Maybe not so much a gateway drug, but the fact that a lot of christians have the goal of 'recruiting' more people to christ reminds me of some crappy multi-level marketing scheme that only really works when a lot of people participate. I'd rather have a 'free' mind and enjoy life like I want to and be wrong when I die than to devote my life to some god and then die and not have shit happen. I do wonder why the universe exists, but I dont think it has anything to do with some dude getting nailed to a cross or people sobbing in church and giving up some of their money to pay for the church's bills.Smitty5613 wrote:
which religion?Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
religion is a gateway drug.
The authenticity is not really relevant IMO. It is a matter of anachronisms being inserted in many translations. And then assuming one and only one idea can be true - that any mention of Christ, chrestus, etc = Jesus and Christians (or rather Jesus as the founder of cult movement of Christianity). It simply does not mean something that specific.Bertster7 wrote:
But a man, Christus, with followers calling themselves Christians (a religious belief that originated in Judea and spread to Rome), who was put to death by Pilate - seems quite specific. I am well aware that the word Christ has its roots elsewhere, but I find it hard to accept it is not being used to refer to Jesus in this instance. Were the authenticity of the document not in question, I would call this a good indication that Jesus did in fact exist.topal63 wrote:
The Romans did not necessarily distinguish, as we do, between the early Christian cult and the Jews. The destruction of Jewish Temple in response to a Christian cult makes little sense if you think about it - it was in response to the Jewish revolts.Berster7 wrote:
This is what that quote was in response to. I find it hard to see how the extract could not refer to Jesus, assuming its authenticity, which is by no means certain.
This is an example of an anachronism. The words in question are: Chrestiani, Christiani, Chrestus, Christos? Do they mean what you think they mean?
You probably can only think of one association for the word Christ (Christos) and that is Jesus Christ. But that is simply incorrect.
Like the earlier incarnations Osiris & Serapis - both popular gods in the Roman Empire - was called not only Christos but also "Chrestos," centuries before the common era. Osiris was called "Chrestus," long before his Greek-Jewish (Jesus version) interpretation of the common god-man myth was ever conceived. Also, Chrestus was not necessarily only the name of the god, but as frequently happened in ancient religions, it can also be the designation of it’s chief priest.
(a.) Pilate was not "procurator" he was “prefect.” Tacitus would have known the difference. This is a translation error or a forgery error of simple-ignorance.Nero looked around for a scapegoat, and inflicted the most fiendish tortures on a group of persons already hated by the people for their crimes. This was the sect known as Christians. Their founder, one Christus, had been put to death by the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. This checked the abominable superstition for a while, but it broke out again and spread, not merely through Judea, where it originated, but even to Rome itself, the great reservoir and collecting ground for every kind of depravity and filth. Those who confessed to being Christians were at once arrested, but on their testimony a great crowd of people were convicted, not so much on the charge of arson, but of hatred of the entire human race.
(b.) The passage has been re-written from a Christian perspective. There is no way to know how the original was written. Or even if it ever did exist substantially in this form.
(c.) Even if true - Tacitus in that passage [above] does not claim to have firsthand knowledge of the origins of Christianity, you can see that he is simply repeating a story which was then commonly believed (or verbally told; talked about), namely that the founder of Christianity, had one as its founder called Christus (or Christos). Repating a myth, a tradition, does not amount to anything specific about a personage, and certainly not history (or a historical person). As I said before, even if true, it is evidence of cult existing proir to the writing of the text. It is not evidence of a man named Jesus (Yeshua).
Last edited by topal63 (2007-07-10 13:36:43)
It just seems more so with topics on religion that people don't focus on stuff they don't know, they only try to find what's wrong with what the other person said. I mean, talking just about religion in general ie. origins, locations, names, etc.... and not arguing about what religion is right or wrong, that's fine. Usually, all religion threads in the past were.....well, if you saw one, you know what I mean. I didn't really read what was in the discussion because I saw "Christian Extremist" in the thread title. My bad.sergeriver wrote:
Take your time to read the entire thread before making a rant. Topal63 and myself are having a historical discussion involving Jesus. Explain to me how that isn't an advancement in knowledge and or information.
