quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Meh, I'm getting tired of it all. Normally I pop in to respond to something specific and then I get all sorts of positions foisted upon me because someone thinks they have a clever or insightful argument to make. It get's tiresome responding to objections against statements I never made. If it wasn't for the knowledge that at least some people appreciate my posts in these threads I wouldn't bother. Note to all... I don't agree with the "filthy" characterization. Granted you're all insufferable heathens that will burn in the eternal fires of hell; that goes without saying, but I would never suggest you have poor hygiene...

well, as always, i appreciate your responses of course, im still a cunt, but if i were ever less of a cunt atheist, you'd be the reason. ill be slipping your name at the pearly gates and seeing if st peter lets me in without cover.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Darkarbiter Well I'm mostly into girls, so I guess that's kind've like not being true to your race by being into the wrong kind've race, only with sexuality?

___________________
BA-DUM-TSS

quote:

ALFI - BOHICA - DJ MIX (Stream+Dropbox)

quote:

Originally posted by dj_alfi I watched a documentary (History Channel, I think) on the purged gospels of the bible, it mostly covered the Judas Gospel, but they also mentioned the ones regarding Jesus' adolescense that had bits where he put a spell on a billygoat so it charged a priest's butt.

Yeah, some of the non-canical gospels are funny as hell. Most of the best ones are 2nd-3rd century Gnostic creations. My favorite is the infancy gospel of Thomas in which Jesus kills a kid just to watch him die. For the most part the Gnostic infancy gospels are trying to show Jesus struggling to understand his extrordinary powers and discover the truth about himself, which is fitting with the Gnostic belief that Jesus was all about teaching that we are all dual beings; both mortal and divine, and we must all struggle to attain that knowledge.

I like the gospel of Judas in that it paints Judas as the hero... the one who facilitated the execution of Jesus, which was necessary for Jesus' ministry to be completed. Unfortunately, this view is ultimately destroyed by the text itself in that it characterizes Jesus' death as only being meaningful in that it allowed the true Jesus to escape the earthly vessel. While interesting one is then left wondering why Jesus needed to leave then and by that method... certainly any form of death at anytime would have worked just as well, which then makes Judas less the hero and more a useful idiot for Jesus' planned escape from his body.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

Judas' betrayal was crucial for the myth of Jesus Christ to come into being.

Without it he'd just beJesus the Carpenter from Nazareth who made a lot of ruccus in the Temples during Passover.

___________________
BA-DUM-TSS

quote:

ALFI - BOHICA - DJ MIX (Stream+Dropbox)

quote:

Originally posted by dj_alfi Judas' betrayal was crucial for the myth of Jesus Christ to come into being. Without it he'd just beJesus the Carpenter from Nazareth who made a lot of ruccus in the Temples during Passover.

Indeed... which is why I've never agreed with portraying Judas as Captin Evil and exactly why I liked the Gospel of Judas portraying him as a hero doing as Jesus asked of him. What I found unfortunate about the gospel is that in the end Jesus' execution is utterly meaningless other then that it killed his body. If the manner in which he died has no meaning then it was unnecessary for Judas to betray him; subsequently, there is nothing heroic about it... just the first century equivalent to suicide by cop. Essentially, the writer of this gospel tries to suck and blow at the same time by saying Judas is doing gods' work (note Gnostics were not monotheists so plural gods is correct) by betraying Jesus but then states the betrayal wasn't really necessary because the execution wasn't necessary.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Indeed... which is why I've never agreed with portraying Judas as Captin Evil and exactly why I liked the Gospel of Judas portraying him as a hero doing as Jesus asked of him. What I found unfortunate about the gospel is that in the end Jesus' execution is utterly meaningless other then that it killed his body. If the manner in which he died has no meaning then it was unnecessary for Judas to betray him; subsequently, there is nothing heroic about it... just the first century equivalent to suicide by cop. Essentially, the writer of this gospel tries to suck and blow at the same time by saying Judas is doing gods' work (note Gnostics were not monotheists so plural gods is correct) by betraying Jesus but then states the betrayal wasn't really necessary because the execution wasn't necessary.

[/quote]

And started the myth of Jesus Christ. Many people will argue that Jesus was very little known before his execution, and even then it took a few hundred years before he was a household name. An entourage of 12 isn't exactly impressive for someone who supposedly could revive people from the dead. (Did someone say Christian Zombie Army?)

I believe Jesus was a real historical person, with some really progressive ideas (for the time and region), and he must have been somewhat intelligent to concoct a plan to make himself a martyr for love/agape for the better of mankind. He already knew he was going to die for his opposition to the Romans and his teachings.

But do I believe he was the son of "God"? Fuck no.

Unlike the rumours of Mark Twains demise, I believe the stories of Jesus have been greatly exaggerated.

