Religion and women.

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Xelasnave.1947, Jan 12, 2021.

  1. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,615
    Actually, there are very few contemporary accounts from independent (i.e. non-Christian) sources that mention him. Mostly, independent sources refer to the "cult" of the Christians and the like, rather than to a historical Jesus.

    Nevertheless, it seems plausible that there was a real person around whom the various myths of Christianity coalesced. It is debateable as to how much of the content of the gospels and the other New Testament writing record actual sayings or doings of the man himself, compared to how many things are merely attributed to him by the writers.

    As gmilam said, scholars generally agree that the Mark gospel is the primary source for some of the content in Matthew and Luke. John is a later writing.

    The situation we're in is kind of like people who, a thousand years from now, find fragments of fan fiction that all refer to a person called Harry Potter, which they then choose to compile into a definitive textbook. Those future scholars note that many of the texts agree on certain common elements: the Potter character can do magic, he has two close associates named Ron and Hermoine, his nemesis is a figure whose name is variously given as "the Dark Lord" or "Voldemort" or "He Who Must Not Be Named" (there is some debate, but most scholars agree that these all seem to refer to the same person), etc. For some reason, whatever the primary source was, it has been lost to history.

    No doubt, some of those future scholars would argue, like you, that due to the consistency of a number of different text fragments, it is very likely that the accounts of this "Harry Potter" person are "most likely close to right", even though there is not total consistency in all the recovered source fragments. Some might conclude that, 1000 years ago, the "magic" referred to in many fragments might have been real. Even if they were to discount that as too improbable, they might surmise that the "Harry Potter" figure was a real person, or at least based largely on a real person.

    See the problem?

    The same argument could be made for the Harry Potter fan fiction fragments recovered from the rubble of World War III.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,312
    Flavius Josephus mentions him by name around 93 AD. In 64 AD, the historian Tacitus, talking about who was to blame for the burning of Rome, wrote that Nero falsely blamed “the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius."

    So IMO there is good evidence that Jesus existed.
    Sort of.

    The differences are:

    -There would likely be contemporary (to the time of the books and movies) accounts talking about how that the story of the Boy who Lived was fiction. There are no such contemporary accounts with Christianity.
    -There would likely NOT be contemporary accounts (again, written in a similar time frame as the books and movies) by people saying that they knew Hermione, or that Harry Potter was actually arrested by so and so, or that Sirius Black was an actual person who was killed, or that they had received actual letters from Dumbledore.

    But if you are saying "the details in both cases might be fuzzy" I agree.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,615
    This is what I was talking about when I referred to "very few contemporary accounts ... from independent sources".

    Contemporary accounts that mention Christianity at all are hard to find, and I think that most refer to the Christian movement or its followers rather than to the facts of the stories.

    What contemporaneous accounts are you thinking of, in regards to Jesus? The gospels, as you know, were written decades after his death.

    Most of the writings we have about Jesus were produced by early Christians, who obviously had some bias in the matter.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Dicart Registered Member

    Messages:
    109
    I remember as i was younger, that there was debate among the historian about "the reality of Jesus".
    For some it was a myth and for other, possibly reality, but not sure.
    You can find a lot of books from this period compiling knows facts and doing hypothesis.
    For mostly, Jesus from Nazareth was a myth.
    But, historical discover and progress did the amazing conclusion that Jesus, the man with his disciples existed in that time.

    I dont think this part (that a man nammed Jesus from Nazareth existed in that time) is really controversed today.
    Only the question about if he was a prophet or the Son of God, and the detail of his life remain open.

    About his death on the cross, some argues that such an infamous death (reserved to criminals) could not have been invented by the first christans because if it was invention, they would not have invented something that present Jesus as a criminal.

    Concerning the fact that you could imaging that Harry Potter was real 1000 years after the writing of the book, we dont need to ask ourself about the possibility (and we can't answer about this until we wait 1000 years...)
    There are so many myth, ghost stories, odysees, greek gods etc, that we dont need to wait the remaining fragments of the Harry Potter story to make a conclusion : Almost nobody (or kids) are taking these stories for real.