The first wrong assumption is that talking about anything = a bad discussion (including religion and its origins). I simply do not agree with an assumption that follows that form.Darkhelmet wrote:
It just seems more so with topics on religion that people don't focus on stuff they don't know, they only try to find what's wrong with what the other person said. I mean, talking just about religion in general ie. origins, locations, names, etc.... and not arguing about what religion is right or wrong, that's fine. Usually, all religion threads in the past were.....well, if you saw one, you know what I mean. I didn't really read what was in the discussion because I saw "Christian Extremist" in the thread title. My bad.sergeriver wrote:
Take your time to read the entire thread before making a rant. Topal63 and myself are having a historical discussion involving Jesus. Explain to me how that isn't an advancement in knowledge and or information.
Most people assume I have a negative view of religion - I don't. But it is easy to confuse my hyper-critical nature - with a negative value judgement.
Last edited by topal63 (2007-07-10 15:44:55)
I didn't assume that talking about anything was bad. I just assumed (wrongly) that because it was a religion thread, it would have no discussion/debate whatsoever because of the few religion threads I've seen in the past. Again, my bad.topal63 wrote:
The first wrong assumption is that talking about anything = a bad discussion (including religion and its origins). I simply do not agree with an assumption that follows that form.
Most people assume I have a negative view of religion - I don't not. But it is easy to confuse my hyper-critical nature - with a negative value judgement.
Np, man. Topal and meyself aren't religious people at all, but we can argue about Religion, coz we find, at least I do, that Religion is a fascinating topic to discuss about.Darkhelmet wrote:
I didn't assume that talking about anything was bad. I just assumed (wrongly) that because it was a religion thread, it would have no discussion/debate whatsoever because of the few religion threads I've seen in the past. Again, my bad.topal63 wrote:
The first wrong assumption is that talking about anything = a bad discussion (including religion and its origins). I simply do not agree with an assumption that follows that form.
Most people assume I have a negative view of religion - I don't not. But it is easy to confuse my hyper-critical nature - with a negative value judgement.
I also think it has value - even if it is not accurate; or even if it is not history. The error (IMO) is assuming certainty in religion, or a purely literal interpretation of all aspects of the texts. There is a great deal of uncertainty in any tradition arising in antiquity. Pointing out the uncertainty does no harm (IMO).sergeriver wrote:
Np, man. Topal and meyself aren't religious people at all, but we can argue about Religion, coz we find, at least I do, that Religion is a fascinating topic to discuss about.Darkhelmet wrote:
I didn't assume that talking about anything was bad. I just assumed (wrongly) that because it was a religion thread, it would have no discussion/debate whatsoever because of the few religion threads I've seen in the past. Again, my bad.topal63 wrote:
The first wrong assumption is that talking about anything = a bad discussion (including religion and its origins). I simply do not agree with an assumption that follows that form.
Most people assume I have a negative view of religion - I don't not. But it is easy to confuse my hyper-critical nature - with a negative value judgement.
Of course, if there wasn't uncertainty, there wouldn't be debate at all.topal63 wrote:
I also think it has value - even if it is not accurate; or even if it is not history. The error (IMO) is assuming certainty in religion, or a purely literal interpretation of all aspects of the texts. There is a great deal of uncertainty in any tradition arising in antiquity. Pointing out the uncertainty does no harm (IMO).sergeriver wrote:
Np, man. Topal and meyself aren't religious people at all, but we can argue about Religion, coz we find, at least I do, that Religion is a fascinating topic to discuss about.Darkhelmet wrote:
I didn't assume that talking about anything was bad. I just assumed (wrongly) that because it was a religion thread, it would have no discussion/debate whatsoever because of the few religion threads I've seen in the past. Again, my bad.