Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Should we bring back "witch burning"?

Page 4 of 12 [ 187 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 12  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Liberals: Should we bring back "witch burning" so you can quash conservative viewpoints?
Works for me. 33%  33%  [ 14 ]
No, I'm a Liberal with self-control. 67%  67%  [ 28 ]
Total votes : 42

oscuria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,748

24 May 2008, 9:02 pm

skafather84 wrote:
Quatermass wrote:
oscuria wrote:
Quatermass wrote:

But you, sir, are nothing like Jesus Christ. In my opinion, Jesus had some words put in his mouth by later gospel writers. And if I had to compare the two of you, then you would certainly come off second-best, even without his godhood.


Proof?


Speculation, but Paul was apparently something of a misogynist.



not to mention the earliest book of the new testament was written in 90AD. kinda past the point of when such people would be around to ensure original context if such events did actually happen as described in the books.



The Vedas were first "heard" in the second to first millennia BC but were not written down until after the 1st millennia bc as well as the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita. The Tanakh was spoken before the time of David but were written down after returning from Babylonian Captivity. The Quran was not written down entirely after many years after the death of Muhammad.

What about the Buddhist scriptures? Does anyone actually believe the Buddha wrote or had a scribe in front of him when he recited?


_________________
sticks and stones may kill you.


skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

24 May 2008, 9:05 pm

oscuria wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
Quatermass wrote:
oscuria wrote:
Quatermass wrote:

But you, sir, are nothing like Jesus Christ. In my opinion, Jesus had some words put in his mouth by later gospel writers. And if I had to compare the two of you, then you would certainly come off second-best, even without his godhood.


Proof?


Speculation, but Paul was apparently something of a misogynist.



not to mention the earliest book of the new testament was written in 90AD. kinda past the point of when such people would be around to ensure original context if such events did actually happen as described in the books.



The Vedas were first "heard" in the second to first millennia BC but were not written down until after the 1st millennia bc as well as the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita. The Tanakh was spoken before the time of David but were written down after returning from Babylonian Captivity. The Quran was not written down entirely after many years after the death of Muhammad.

What about the Buddhist scriptures? Does anyone actually believe the Buddha wrote or had a scribe in front of him when he recited?



and i run around citing them as fact? at most when i cite other religions, i'm doing so to point out that there are other religions other than christianity and all the gods don't necessarily have the same view. they're all equally fictitious except to their followers.



oscuria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,748

24 May 2008, 9:17 pm

skafather84 wrote:
and i run around citing them as fact? at most when i cite other religions, i'm doing so to point out that there are other religions other than christianity and all the gods don't necessarily have the same view. they're all equally fictitious except to their followers.



Now you're changing your argument. This was not about whether a belief is false/fictitious but if it remained true to the word. You are of the belief that words were added, or at least defend that stance. There is no proof to this, and a follower, or rather a religious leader, would have noticed it first hand.


_________________
sticks and stones may kill you.


skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

24 May 2008, 9:22 pm

oscuria wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
and i run around citing them as fact? at most when i cite other religions, i'm doing so to point out that there are other religions other than christianity and all the gods don't necessarily have the same view. they're all equally fictitious except to their followers.



Now you're changing your argument. This was not about whether a belief is false/fictitious but if it remained true to the word. You are of the belief that words were added, or at least defend that stance. There is no proof to this, and a follower, or rather a religious leader, would have noticed it first hand.



no proof? there's a council who picks out which books go in the bible or not and i'm pretty sure that counts as subtraction. not to mention the purging of the gnostic gospels.


it wouldn't surprise me at all if the other religions also had their texts modified but i haven't seen such a blatant historic example of editing as that.



Quatermass
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Apr 2006
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 18,779
Location: Right behind you...

24 May 2008, 9:51 pm

oscuria wrote:
but Paul never wrote the gospels.


He is one of the major founders of the Christian Church.



oscuria wrote:
I keep hearing the "They weren't around in his time, so how do they know?" argument.

Religion is an oral tradition. It has always been an oral tradition. It will always remain an oral tradition.


Right. And you have played Chinese Whispers, correct? Or heard of Commedia dell'arte? Actually, Commedia dell'arte at least admits to not being consistent between performances.


_________________
(No longer a mod)

On sabbatical...


oscuria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,748

24 May 2008, 11:09 pm

Quatermass wrote:

Right. And you have played Chinese Whispers, correct? Or heard of Commedia dell'arte? Actually, Commedia dell'arte at least admits to not being consistent between performances.




I don't consider you to be mature enough to hold a discussion on this, considering with what you've responded with.

How do you think people put together the Bhagavad Gita? A book which spans 18 chapters and over 700 verses? A book which is minute in comparison than the original book to which it belongs, the Mahabharata? The Gita wasn't written down until centuries after it was revealed (according to scholars who assign it a later date). Do you think people all of a suddenly decided to throw around anything that made sense?

Why are there people who can remember the whole scriptures by mind? Do you deny that there is a possibility of such? Do you know what it means to be a Hafiz? Guru-shishya?



The problem lies in the application of the Word, not the Word itself. Any religious person understands this, and realizes why the idea of adding to scripture is absurd.


Quote:
He is one of the major founders of the Christian Church.


What does that have to do with the Gospels?

Remember what you posted:

Quote:
Jesus had some words put in his mouth by later gospel writers.


