BF2S Forums Cavemen

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

ah, you mean the nonsence book called "holy bible" and various commentaries and speculations around it? sorry, man, but these sources are full of bias and obviously manufactured.
now again, i don't doubt a huge impact christianity had on the history of human civilization, but to claim that jesus' existence stands anywhere close to a proven historical fact is completely out there.

No, I mean the teachings of a man who ran around the area currently known as Israel roughly 2000 years ago.

and you know what those teaching were how?

By reading those texts that were both included and excluded from the canon.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

The Bible is man's attempt, after the fact, to collect those teachings and--in some cases--spin them to some political end via inclusion and exclusion of certain texts, just as was done with historical accounts of ancient figures long ago (see Josephus and others).

"some cases"? the whole bloody thing is an obvious attempt to synthesize a sort of ultimate manipulation tool out of religious stuff that had been produced by human civilization by the time the bible was written.

This shows your lack of understanding of how human history and the history of the Bible are intertwined. The books that were chosen (and conversely, the books that were excluded) from the "official" canon that became the now-recognized Bible were based largely on political (thus, man-made) decisions at that time. Many texts and accounts of Jesus' teachings and those of his apostles were excluded, to include those of Mary Magdelene--for political reasons, not because of their message.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

However, your snide commentary makes it clear you either haven't read the thing or haven't read it with an open enough mind to grasp the message behind the stories. You're too blinded by what a few men have done in twisting the religion to suit their temporal purposes that you've missed the original message.

oh, i get it, if somebody doesn't fall on his knees in awe after reading your fucking holy book that must mean he haven't read it with a open enough mind or at all. i'll tell you what: there's no any "awesome message" behind those nonsence stories, man. human culture and thought have progressed so far since that bullshit had been written that today anybody can form his own morality and become a honest decent man without beleaving in talking snakes and pretending that on sundays he drinks the blood of some two thousand years old jewish carpenter. there's nothing unique or even original in christianity stories - those are just a bunch of dusty all papers, outdated and irrelevant.

No. You obviously don't get it.

Shahter wrote:

human culture and thought have progressed so far since that bullshit had been written that today anybody can form his own morality and become a honest decent man without beleaving in talking snakes and pretending that on sundays he drinks the blood of some two thousand years old jewish carpenter.

yes, we CAN do that but why the hell would we want to? That requires THINKING and REASONING. Much easier just to do what you're told and follow everyone else. Baaaa!

11 Bravo wrote:

ya i saw it on yahoo answers.

LOL that explains a lot.

Didn't they actually give you an answer then? In which case, Yahoo Asnwers sounds like a sucky place to look shit up.

11 Bravo wrote:

Where did cavemen go when they died since they were here before jesus?

hibernating in caves - makes sense doesn't it?

FEOS wrote:

And how do you know which (if any) of the writings regarding Alexander the Great or Socrates haven't been manufactured?

oh, it's simple - i don't know which is which. at all. but, as i said, i don't see any bias or obvious self-contradiction which are usually sings of an attempt at information manipulation in any of those stories. that's why i lend more credence to them then i do to stories of christianity.

FEOS wrote:

The statement above shows an utter lack of education/understanding of the subject. The concepts in the New Testament were truly "new and special" when they came out; they are commonplace and commonsense today but they weren't back then.

there isn't and has never been anything "new and special" in new testament or any such nonsense dook. religion only reflects the trends already present in human societies so that it can better sell itself, but never creates. granted, christianity installed itself so deeply in many aspects of our life that it may seem to some - certainly to its followers - like it carries something important and unique. it doesn't and never did - the fact that it was manufactured for and choosen by many powerfull people and groups as a vessel to carry certain moral, humanistic and societal principles doesn't make it any more special or meaningfull - it is just an information and public opinion manipulation tool, and that "message" you keep talking about was there before it.

FEOS wrote:

Either educate yourself a bit on the topic or stop engaging in debate on it. Because otherwise, it's a waste of your time and mine.

*and there was more chestbeating and stating of obvious here*

it's "a chiken or an egg" situation we've hit here. so if you keep beating your chest about how awesomely educated you are in the matter and how i'm not - which is really silly since you know fuckall about me - that'll certainly be a waste of time.

