Originally Posted by luvrpgrl

so you understand how gravity works?

Originally Posted by cmac2012

Well, I'll spell a few things out for you before I go. I meant half of what you post, half of the way you relate to people, i.e., withering, condescending scorn. The manaical, derisive laughter (virtual, OF COURSE) the non-stop labeling, the barely (or not at all) disguised contempt.

OK Botnst, you want a little finer point of scripture debate? How about:

Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca, [ An Aramaic term of contempt] ' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell. Matt 5;22.

Why would JC put contempt and derisive scorn near the top of the "DO NOT DO" list? Perhaps because it closes you off from valuable input from your neighbors? Perhaps because it makes one a bigger ********* than the object of his contempt? Perhaps because, in summation, it is self defeating?

Just a couple of wild speculations. But I've been labeled an un-believer, so don't pay any attention to me.

Originally Posted by matt7531

If you want to read something interesting on the subject, the book "Civilization of the Middle Ages" is very good. The author of the book, Norman Cantor, wrote the book originally in 1963 when he was a docturnal student, and it has been widely used in humanities courses. He re-wrote it when he retired in the late 90s, saying on his retirement he wished to correct the fundamental errors he had made - one being the beginning of the Medieval period, traditionally the Fall of Rome in 456 BC, was simply wrong - Medievalism began at the ascension of Constantine, and that Constantine was the model for all Medieval kings, and made one decision after another that effected that period more than any other, and a few that effect us to this day. The Roman Empire as Cicero and Augustus knew it was over after Constantine, and Europe began to form into Medieval society. In fact, many of the barbarian invaders saw the value in the "Constantine method" and also claimed miraculous conversion on the battlefield, after which the popes would dutifully trot out to proclaim them Holy.

Cantor states his other error was in his listing of Western History's most influential men, the seminal men whose actions resulted in the world we live in today. the top three usually considered Jesus, Constantine and Mohammend. He now asserts after a life time of study, that the list should actually be Constantine, Pope Gregory VII and Willaim the Conqueror, and that historians are actually doing students a grave disservice in pushing the idea that Jesus had much influence on history at all - instead Western History can be seen as a parade of kings, popes and religious leaders who have done everything possible to keep a society based on Jesus's teachings from ever forming. The so-called "Christian" religion is nothing more than a game, the object of which is to find some reason for excusing us from his teachings, or in using his teachings to oppress the powerless. Paul is a much more powerful figure in Christianity than Jesus ever was, and he never even met the man. Cantor corrects his error by adding three chapters on Constantine and his profound effect on civilization and the creation of a Christianity of The Powerful that resulted from his acts. he makes a powerful case, and has ignited quite a debate.

Luther is an excellent example - his theology is totally Pauline in nature. He appeals more to the Pauline letters than he does to Jesus himself. And it shows, look into Luther, and you will find he sold out the poor peasants that were in rebellion, resulting in the slaughter of thousands. He was also obsessed with demons and witch burnings, again the occult Christianity of Constantine and Paul.

The other figures you mention don't seem to me to apply to this argument.

Originally Posted by matt7531

What I have learned is that linguists and historians can recognize a core story in the New Testament. Jesus was an itinerant teacher, probably a member of the Essene sect of Judaism, and he himself was probably a follower of John The Baptist, and he used parables and personal example to win converts to his sect. Jesus committed an act of rebellion by chasing the money lenders from the temple. He then delivered what is probably the most powerful speech ever made called the Sermon On the Mount, the gist of which is consistent through the Gospels. As a result he pissed off the powerful, he was arrested and killed. Like Ghandi and King, his words and work became more powerful in death than they ever had been in life. Men who wished to gain power used subversion of his works to legitimize their views, added miricles and myths to appeal to people who lived in a mythological age, and as a result, the NT is riddled with contradictions. In the Gospels, Jesus tells that he is coming back "as a thief in the night". In the Revelations, he is a madman leading a pack of raging mythical beasts in a universal apocalypse. One is the words of a great moral philosopher, the other the words of some pissed off hermit in a cave, smoking mushrooms and recording his vision of revenge on the Roman Empire for destroying Jersuleum decades after Jesus lived. There are many other contradictions as well. It is sad that the core message got lost, and in the end the money changers won everything.

Originally Posted by cmac2012

It's hard to say exactly why JC's words and life have been accorded such a lofty position over time. I think it could be that he really was an enlightened master, sort of like Shakyamuni Buddha, and that this is what gives his words such an enduring appeal. It is striking how much his words read like a paraphrase of Lao Tzu or Shakyamuni, but I've said that before.

Originally Posted by Botnst

As an aside, I think it would be fun to get your boy to argue with that modernist nitwit, Zinn.

Originally Posted by GermanStar

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that pretty much how JC was viewed by early Christians before the Romans added all the voodoo pagan touches?

Originally Posted by GermanStar

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that pretty much how JC was viewed by early Christians before the Romans added all the voodoo pagan touches?

Originally Posted by cmac2012

Not sure why Zinn upsets your apple cart so. I mean, I definitely do not grok with his whole routine. However, I think he did a great service by publicizing a more accurate account of Columbus and crew.

I don't want to wallow in "we are such awful people" nor do I want to put on rose colored glasses set in the Red, White, and Blue frame.

I see a lot of grief in world history based on distorted self esteem, and by extension, national self esteem. So many nations roaring in stadiums and public squares about their own undeniable marvelousness, the Reichers 3 being probably the most graphic example,of cousre. Plenty of others though.

Speaking of mormonism, my dear Mother and most all devout Mormons revere Joseph Smith as the greatest modern saint, yet the guy was a certifiable con artist. I read that he was convicted of plagarism for appropriating the words of a rival preacher several years before he "discovered" the "Golden Plates." Other accounts of shady doings as well.

The Book of Mormon reads like a paraphrasing of the bible, and that could be easily explained by Smith and boys because the B of M was supposed to be an account of JC's teaching in the new world after he ascended from the tomb, post crucifiction. It's all a bit too much.

The collective adualation and mutually reinforced delusion by Mormons leads them to lionize the guy. Unbalanced. Just like heroizing Columbus was not accurate. Zinn was the first guy to set that record straight, at least for me.

Originally Posted by cmac2012

Whoops, I need to go study it some more. I would correct you if I could, but I regretfully must admit to limitations here.

Originally Posted by GermanStar

As do I, but I believe that at least some early Christians worshiped Christ as a great teacher, ala Buddha, without all of the wacky superstitious stuff, such as the immaculate conception, and the resurrection and ascension. Constantine and the Romans added (borrowed?) that stuff to lend a sense of grandeur to an otherwise boring religion, at least by pagan standards.

Originally Posted by luvrpgrl

so you understand how gravity works?