Pope puts stress on 'gay threat'
26 Dec 2008, 5:17 pm
slowmutant wrote:
The best slaves in life are free.
And the safeword is always "banana."
And the safeword is always "banana."
i think you mean "submissives".
/dominator
_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823
?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson
27 Dec 2008, 10:50 am
Macbeth wrote:
And I think that military men of any age are liable to think that the reporter is going to have been in his cups all night when he comes out with balls like that. What I am saying is that I see no reason why any of this would have been recorded by the Romans in a manner which would make it recognisable to someone searching for Biblical verification. How many "supernatural" events appear in Roman military records exactly? Are these detailed military records liberally festooned with ghosties and ghoulies and long-leggety beasties?
There are several base fallacies at work here.
1) That records were never made. Perhaps they did, or do exist, but 2000 years of history could easily have lost or destroyed them.
2) That the events described about Jesus were noted by, or considered noteworthy by the record-keepers. Maybe they saw them, maybe they didn't. Maybe they noted it as something other than "son of god, odd behaviour and miracles ascribed to.."
3) That the events as described in the Bible are an accurate record of events as they occurred. Human hands have been at work in that book for a long time, and it has passed through many translations and arguments to reach its current state.
4)That the Romans would think something "miraculous" or whatever. Perhaps to them, undead jews were a fact of life so normal that they thought it un-notable?
And I make no claim that supernatural events witnessed by anyone are "real" or not, in any era, nor espouse any belief in either way. I'm just pointing out a fact. Our collection of Roman records is incomplete. Just because we dont have the bit that says "I saw Jesus" (or just because he never made it into the records) does not automatically prove that the whole thing is utter sh**, which I believe was the original line of contention. "The Romans didnt record it so it cant have happened."
There are several base fallacies at work here.
1) That records were never made. Perhaps they did, or do exist, but 2000 years of history could easily have lost or destroyed them.
2) That the events described about Jesus were noted by, or considered noteworthy by the record-keepers. Maybe they saw them, maybe they didn't. Maybe they noted it as something other than "son of god, odd behaviour and miracles ascribed to.."
3) That the events as described in the Bible are an accurate record of events as they occurred. Human hands have been at work in that book for a long time, and it has passed through many translations and arguments to reach its current state.
4)That the Romans would think something "miraculous" or whatever. Perhaps to them, undead jews were a fact of life so normal that they thought it un-notable?
And I make no claim that supernatural events witnessed by anyone are "real" or not, in any era, nor espouse any belief in either way. I'm just pointing out a fact. Our collection of Roman records is incomplete. Just because we dont have the bit that says "I saw Jesus" (or just because he never made it into the records) does not automatically prove that the whole thing is utter sh**, which I believe was the original line of contention. "The Romans didnt record it so it cant have happened."
See, I'm assuming that Roman military records, & roughly contemporary historical accounts, & any surviving writing from the time, aren't full of reports of ghosts & zombies because ghosts & zombies aren't real, not because roman legionaires & historians felt a bit silly writing about their entirely genuine ghost sitings. I'm also assuming that the Bible intends to be taken literally when it talks about lots of dead people rising from the grave & walking into Jerusalem & being seen by lots of living people (at least I can't think of any way to read it metaphorically?). I'm also assuming that if masses of the dead actually did rise up & wander around a busy city that that would make it into the history books. These aren't fallacies, these are assumptions, & I think they are safe assumptions.
The original point being made was that there are things in the Bible which, if they had happened, would have been recorded by other sources than the gospels, for example, zombies in Jerusalem. You didn't choose to reply that that part of the gospels was obviously made up. You chose to counter that, in fact, people see this sort of stuff all the time, & it usually isn't recorded. You didn't seem to be countenancing the possibility that all these people were delusional, hallucinating, drunk, wrong, lying, or simply mistaken, you seemed to be saying that all these claims were on the same level of plausibility as if a city of people had seen something in broad daylight. You also didn't seem to notice any discrepancy been claiming that these things are never recorded & that you own several books filled with such accounts.
Now you say you don't attach any plausibility to the Bible's claim that the dead walked the streets of Jerusalem (so why waste all that effort pretending it might have happened & just wasn't recorded?). I'm interested in how much exactly you're conceding. Are all the implausible, physically impossible happenings in the gospels later interpolations - raising Lazarus from the dead, curing lepers, changing water to wine, feeding the however-many thousand? & if these are to be taken as apocryphal, then what exactly is there left to defend? A guy who said some things, some of which were good moral precepts? If that is all that's left then why bother arguing if he was real of not, who could care? - we can just take the bits we like & dump the rest. Please don't say that lots of people perform miracles all the time & it just isn't recorded because officialdom just doesn't like hearing certain things.
27 Dec 2008, 2:09 pm
ducasse wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
And I think that military men of any age are liable to think that the reporter is going to have been in his cups all night when he comes out with balls like that. What I am saying is that I see no reason why any of this would have been recorded by the Romans in a manner which would make it recognisable to someone searching for Biblical verification. How many "supernatural" events appear in Roman military records exactly? Are these detailed military records liberally festooned with ghosties and ghoulies and long-leggety beasties?
There are several base fallacies at work here.
1) That records were never made. Perhaps they did, or do exist, but 2000 years of history could easily have lost or destroyed them.