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

And how do you know which (if any) of the writings regarding Alexander the Great or Socrates haven't been manufactured?

oh, it's simple - i don't know which is which. at all. but, as i said, i don't see any bias or obvious self-contradiction which are usually sings of an attempt at information manipulation in any of those stories. that's why i lend more credence to them then i do to stories of christianity.

So you don't know if they are any more or less manufactured than stories from Christianity, but because you like them more, you lend more credence to them?

no, i lend more credence to them because <see highlited text in the message above>.

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

The statement above shows an utter lack of education/understanding of the subject. The concepts in the New Testament were truly "new and special" when they came out; they are commonplace and commonsense today but they weren't back then.

there isn't and has never been anything "new and special" in new testament or any such nonsense dook. religion only reflects the trends already present in human societies so that it can better sell itself, but never creates. granted, christianity installed itself so deeply in many aspects of our life that it may seem to some - certainly to its followers - like it carries something important and unique. it doesn't and never did - the fact that it was manufactured for and choosen by many powerfull people and groups as a vessel to carry certain moral, humanistic and societal principles doesn't make it any more special or meaningfull - it is just an information and public opinion manipulation tool, and that "message" you keep talking about was there before it.

And again, you make your ignorance on the topic clear. Read a book on comparative religion. Read a book on history of religion. Hell, read a book on the culture of the world at the time and attitudes relative to the teachings found in the New Testament. You'll recage your gyros. That's why it's called "the New Testament"--the teachings were a radical departure from the Old Testament, upon which most cultural mores and laws were based at the time "turn the other cheek" versus "an eye for an eye". Yes, it was "new and special".

it was "new and special" in the realm of religious teachings which, as i said, reflect the ongoing progress in human societies, but not the other way around.

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Either educate yourself a bit on the topic or stop engaging in debate on it. Because otherwise, it's a waste of your time and mine.

*and there was more chestbeating and stating of obvious here*

it's "a chiken or an egg" situation we've hit here. so if you keep beating your chest about how awesomely educated you are in the matter and how i'm not - which is really silly since you know fuckall about me - that'll certainly be a waste of time.

I'm not chestbeating about how awesomely educated I am. There is another way to look at it, though...

All I know about your depth of knowledge on the topic is what you've posted here. And it speaks volumes.

/sigh
a chicken or an egg?

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

And how do you know which (if any) of the writings regarding Alexander the Great or Socrates haven't been manufactured?

oh, it's simple - i don't know which is which. at all. but, as i said, i don't see any bias or obvious self-contradiction which are usually sings of an attempt at information manipulation in any of those stories. that's why i lend more credence to them then i do to stories of christianity.

So you don't know if they are any more or less manufactured than stories from Christianity, but because you like them more, you lend more credence to them?

no, i lend more credence to them because <see highlited text in the message above>.

So, because you see a contradiction between the OT and NT, you lend it no credence? You do realize that there is supposed to be contradiction between the two, correct? That's sort of the whole point.

As to bias. There's no bias in the stories of ATG or Socrates? Really? Try reading them again.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

The statement above shows an utter lack of education/understanding of the subject. The concepts in the New Testament were truly "new and special" when they came out; they are commonplace and commonsense today but they weren't back then.

there isn't and has never been anything "new and special" in new testament or any such nonsense dook. religion only reflects the trends already present in human societies so that it can better sell itself, but never creates. granted, christianity installed itself so deeply in many aspects of our life that it may seem to some - certainly to its followers - like it carries something important and unique. it doesn't and never did - the fact that it was manufactured for and choosen by many powerfull people and groups as a vessel to carry certain moral, humanistic and societal principles doesn't make it any more special or meaningfull - it is just an information and public opinion manipulation tool, and that "message" you keep talking about was there before it.

And again, you make your ignorance on the topic clear. Read a book on comparative religion. Read a book on history of religion. Hell, read a book on the culture of the world at the time and attitudes relative to the teachings found in the New Testament. You'll recage your gyros. That's why it's called "the New Testament"--the teachings were a radical departure from the Old Testament, upon which most cultural mores and laws were based at the time "turn the other cheek" versus "an eye for an eye". Yes, it was "new and special".

it was "new and special" in the realm of religious teachings which, as i said, reflect the ongoing progress in human societies, but not the other way around.