___________________
BA-DUM-TSS

quote:

ALFI - BOHICA - DJ MIX (Stream+Dropbox)

quote:

Originally posted by dj_alfi And started the myth of Jesus Christ. Many people will argue that Jesus was very little known before his execution, and even then it took a few hundred years before he was a household name. An entourage of 12 isn't exactly impressive for someone who supposedly could revive people from the dead.

One of the reasons scholars believe the execution actually happened is because it would have been detremental to Christianity initially. Essentially, people (especially Jews) would not be willing to follow someone who was executed as a common criminal... definately would not accept him as devine. More then his execution it is the stories surrounding the reserection that would have been the flashpoint for people to choose to follow his disiples.

quote:

I believe Jesus was a real historical person, with some really progressive ideas (for the time and region), and he must have been somewhat intelligent to concoct a plan to make himself a martyr for love/agape for the better of mankind. He already knew he was going to die for his opposition to the Romans and his teachings. But do I believe he was the son of "God"? Fuck no.

Just an interesting thing to consider... did Jesus know he would be killed? Moreover, did he know Judas would betray him? More then once Jesus is recorded as talking about the 12 being given posts of importance (equated to kings) in the Kingdom of God; essentially being the ministers to the Son of Man (which may or may not have been a reference to himself... he is always characterized as refering to the Son of Man in the third party). If he had known that Judas would betray him then would he have suggested that he would have a place of honour in the Kingdom of God? One could argue that Jesus did not know he would be betrayed... others could argue that Judas is given a place of honour with the other 11 because his "betrayal" was not actually a betrayal but a necessary act. If one accepts the former then Jesus was not devine, at least not until his death (or I suppose at very least he was not all knowing); if one accepts the latter then the characterization of Judas as a money hungry evil doer rejecting the love of God (the vatican's position btw) is incorrect.

BTW, the historical Jesus was undoubtedly an apocolyptic Jew... to apocolyptic Jews of the time "son of god" meant a great number of things... it could be he was simply refering to himself as one doing gods will... even just as a jew. The idea of Jesus being devine most likely developed after his execution rather then before it.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker Oh, preese, so sorree for intorrerance fwum esss russer. He maka fun of you because you tarking in racial stereotype. I aporogize for heem. He not know how behave. Preeze accept aporogee. Ching chang chow yun fat, Mr. Roboto.

quote:

Originally posted by Zyklon_Jay

bahahahahaaaaaaaaaa holy fuck that was funny

___________________
BA-DUM-TSS

quote:

ALFI - BOHICA - DJ MIX (Stream+Dropbox)

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard One of the reasons scholars believe the execution actually happened is because it would have been detremental to Christianity initially. Essentially, people (especially Jews) would not be willing to follow someone who was executed as a common criminal... definately would not accept him as devine. More then his execution it is the stories surrounding the reserection that would have been the flashpoint for people to choose to follow his disiples.

reserection

quote:

Just an interesting thing to consider... did Jesus know he would be killed? Moreover, did he know Judas would betray him? More then once Jesus is recorded as talking about the 12 being given posts of importance (equated to kings) in the Kingdom of God; essentially being the ministers to the Son of Man (which may or may not have been a reference to himself... he is always characterized as refering to the Son of Man in the third party). If he had known that Judas would betray him then would he have suggested that he would have a place of honour in the Kingdom of God? One could argue that Jesus did not know he would be betrayed... others could argue that Judas is given a place of honour with the other 11 because his "betrayal" was not actually a betrayal but a necessary act. If one accepts the former then Jesus was not devine, at least not until his death (or I suppose at very least he was not all knowing); if one accepts the latter then the characterization of Judas as a money hungry evil doer rejecting the love of God (the vatican's position btw) is incorrect.

I believe Jesus knew he would be killed. Not because of some divine powers, more in the direction of knowing that Rome didn't exactly promote free speech and opposing ideas. North Korea or China is like Disneyworld compared to old Rome.

quote:

BTW, the historical Jesus was undoubtedly an apocolyptic Jew... to apocolyptic Jews of the time "son of god" meant a great number of things... it could be he was simply refering to himself as one doing gods will... even just as a jew. The idea of Jesus being devine most likely developed after his execution rather then before it.

My point parsley.

___________________
BA-DUM-TSS

quote:

ALFI - BOHICA - DJ MIX (Stream+Dropbox)

Last edited by itsamemario on Aug-10-2011 at 17:21

quote:

Originally posted by woscar Indeed. This is precisely why I hate postmodernism with a passion: It can make rather intelligent people with degrees in Philosophy say some very stupid things while they are under the impression that they are uttering some of the wisest things ever conceived. Why this argument that science is "the new religion" succeeds so much amongst intelligent people really baffles me.

I agree. I bumped this thread just to show you my support for this post. I would like to show these people that my fist is a social construct.