was people claim Jesus was Christ and the other people are not Christ!
    Yes, and everyone but their tiny set of followers denies their godlike status.

    But you were not claiming about the NUMBER of followers other than the fact that you claimed it to be zero.

    Christianity also started out with a tiny number by the way. what is the relevance of that other than to again draw attention to the fact that objections are based on the fact that people believe in christ? i;e; again by definition opposing it because oif this belief is anti Christian
    Nobody but pagans take pagans seriously. How does this relate to anything the poster you quoted said?

    Nobody but atheists might take anything atheists say or do based on atheism seriously
    either. Again all you are saying here is "they dont need to be attacked because they are few" and by assertion "christians need to be attacked because so many of them believe"
    which only supports the point that such a position is anti christian.
    Where did they claim that Jesus is unique in that he is regarded by some as a deity incarnated on earth?

    YOU claimed it! that is the immediate issue!
    If you believe they didnt then say so and retract your original claim.
    Seriously, please point out where you're getting this from based on the 3 posts I've quoted above. I'm at a loss here.


    Your words
    the poster has clearly stated is that they believe Jesus, Alexander and Socrates all existed, but Jesus differs in that people in the present day believe he was a deity who performed supernatural feats.

    Jesus differs because people believe he was Christ -God i.e. because they are Christians

    the opposition to them is therefore based on opposing this belief -anti christian


  • #4094
    Penn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,477 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    ISAW wrote: »
    Jesus differs because people believe he was Christ -God i.e. because they are Christians

    the opposition to them is therefore based on opposing this belief -anti christian

    There's a difference between anti-christian and non-christian.

    I don't believe Jesus was God, or was the son of God. But I am not anti-christian. I am a non-christian. Same way that overall, I am an atheist (or non-theist), not an anti-theist.


  • #4095
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Penn wrote: »
    There's a difference between anti-christian and non-christian.

    I don't believe Jesus was God, or was the son of God. But I am not anti-christian. I am a non-christian. Same way that overall, I am an atheist (or non-theist), not an anti-theist.

    I m pointing out what people say an do.

    If someone opposes something based on the fact that this concerns Christ and not for anyone else in history; even though it could be applied to others ;and their interest in opposing it and not opposing the same argument as applied to others is because it is made about Christ; then they are anti Christ.

    If you argue against Christ because people believe in Christ then you are anti christian.

    Even if Christ never existed! the belief or even the existence of Christ is not necessary for anti Christians to be anti christian.

    Just as race might not exist but people believe race does exist
    they can be racist people even if race does not exist.


  • #4096
    Penn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,477 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    ISAW wrote: »
    I m pointing out what people say an do.

    If someone opposes something based on the fact that this concerns Christ and not for anyone else in history; even though it could be applied to others ;and their interest in opposing it and not opposing the same argument as applied to others is because it is made about Christ; then they are anti Christ.

    If you argue against Christ because people believe in Christ then you are anti christian.

    Even if Christ never existed! the belief or even the existence of Christ is not necessary for anti Christians to be anti christian.

    Firstly, 'anti-christ' and anti-christian' are two different things. 'Anti-christ' would be an opposition to Jesus Christ. 'Anti-christian' would be an opposition to the christian religion or its followers.

    Secondly, for someone to be anti-whatever, they have to believe that the 'whatever' exists, and oppose it. I do not believe that Jesus Christ (as depicted in the Bible) existed, so I cannot oppose something I do not believe in. Same way I don't oppose God, I do not think there is a God for me to oppose. Now, I could be anti-religion, as in, I oppose religion regardless of whether or not I think those religions are true or not, as the religion themselves exist.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Just as race might not exist but people believe race does exist
    they can be racist people even if race does not exist.

    Well, race does exist. That is undisputed. So I don't know what you're getting at with this point.


  • #4097
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Penn wrote: »
    Firstly, 'anti-christ' and anti-christian' are two different things. 'Anti-christ' would be an opposition to Jesus Christ. 'Anti-christian' would be an opposition to the christian religion or its followers.

    dont need to be told that and wont argue about it.
    Secondly, for someone to be anti-whatever, they have to believe that the 'whatever' exists, and oppose it. I do not believe that Jesus Christ (as depicted in the Bible) existed, so I cannot oppose something I do not believe in.

    that is a fallacy! I pointed you can be a racist and in opposition a "race" even if such a race does not exist!

    You could be anti christian even if Christ does not exist.
    Well, race does exist. That is undisputed. So I don't know what you're getting at with this point.


    Sorry but this is NOT undisputed! Likewise you CAN be anti christian and yet not believe in Christ!
    I have outlined how that has happened here. Belief in Christ isn't necessary.