Says you. Chicken and egg. If it were that way, I suppose he wouldn't have been seen as so edgy, heretical, and dangerous in his teachings, now would he?

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

it's "a chiken or an egg" situation we've hit here. so if you keep beating your chest about how awesomely educated you are in the matter and how i'm not - which is really silly since you know fuckall about me - that'll certainly be a waste of time.

I'm not chestbeating about how awesomely educated I am. There is another way to look at it, though...

All I know about your depth of knowledge on the topic is what you've posted here. And it speaks volumes.

/sigh
a chicken or an egg?

You've posted what you've posted. If you know more and have a deeper understanding, you certainly have done a piss-poor job of getting that through in your posts.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

So, because you see a contradiction between the OT and NT, you lend it no credence?

that is hardly the only contradiction there is in the bible.

What contradictions are there within the NT? Are you saying there are contradictions within the teachings of Jesus? Please point them out.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

As to bias. There's no bias in the stories of ATG or Socrates?

compared to bible? - absolutely, no bias at all.

Not comparatively. Absolutely. If there is bias, you must throw it out. Therefore, ATG and Socrates must not have existed. If you accept bias in those accounts, you cannot arbitrarily hold the accounts of Jesus to a different standard.

That's the problem with your biased approach.

You're forgetting that most historians lend as much, if not more, historical weight to Jesus having existed as they do ATG and Socrates based on the criteria available to them. Believe it or not, the Gospels count as historical documents to them--regardless of the fact that they are religious texts. Religious texts were often the only form of historical record in ancient times, as clergy were the only ones who were literate.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

And again, you make your ignorance on the topic clear. Read a book on comparative religion. Read a book on history of religion. Hell, read a book on the culture of the world at the time and attitudes relative to the teachings found in the New Testament. You'll recage your gyros. That's why it's called "the New Testament"--the teachings were a radical departure from the Old Testament, upon which most cultural mores and laws were based at the time "turn the other cheek" versus "an eye for an eye". Yes, it was "new and special".

it was "new and special" in the realm of religious teachings which, as i said, reflect the ongoing progress in human societies, but not the other way around.

Says you. Chicken and egg. If it were that way, I suppose he wouldn't have been seen as so edgy, heretical, and dangerous in his teachings, now would he?

i'm not sure i get it. if you mean "jusus and his teachings have been seen as all that" - who said there ever was jesus and the "teachings" are his to begin with? we haven't agreed on that yet, remember?

Oh, I've agreed that you've ignored troves of historian who've agreed that he existed.

If he didn't, how did the movement centered on him start? Someone had to start it. Someone had to start preaching the tenets of the religion.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

/sigh
a chicken or an egg?

You've posted what you've posted. If you know more and have a deeper understanding, you certainly have done a piss-poor job of getting that through in your posts.

okay, apart from an obvious fact that my english sucks, you are follower of the religion in question, dude - arguing with you is like pissing against the wind. remember what this started with? - i said that, imo, muhammad, moses and maybe budha too would seem more important historical figures to somebody agniostic in his views on religion like myself than jesus. that seemed to give ya a hard on and you started this holy war for which, tbh, i didn't really care because i knew exactly what you'd tell me. yes, it's "chicken and egg" situation but at least i don't claim that the egg is magical, can resurrect itself and saved us all granting eternal life to everybody who beleaves in it.

And you've provided exactly fuckall to back up your position that Muhammad, Moses, or Buddha would seem more important historical figures to someone with agnostic views than Jesus. In fact, that is simply a wrong statement. Can't put it more plainly than that. It has nothing to do with my personal beliefs, it is based on a review of comparative religious study and historical study of those figures. Something you clearly haven't done. All you have done is attempt to bash the Christian faith, which, while interesting, has done nothing to back up your argument's position.