2) That the events described about Jesus were noted by, or considered noteworthy by the record-keepers. Maybe they saw them, maybe they didn't. Maybe they noted it as something other than "son of god, odd behaviour and miracles ascribed to.."
3) That the events as described in the Bible are an accurate record of events as they occurred. Human hands have been at work in that book for a long time, and it has passed through many translations and arguments to reach its current state.
4)That the Romans would think something "miraculous" or whatever. Perhaps to them, undead jews were a fact of life so normal that they thought it un-notable?
And I make no claim that supernatural events witnessed by anyone are "real" or not, in any era, nor espouse any belief in either way. I'm just pointing out a fact. Our collection of Roman records is incomplete. Just because we dont have the bit that says "I saw Jesus" (or just because he never made it into the records) does not automatically prove that the whole thing is utter sh**, which I believe was the original line of contention. "The Romans didnt record it so it cant have happened."
There are several base fallacies at work here.
1) That records were never made. Perhaps they did, or do exist, but 2000 years of history could easily have lost or destroyed them.
2) That the events described about Jesus were noted by, or considered noteworthy by the record-keepers. Maybe they saw them, maybe they didn't. Maybe they noted it as something other than "son of god, odd behaviour and miracles ascribed to.."
3) That the events as described in the Bible are an accurate record of events as they occurred. Human hands have been at work in that book for a long time, and it has passed through many translations and arguments to reach its current state.
4)That the Romans would think something "miraculous" or whatever. Perhaps to them, undead jews were a fact of life so normal that they thought it un-notable?
And I make no claim that supernatural events witnessed by anyone are "real" or not, in any era, nor espouse any belief in either way. I'm just pointing out a fact. Our collection of Roman records is incomplete. Just because we dont have the bit that says "I saw Jesus" (or just because he never made it into the records) does not automatically prove that the whole thing is utter sh**, which I believe was the original line of contention. "The Romans didnt record it so it cant have happened."
See, I'm assuming that Roman military records, & roughly contemporary historical accounts, & any surviving writing from the time, aren't full of reports of ghosts & zombies because ghosts & zombies aren't real, not because roman legionaires & historians felt a bit silly writing about their entirely genuine ghost sitings. I'm also assuming that the Bible intends to be taken literally when it talks about lots of dead people rising from the grave & walking into Jerusalem & being seen by lots of living people (at least I can't think of any way to read it metaphorically?). I'm also assuming that if masses of the dead actually did rise up & wander around a busy city that that would make it into the history books. These aren't fallacies, these are assumptions, & I think they are safe assumptions.
The original point being made was that there are things in the Bible which, if they had happened, would have been recorded by other sources than the gospels, for example, zombies in Jerusalem. You didn't choose to reply that that part of the gospels was obviously made up. You chose to counter that, in fact, people see this sort of stuff all the time, & it usually isn't recorded. You didn't seem to be countenancing the possibility that all these people were delusional, hallucinating, drunk, wrong, lying, or simply mistaken, you seemed to be saying that all these claims were on the same level of plausibility as if a city of people had seen something in broad daylight. You also didn't seem to notice any discrepancy been claiming that these things are never recorded & that you own several books filled with such accounts.
Now you say you don't attach any plausibility to the Bible's claim that the dead walked the streets of Jerusalem (so why waste all that effort pretending it might have happened & just wasn't recorded?). I'm interested in how much exactly you're conceding. Are all the implausible, physically impossible happenings in the gospels later interpolations - raising Lazarus from the dead, curing lepers, changing water to wine, feeding the however-many thousand? & if these are to be taken as apocryphal, then what exactly is there left to defend? A guy who said some things, some of which were good moral precepts? If that is all that's left then why bother arguing if he was real of not, who could care? - we can just take the bits we like & dump the rest. Please don't say that lots of people perform miracles all the time & it just isn't recorded because officialdom just doesn't like hearing certain things.
In no particular order: "Un-recorded" in an official military report-style capacity. Not completely and utterly undocumented at all. No discrepancy, other than that between what I wrote and what you read.
I do not claim that people are ACTUALLY WITNESSING THINGS.. I'm saying that people who claim to witness such things are hesitant to report such to their superiors for fear of looking foolish or being ridiculed or worse. Whatever they did witness, they feel that telling it to a superior would be a bad thing. Failing that, a superior might well decide it was a load of old bollocks and a way to get off guard duty or some such. I offered no statement as to the veracity of such claims, merely offered reasons why such claims might not show up in official reportage. I also pointed out that huge amounts of material that must have been recorded by Rome has never been found, so if there were verifying reports, they may still be lost, may never be found.
And as for the list of miracles.. how many of them are actually worthy of record in official Roman documents of the time? Would a mix up with the beverages at a Jewish party even be noticed by the Occupation Forces?
Adversely, to a superstitious populace or occupying army, perhaps such oddities were not so very odd at all? In a time of portents and soothsayers and very real gods, a miraculous event might well be classified commonplace. EVERYONE reads the future in chicken guts, dont you know? Likewise, a lot odd things we now know to be natural could have been found miraculous back then. Epilepsy, narcolepsy, speaking in tongues and rising from the dead. I dunno, I'm picking random examples as they occur to me. Choose your own.
I'm not saying I think these things happened. I'm not saying they didn't. I'm just saying that a lack of secondary sources (other than the Bible, a biased document) does not prelude events actually occurring in some form or other, especially given the timeframe.
_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]