    Among humans, race has no taxonomic significance; all living humans belong to the same hominid subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens
    http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1455.html

    http://www.virginia.edu/woodson/courses/aas102%20%28spring%2001%29/articles/AAPA_race.pdf

    In this sense, races are said to be social constructs
    Blank, Rebecca M.; Dabady, Marilyn; Citro, Constance Forbes (2004). "Chapter 2". Measuring racial discrimination. National Research Council (U.S.). Panel on Methods for Assessing Discrimination. National Adademies Press. pp. 317.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_%28classification_of_humans%29#CITEREFBlankDabadyCitro2004


  • #4098
    Penn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,477 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Race: 3.
    Anthropology .
    a.
    any of the traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro, characterized by supposedly distinctive and universal physical characteristics: no longer in technical use.
    b.
    an arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes, especially formerly, based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups.
    c.
    a human population partially isolated reproductively from other populations, whose members share a greater degree of physical and genetic similarity with one another than with other humans.

    I think this race thing is another large rabbit hole, so I won't be pursing it further.
    ISAW wrote: »
    You could be anti christian even if Christ does not exist.

    Okay then. Are you anti-Muslim?


  • #4099
    Pace2008
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,587 ✭✭✭Pace2008


    ISAW wrote: »
    Not alone that but there is a broad swathe of what i believe are anti christian posters.
    And I might have issues with the sentiments of some of the Christian posters here, but that does not give me the right to start tarring them all with the same brush and make accusations against them bsed on what others have said.

    that seems a bit rich considering it is coming from the person who posted "what the poster has clearly stated is that they believe..."

    Are you telling sonik what he clearly stated or is it your own fabrication?
    You speak for him do you?
    I made a reasonable inference based on the few words they posted. I would be willing to bet internet gold that I'm on the mark and you've missed the target completely.
    then they are illustrating a difference solely based on the idea of Jesus being christ. ie their argument of opposing historicity of Jesus is admittedly anti christian by its very definition. -that the difference between Jesus and others was people claim Jesus was Christ and the other people are not Christ!
    That seems reasonable. What is so unreasonable about cliaming that you believe Jesus existed, but reject the notion that he was God incarnate and perfrormed miracles considered completely impossible by our current knowledge of how the universe works?
    But you were not claiming about the NUMBER of followers other than the fact that you claimed it to be zero.
    Where did I say anything of the sort? My reason for highlighting their small number was to show that nobody accepts their claims of divinity. If 99.99% of the world rejects their divinity then you can hardly claim that Jesus is being singled out for scrutiny.

    If you're wondering why Jesus is coming under the spotlight on this particular thread then maybe consider the fact that we live in a Christian majority country and we're posting on the Christianity forum.
    Christianity also started out with a tiny number by the way. what is the relevance of that other than to again draw attention to the fact that objections are based on the fact that people believe in christ? i;e; again by definition opposing it because oif this belief is anti Christian
    This seems to be a case of equivocation here. Opposing Christianity, a la anti-theist totalitarian regimes, and opposing the notion of Christ's divinity are not the same thing. If rejecting Jesus's status as a deity makes me an anti-Christian then you are anti-muslim, anti-Buddhist, anti-Shinto, and-Hindu...you get the idea.

    The scenario you've set up here is a false dichotomy. You're disregaring the fact that between Christian and anti-Chritian lies another position, one that is held by the majority of humans - non-Christian.

    Nobody but atheists might take anything atheists say or do based on atheism seriously
    either. Again all you are saying here is "they dont need to be attacked because they are few" and by assertion "christians need to be attacked because so many of them believe"
    which only supports the point that such a position is anti christian.
    See above. I never said anything of the sort. Please point out where I stated or suggested anything like it.

    FWIW I think fringe cults need to be closely watched, and opposed if the need arises.

    YOU claimed it! that is the immediate issue!
    If you believe they didnt then say so and retract your original claim.
    I have no idea how I'd go about retracting something I never even claimed. You are arguing with phantoms. Of the three exmples given - Socrates, Alexander and Jesus - I said that Jesus differs in that he is worshiped as a deity in the present day. Look, I think I made myself pretty clear :
    So what the poster has clearly stated is that they believe Jesus, Alexander and Socrates all existed, but Jesus differs in that people in the present day believe he was a deity who performed supernatural feats.
    Jesus differs because people believe he was Christ -God i.e. because they are Christians

    the opposition to them is therefore based on opposing this belief -anti christian
    Or maybe their opposition is based on the fact that they do not believe in deities and do not find claims of the supernatural feats performed by Jesus to be believable. Could you point out to me what is specifically anti-Christian about that?


  • #4100
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Penn wrote: »
    I think this race thing is another large rabbit hole, so I won't be pursing it further.

    suit yourself. It wont change the fact that you were wrong when you said the existence of race is undisputed.
    The existence of race is not something which is certain and is something which is scientifically doubted though as a social construct it survives.