Shahter wrote:

that's my point, and since jesus didn't conquer half a civilized world, didn't found nations, didn't lead peoples around etc i think he's much less important as a historical figure than alexander the great, moses or muhammad, as well as he's much less important as a thinker and philosofer than socrates because it's fucking impossible to dig his actual teachings, if there ever were any, from under the mountain of bullshit those were buried under.

And again...

I see you still haven't bothered to perform even a modicum of research on the comparative historicity of those figures. It's not about whether you think they're an important thinker or philosopher than Socrates. It's not about whether he conquered half the civilized world. It's about whether there is actual contemporary documentation of their life. There's not--one of the key arguments against the historical Jesus. The counter to that from historians not theologians is that we accept the existence of ATG, Socrates, and others out of hand based on far less evidence. The bias against Jesus (and other religious figures) is based solely on their status as religious figures--nothing more. There is no historical reason to hold them as any less likely to have existed than ATG, Socrates, or any other ancient figure for which there is little to no contemporary writing/evidence of their existence.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

What contradictions are there within the NT? Are you saying there are contradictions within the teachings of Jesus? Please point them out.

http://www.google.ru/search?&q=New+ … radictions

All of which are talking about contradictions regarding the deity status of Jesus--not the underlying message of the NT: the teachings of Jesus.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

compared to bible? - absolutely, no bias at all.

Not comparatively. Absolutely.

there's nothing absolute in this world...  well, not to me at least, you do seem to beleave in talking snakes and the great oogaboonga up in the sky, but i'm not going to play in that field with you, sorry.

That seems to be a pretty absolutist position, considering that I'm only engaging in a debate regarding the historicity of a man with you, not the merits of the religion he started.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Therefore, ATG and Socrates must not have existed. If you accept bias in those accounts, you cannot arbitrarily hold the accounts of Jesus to a different standard.

That's the problem with your biased approach.

there's no any problem. i do reasonably question the existence of both atg and socrates, just much less that i question jesus, for obvious reasons i already explaned to you.

Of course you don't see a problem with your approach. That's sort of what bias is, Shahter. And you have not "reasonably" questioned the existence of ATG or Socrates a single time in this entire thread. And I'm not saying you should, as historians who specialize in the field seem to think there is adequate evidence all around for all three of them to have existed.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

You're forgetting that most historians lend as much, if not more, historical weight to Jesus having existed as they do ATG and Socrates based on the criteria available to them. Believe it or not, the Gospels count as historical documents to them--regardless of the fact that they are religious texts. Religious texts were often the only form of historical record in ancient times, as clergy were the only ones who were literate.

... and based on these very facts, as was pointed out munerous times already, i lend more credence to the stories about atg and socrates.

Then perhaps you should argue with the experts in the field, then. I'm tired of banging my head against the wall. You clearly have no interest in opening your mind even a tiny bit, as evidenced by your post right here.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Oh, I've agreed that you've ignored troves of historian who've agreed that he existed.

If he didn't, how did the movement centered on him start?

do you beleave in voodoo? i suppose not. so, tell me: how did the cult of voodoo start? did it require its prophets or whatever they have there to be real?

I don't have to believe in the tenets of the religion to recognize that the religion itself fucking exists, ffs.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

It's not about whether you think they're an important thinker or philosopher than Socrates. It's not about whether he conquered half the civilized world.

it's exactly opposite. it's about what he'd done that matters to anybody who doesn't beleave in fairytales when we are making the comparison. jesus is only researched because so many poeple claim he was son of god, there's nothing else about him at all. christianity works either way because it supposed to - it was constructed that way. hell, there are religions with even less historical evidence to their supposed prophets and miracles, yet those do just fine without.

If it's about what he's done, then you've just painted yourself into a corner. He started a religious movement that became the world's largest religion--regardless of whether you believe he was the son of God.

ATG conquered most of the known world--regardless of whether you believe he was descendant from a God (as was claimed by him and others).

Socrates founded what is known was western philosophy--but is only known through the writings/teachings of his disciples (students).

Gee...all that sounds awful familiar. But those two should have more credence lent to them because a religion didn't sprout from their teachings? Check your fucking bias, Shahter.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

It's about whether there is actual contemporary documentation of their life.

only matters if there's stuff worth researching in their life, as i mentioned numerous times already. practical history doesn't research nobodies, and jesus is a nobody by all accounts.