    Why ?
    Because, altougth like you say, "The Book"s is a compilation and is a mans work (nothing supernatural here), there is a difference.
    They are blessed books.
    "Blessed" mean "Protected by the Angels".
    So yes, after 2000 years, we have The Bible, and some other blessed stories, who continue to exist after all these years without nothing could have destroy them, nor in the mater nor in the mind of man.
    This is the difference with Harry Potter (im sure nobody will care about the Harry Potter story in 100 years anymore)
     
  8. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,312
    The two mentions above, along with Pliny the Younger who wrote that he heard people “sing hymns to Christ as to a god” and the Roman historian Suetonius who noted there were a few Jews who “were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus.” So with four contemporary accounts of Jesus, none of whom were Christians, I think it's pretty good evidence that the person called Jesus existed.
     
  9. gmilam Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,253
    All of which are easily a generation or two after the events in question. All said, I believe there is enough evidence to suggest Jesus is at least based on a real person. As such, this real person (or at least the tales about him) have had a major influence on history. Which is why an atheist might find the stories about him interesting. Including those that didn't make the final cut... (i.e - Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Thomas, etc...).

    Personally I am surprised at how many Christians seem totally unaware of the origins of their Bible. To me it seems like a sloppy way for God to deliver his message of salvation to the human race. I probably would have done it differently.
     
  10. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,312
    Agreed. He almost certainly lived; he was almost certainly crucified under Pilate. That much, at least, has some historical backing.
     
  11. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,615
    How do you know there are angels?
    How do you know there are angels protecting the bible?

    Actually, the bible is a compilation of writings that, at one point or another, gained the official stamp of approval from church authorities. A lot of other things could have been included but were left out because they didn't fit the narrative the compilers wanted to promote. Some of those writings that were left out - including some "alternative" gospels - still exist today, too. They have apparently survived the church's attempts to expunge them, for 2000 years etc.

    Are all writings that have survived for 2000 years protected by angels, or only biblical writings?
     
  12. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,184
    Dicart didn't say anything of the sort, actually. (But in fact "blessed" does not signify anything about angels.)
     
  13. Dicart Registered Member

    Messages:
    109
    Angel is the name we give to "the phenomenom" related to angels.
    For sure, this is a circular definition, but it is not different in science domain where you always have a circular definition too (there are some difference between science and theologie but this point is not).
    Angel is how "they" are called in the Bible and in the Torah.

    https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/692875/jewish/What-Are-Angels.htm

    So, how do i know, that there are Angels ?
    Because i suppose i withnessed by myself "the angel phenomenom" and not only once (thats the main difference between science and faith where the observation is for all or for the individual)

    This is a rational supposition.
    If you believe Bible and stories who lead to God's will, are blessed, you can suppose that they are protected by Angels. "They" are a way used by God yo make His will become true in this world.

    Thats right.
    There are Apocrypha texts. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocrypha)
    Does it mean "they are false" ? But what means false ?
    If you think like a scientist you have the illusion that there is a possibility to know without any doubt what is false or not (if you are an advanced scientist using some epistemology... you could relativise this by knowing you are doing a circular thinking).
    But if you think as a theologian with humility, Only God has the first and the last word (In the beginning was the word).

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John 1&version=KJV

    World can not be understand using binary thinking and sometime you have to understanf the general pattern to be able to understand the particular motif (here you ask for the particular motif).
    So, to answer your question more generaly, the world itself, like it is now, is designed to express God's will.
     
  14. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 71 years old Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,309
    Is this another Jan in the making? Or a fully form manifestation?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. Dicart Registered Member

    Messages:
    109
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blessing
    If you consider that Angels are a way for God to act in the world (they dont have free will but are "programmed" for some kind of task), "blessing" mean "protected by the Angels".
    God give instruction to the Angel and the Angel fullfill God's will according to the possibility "he" has in the world and the knowledge "he" has about God.
     
  16. Dicart Registered Member

    Messages:
    109
    Sorry, but, is this a question ? (If so i dont understand).
     
  17. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 71 years old Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,309
    Time for a refreshing statement



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 71 years old Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,309
    The post is two questions and supplied for those who understand