_________________
sticks and stones may kill you.


oscuria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,748

24 May 2008, 11:12 pm

skafather84 wrote:

no proof? there's a council who picks out which books go in the bible or not and i'm pretty sure that counts as subtraction. not to mention the purging of the gnostic gospels.


it wouldn't surprise me at all if the other religions also had their texts modified but i haven't seen such a blatant historic example of editing as that.



What does the council have to do with the authenticity of the scriptures? The argument was on adding words to Jesus. There is no proof of such. That kind of argument has no place in religious discourses. If it were to be allowed then what's the point of speaking on religion when the other person would just say "So what? Words were added to the scripture."


_________________
sticks and stones may kill you.


Gromit
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 May 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,302
Location: In Cognito

25 May 2008, 5:39 am

oscuria wrote:
You are of the belief that words were added, or at least defend that stance. There is no proof to this, and a follower, or rather a religious leader, would have noticed it first hand.
...
The argument was on adding words to Jesus. There is no proof of such.

I can't offer you proof, not being a historian, merely information to follow up. In this interview the historian and theologian Bart Ehrman mentions two examples. He says there is only one verse in the Bible that explicitly teaches the doctrine of the Trinity (John, chapter 5, verses 7 and 8 ), and that this verse was not in the oldest text, but was added centuries later by people who believed in the doctrine of the Trinity. He also says that the story of Jesus intervening in the stoning of a woman for adultery with the words "Let the one without sin among you cast the first stone at her" is not in the oldest manuscripts of the gospels. He says it is not controversial among biblical scholars that this is a later insertion. Listen to the interview for more details. The relevant quotes come in the first half, before the interview gets bogged down over the question of historical evidence that Jesus lived.



oscuria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,748

25 May 2008, 6:06 am

Gromit wrote:
I can't offer you proof, not being a historian, merely information to follow up. In this interview the historian and theologian Bart Ehrman mentions two examples. He says there is only one verse in the Bible that explicitly teaches the doctrine of the Trinity (John, chapter 5, verses 7 and 8 ), and that this verse was not in the oldest text, but was added centuries later by people who believed in the doctrine of the Trinity. He also says that the story of Jesus intervening in the stoning of a woman for adultery with the words "Let the one without sin among you cast the first stone at her" is not in the oldest manuscripts of the gospels. He says it is not controversial among biblical scholars that this is a later insertion. Listen to the interview for more details. The relevant quotes come in the first half, before the interview gets bogged down over the question of historical evidence that Jesus lived.



Quote:
a follower, or rather a religious leader, would have noticed it first hand.


I see no contradiction in what I posted.


You meant 3 John. It is an epistle and not part of the Gospel.

I am aware of there being some belief that parts have been added to Mark 16 (:9-20). The differences were known early as certain copies didn't contain the ending verses, while others had commentaries. The same with the Gospel of John 7-8.


_________________
sticks and stones may kill you.


oscuria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,748

25 May 2008, 6:17 am

I forgot to add this important detail: A person was considered an adulterer if he or she committed the act while both being married to different partners. A married man who slept with an unmarried woman would not be charged with adultery.

Why was only the woman brought to be charged?


Anyways: Carry on with the thread :D


_________________
sticks and stones may kill you.


LeKiwi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,444
Location: The murky waters of my mind...

25 May 2008, 6:23 am

oscuria wrote:
LePetitPrince wrote:

You see me inferior because I live in Lebanon,eh?

Well,retardation* among educated people is about individuals and not about where they live.

*(as ret*d way of thinking and not the medical term)


Inferior? I have no feelings of inferiority or superiority.

You living in Beirut should give you first hand experience on witch hunts, right? Being that Hizbullah is just right around the corner.




Yawn.

Bigoted, egotistical, out-of-touch, and apparently racist too...

This is getting really boring.


_________________
We are a fever, we are a fever, we ain't born typical...


oscuria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,748

25 May 2008, 6:27 am

LeKiwi wrote:
Yawn.

Bigoted, egotistical, out-of-touch, and apparently racist too...

This is getting really boring.



I don't usually lower myself to do this, but You're a stupid idiot if you think I am any of those.

Way to show you're a liberal by freely throwing around fully charged words like those.


_________________
sticks and stones may kill you.


LeKiwi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,444
Location: The murky waters of my mind...

25 May 2008, 6:30 am

I ask again - what's a 'liberal' and what's so bad about them? Seems like you're throwing the 'fully charged' (to your, perhaps) word 'liberal' pretty freely yourself... :lol:


_________________
We are a fever, we are a fever, we ain't born typical...


pbcoll
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Feb 2007
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,892
Location: the City of Palaces

25 May 2008, 9:48 am

I would have thought ragtime would be all for witch-hunting - after all, the Bible mandates the execution of witches (and of people that work in the sabbath, eat pork, etc).


_________________
I am the steppenwolf that never learned to dance. (Sedaka)

El hombre es una bestia famélica, envidiosa e insaciable. (Francisco Tario)

I'm male by the way (yes, I know my avatar is misleading).


oscuria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,748

25 May 2008, 10:18 am

LeKiwi wrote:
I ask again - what's a 'liberal' and what's so bad about them? Seems like you're throwing the 'fully charged' (to your, perhaps) word 'liberal' pretty freely yourself... :lol:



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


_________________
sticks and stones may kill you.


oscuria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,748

25 May 2008, 10:19 am

pbcoll wrote:
I would have thought ragtime would be all for witch-hunting - after all, the Bible mandates the execution of witches (and of people that work in the sabbath, eat pork, etc).


Aint nuthin wrong with that.

Kill!! KILL!! :x :evil: :twisted:


_________________
sticks and stones may kill you.