Wow. "By all accounts"? Seriously?

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

The bias against Jesus (and other religious figures) is based solely on their status as religious figures--nothing more.

and this is where you are just plain wrong. there certainly is bias against religious figures, but that bias doesn't add one yota of evidence to the existense of your savior nor does it make your holy book any less nonsencial in the eyes of those, who do not beleave in in fairytales. deal with it.

Oh, you've wounded me. Don't know if you've noticed, but I haven't brought up my personal faith a single time here--you're the one who keeps doing that. I'm not the holy-roller you seem to think I am at all, though I do subscribe to the Christian tradition.

The only thing that has been nonsensical this entire thread has been your weakdick argument, Shahter. You can't back up your position with anything but a bias against religion, specifically a bias against Christianity. Facts are unimportant to you. The opinions of multiple historians who specialize in ancient historical figures (who are far more versed in this than either you or I) are unimportant to you. Logical arguments (and the pointed faults in your own) are unimportant to you. The only thing that is important is sticking to your guns.

[golf clap]Well done[/golf clap]

Shahter wrote:

there's no point in researching this matter, because even if jesus was real he was a looser and a loonatic who had done nothing worthy of notice.

Whoa ... on what grounds do you base that opinion?

Shahter wrote:

i've read/heard enough, i certainly can't proove or disproove anything, but i stand by my opinion: there's no point in researching this matter, because even if jesus was real he was a looser and a loonatic who had done nothing worthy of notice.

You stand by your opinion. That you can't prove or disprove. Despite having read/heard enough. Because there's no point in researching the matter. Your mind's made up.

Sounds kind of religious-zealotish to me, tbh.

But now your argument has devolved into your assessment of the worthiness of Jesus' message vice a discussion of whether or not he actually existed. And in doing so, you basically accede to the fact that he did exist.

Weird.

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

i've read/heard enough, i certainly can't proove or disproove anything, but i stand by my opinion: there's no point in researching this matter, because even if jesus was real he was a looser and a loonatic who had done nothing worthy of notice.

You stand by your opinion. That you can't prove or disprove. Despite having read/heard enough. Because there's no point in researching the matter. Your mind's made up.

Sounds kind of religious-zealotish to me, tbh.

But now your argument has devolved into your assessment of the worthiness of Jesus' message vice a discussion of whether or not he actually existed. And in doing so, you basically accede to the fact that he did exist.

Weird.

ok, let's put jesus as historical figure and jesus as religious character aside, shall we. the former is pretty much unrecoverable from two thousans of years of doctoring and forging the evidence, save the "looser and the loonatic" part which make jusus existence not worth researching - a lot of those experts you like mentioning so much would agree with me on this one; and the latter has nothing to do with what we are discussing here (well, apart from me moking you). that, in a nutshell, is what i've been trying to get across. can we agree to disagree now?

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

You stand by your opinion. That you can't prove or disprove. Despite having read/heard enough. Because there's no point in researching the matter. Your mind's made up.

Sounds kind of religious-zealotish to me, tbh.

But now your argument has devolved into your assessment of the worthiness of Jesus' message vice a discussion of whether or not he actually existed. And in doing so, you basically accede to the fact that he did exist.

Weird.

ok, let's put jesus as historical figure and jesus as religious character aside, shall we. the former is pretty much unrecoverable from two thousans of years of doctoring and forging the evidence, save the "looser and the loonatic" part which make jusus existence not worth researching - a lot of those experts you like mentioning so much would agree with me on this one; and the latter has nothing to do with what we are discussing here (well, apart from me moking you). that, in a nutshell, is what i've been trying to get across. can we agree to disagree now?

And the bolded part is where you are wrong.

Which you would know.

If you had bothered to read even a little bit about the topic before wading into debate on it.

But you didn't. Why bother with educating yourself when a deeply held opinion that's based on nothing but your own bigoted views can suffice?

ah, i see. still making conclusions based on nothing but your own, obviously biased, views. ok, moving on.

p.s. and before you throw another "pot/kettle" at me - yes, my opinion is also based on my own views, obviously. the difference is - i don't beleave in talking snakes.