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,790
    I’m asking you what it means.
    It’s not something that I have to remind myself of constantly, as I treat all people as people, not as a gender, or a race.
    We haven’t got to the stage as to what I think “ought”to be. You all assume what I think. Probabaly because you believe your own summaries.
    And that’s the problem with weak emotional men. They think they are correct in their analysis, so there is no need of further discussion. You just react.
    Question: Why aren’t you making wegs explain her false accusations properly? I’ve requested it enough, to the point where she can now add “bullying” to list of false accusations.
    You don’t get to control what I say, unless it is insulting, or harmful to another. That is your role. I use the term “natural” because that is what it is.
    That is your opinion.
    I beg to differ.
    What is ban-worthy about that?
    Perhaps you didn’t see the stats I raised regarding the problems with single parent families, and the single parent being the mother. In fact I have been pretty reasonable, by not really revealing the true state of single parent catastrophe.
    Also I said that good people acting as parents, not matter the combination, is better than evil, selfish, bad people. But I believe the child is always better off with it’s biological parents (providing they are not any of the above).
    You haven’t even touched upon it.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    No. I have received “summaries”, not explanations.
    You see!
    That’s yours and others personal opinion, and you regard that as an explanation.
    You need to explain specifically why this is so.
    You can even give modern day examples as to why that system is prejudiced against women.
    That is if you’re in to discussion.
    So like Isaid, try and be a little less emotional, and use some of that logic, and rationale, instead of discussing about them.
     
  20. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,790
    This is so funny!

    Can’t you see how much of a hypocrite you’re being?

    It is okay for y’all’ to analyse, and falsely condemn me of hate, and prejudice against women, due to events you want to believe that gave rise to the false accusation of not only hate and prejudice against women, but sexist also.

    But when I analyse wegs for probably being party to some kind of sexual abuse, or misogyny, as a reason for her quick to accuse me of being misogynist, that’s not allowed.

    You should also give this speech to wegs, as she accused me of being a hater of, and prejudiced against, women. As well as being sexist.
     
  21. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,790
    You are giving the warnings, therefore you’re the one that is banning me.

    Geez! That’s the whole point of this discussion between myself and wegs.

    A “misogynist” is a person that hates women, and is prejudiced against women. You can try to water it down how you like, but that’s what it means, and that’s what I have been accused of being.

    You, and others have given your opinion that I am sexist, but you have not explained why it is a prejudice against women. Outside of your personal beliefs. I thought we discussed things on here, but obviously times have changed. Either one falls in line, or one is cancelled. So totalitarian.

    That’s not the point of the question as I’m sure you’re aware. What is prejudice against women, within what I say?

    So you’re allowed to analyse, but I’m not.

    How CCP of you!

    Said by a rubbish analyst.

    Kind of cancel everything out.

    You respond to a “summary “ of my post, not my posts. What is amusing is that you are okay with it. You see nothing wrong using that line of weak reasoning.

    Above is as specific as I need to be.

    It doesn’t matter if I address yours, wegs, or anyone’s response, as they are all the same.

    Plus all are equally off topic regarding my request to give a rational explanation of how it is I am prejudiced against women.

    Just quoting my posts doesn’t cut it. It comes across as a an emotional knee-jerk reaction, insults, and further false accusations. With regards to yourself, you throw a hissy-fit, then ban me. Never actually meeting my request.

    Again I have never said that emotions are a bad thing for a man. It becomes harmful when the man uses his emotions to assess situations, kind of like this one as an example. You always going to make a bad choice (as you have done), because you cannot see the situation for what it is. Also emotional men tend to become abusive, violent, irrational, and insulting. This thread is a great example of highly strung emotional men. Not one of you can have a civil discussion with me regarding the topic. You all display at least one of the bad qualities mentioned earlier.

    What are you afraid of?

    So again with the analysis


    What emotionally stunted men are you referring to? Please give examples. As far as I can tell, men have become stunted and weak, due to them being overly emotional like y’all.

    Be aware that while you may deal with extremes, not everybody does. Which is why you probably can’t comprehend my responses. They are not either, or. It is about balance. Balance does not come from emotion, because emotion is more about what you feel in that moment. The odd time it is good, especially is things that require spontaneous reactions, or artistry, etc.. But it nearly always ends in strife when dealings with things that need to be looked at rationally, like this subject.

    Maybe you should take your own advise, and stop acting like a law enforcer, and actually try to defeat my points with logical, rational explanations rather than knee-jerk reactions,
     
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2021
  22. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,790
    And I’m not a “misogynist”, neither am I sexist.
    The only mention of women’s place in society I have mentioned thus far, is women in the workplace. Maybe you should take a look at your response to that.
     
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2021
  23. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,790
    I’m rude?
    How is it you don’t see Jesus, who believes in God’s order, as a misogynist.
    Physically you have had the same type of contact from me, as he, as everything has been written.
    From that perspective, what is the difference between me, and he, with regards to what is written?
     

Share This Page