    My point still stands it is not necessary for race to exist for racism to exist.
    Similarly iot is not necessary for you to believe tin Christ to be anti christian.
    Indeed more to the point, while you do not believe Christ ever existed you do believe the Pope and Catholic Church exist. You are also quite capable of being anti Catholic and at the same time believing Catholicism exists and Catholics exist whether or not you believe in Christ.

    and that is the issue I am persung; Posters who attack the historicity f Jesus and not attack other people from history wholly on the basis of Jesus being the founder of Christianity.


  • #4101
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Pace2008 wrote: »
    And I might have issues with the sentiments of some of the Christian posters here, but that does not give me the right to start tarring them all with the same brush and make accusations against them bsed on what others have said.

    I dont make accusations based on what others have said. Edit elsewhere
    I make them based on what posters have said. Edit here
    Just toddle over to the clerical abuse thread to view some of their posts. edit i.e others
    I dont intend to rehearse their vitriol here.
    Save the obvious one about denying historicity of Jesus and doing so on the basis that Christians believe in him as Christ.
    I made a reasonable inference based on the few words they posted. I would be willing to bet internet gold that I'm on the mark and you've missed the target completely.

    What "reasonable inference" did you make ?
    did you not denying historicity of Jesus on the basis that Christians believe in him as Christ?
    That seems reasonable. What is so unreasonable about cliaming that you believe Jesus existed, but reject the notion that he was God incarnate and perfrormed miracles considered completely impossible by our current knowledge of how the universe works?

    where did you say that?
    What you basically stated was essentially the same as sonic. that your interest in the issue was because people believe in Jesus as christ. Otherwise you would not be interested in denying him. so your moitivation is based on other pêoples believ in him being christ. You are against them. You are against tham and believe they oppose the truth of how the universe is. Youare against them on the basis that they believe in christ and you believe that the christian view is noit the true view of how the universe works. That is quite clear.
    Where did I say anything of the sort? My reason for highlighting their small number was to show that nobody accepts their claims of divinity. If 99.99% of the world rejects their divinity then you can hardly claim that Jesus is being singled out for scrutiny.

    Which is only restating and strengthening the point of you being anti christian based on the fact that people believe in Christ and you not sharing in that but instead opposing their belief. Particularly that you consider a tiny minority believing something as relatively harmless (something I totally disagree with for example a tiny minority of atheists might set up an atheistic tyrrany) but your ire is sirred because so many people are Christian.
    If you're wondering why Jesus is coming under the spotlight on this particular thread then maybe consider the fact that we live in a Christian majority country and we're posting on the Christianity forum.

    that is also nonsense! anti christian posts are just as easily postred in the After hours or A&A forums so the forum doesnt matter. Also i would think in atheistic countries you would not find such fora anyway. Anti posters would have been sent to the gulags already.
    This seems to be a case of equivocation here. Opposing Christianity, a la anti-theist totalitarian regimes, and opposing the notion of Christ's divinity are not the same thing. If rejecting Jesus's status as a deity makes me an anti-Christian then you are anti-muslim, anti-Buddhist, anti-Shinto, and-Hindu...you get the idea.

    I dont claim to be anything. dont bring my personal beliefs into this!
    And the point was not about rejecting a deity.

    The point was rejecting the historicity of Jesus as opposed to anyoine else in hiostory on the basis that people believe he was Christ i.e if there were no christians around the detractors would not care because their motivation is anti christian. I do however accept that in a majority Catholic country this may manifest as anti Catholic but that isnt necessarily true.
    The scenario you've set up here is a false dichotomy. You're disregaring the fact that between Christian and anti-Chritian lies another position, one that is held by the majority of humans - non-Christian.

    Here is a fallacy argument from the particular being applied to the general
    You cant argue about "massive majority christian " country and then fall back on "most of the world not christian"
    so i take it you therefore abandon the relevance of Ireland being mostly Catholic as a basis for anti catholic posters?
    See above. I never said anything of the sort. Please point out where I stated or suggested anything like it.

    You stated
    "Yes, and everyone but their tiny set of followers denies their godlike status."
    They in this bcase being fringe cults
    they have tiny sets of followers and htis wasz significant because it was being presented as different to the Roman Catholic Church for example. different not because they believed in christ/God but because the RCC had a large number of followers.
    FWIW I think fringe cults need to be closely watched, and opposed if the need arises.

    Including militant anti Catholic atheists?
    I have no idea how I'd go about retracting something I never even claimed. You are arguing with phantoms. Of the three exmples given - Socrates, Alexander and Jesus - I said that Jesus differs in that he is worshiped as a deity in the present day.

    Which is an admission that you are focusing on the fact that people today believe Jesus is christ. i.e. because they are Christians! You have a problem with them but not the others in history.


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement