FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-20-2001, 06:47 AM   #21
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by marduck:
"...deal with the god-kings of Scandanavia, and the claim that Merovingians are descended from Jesus?"

Not sure if this is a good example, the Merovingians that is, don't they believe that Jesus did not die on the cross & went on to Europe with his wife Mary & kids in tow? I don't believe they consider Jesus God, but a great teacher who preached a leader must serve his people, the whole 'Grail' thing, Just a legend anyway, but they were pure monotheists, no triune for them, weren't they also perseuted as heretics by the Church of Rome?.
</font>
Sure! But that's not the point. Sweeping claims were made, a couple of posters responded. The only out is to show that the claims are not being made on behalf of the Merovingians and Scandanavians. I think the royal house of Greece was related to Denmark, and thus also was related to the old gods (through danish crown's connections to other scandanavian crowns) but king of greece fell in '74. Apparently the Merovingian Kings claimed descent from the god merocvech?

Commodus apparently thought he was descended from Hercules.

In any case, it is really a minor point.

It's not like a switch was flipped. Christian conversion of Europe was a back-and-forth process. Sometimes the king would die and the next one would go back to being the son of wotan, or whatever. But at least the Xtians would have a toehold. The "divine descent" belief seems to have died out over time, like many other ancient beliefs.

Michael

[This message has been edited by turtonm (edited March 20, 2001).]
 
Old 03-20-2001, 09:22 AM   #22
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Omnedon1:
You can? Then produce your evidence that

Christianity succeeded largely without the benefit of state support and conquoring armies?</font>
I think I am going to do this Michael's way now.

I read some books on the subject, and there are lots of web sites about it too. Just type in the key words on Google and/or Yahoo and look them up.

On the other hand, if anyone wants to have a serious discussion on this point, please let me know, but judging by what I have seen so far (IOW, not much), I am coming to believe that some of the sceptics here dream their beliefs up pretty much out of whole cloth, and needless to say, I'm not impressed.

Nomad
 
Old 03-20-2001, 09:50 AM   #23
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nomad:
I think I am going to do this Michael's way now.

I read some books on the subject, and there are lots of web sites about it too. Just type in the key words on Google and/or Yahoo and look them up.

On the other hand, if anyone wants to have a serious discussion on this point, please let me know, but judging by what I have seen so far (IOW, not much), I am coming to believe that some of the sceptics here dream their beliefs up pretty much out of whole cloth, and needless to say, I'm not impressed.

Nomad


"Dream up out of whole cloth?"

Now you're cracking me up. You're the one who thinks that people can walk on water, and heal by touch, big guy.

Oh, BTW, I posted three times now on the subject of references. I told you where I got my info. If you have a problem reading, drop me a note and I'll contribute toward glasses, or remedial reading programs, whatever you believe you need more.

The posters here have destroyed Robson on a number of grounds. You have not addressed any of them. You keep saying that Christianity's success is "odd" but refuse to specify what makes it more unqiue than Buddhism in Central Asia, China (which did not sweep away the old gods) or in Japan or Thailand, or India (where it was rubbed out) or the success of Hinduism in SE Asia.

So far, you have neither acknowledged anyone's points in this thread, nor backed up your own claims as to the uniqueness of the Christian conversion of Europe, nor have you defended your assertions from destruction.

Below is from the Ency. Brit., see the entry entitled "Germanic religion and mythology"
  • Another important work ascribed to Snorri is the Heimskringla ("Orb of the
    World"), a history of the kings of Norway from the beginning to the mid-12th
    century. The first section of this book, the "Ynglinga saga," is of particular
    interest, for in it, Snorri described the descent of the kings of Norway from the
    royal house of Sweden, the Ynglingar, who, in their turn, were said to descend
    from gods. Snorri used such written sources as were available; he also relied on
    skaldic poems, some of which were very old. Snorri visited Norway twice and
    Sweden once, and he probably used popular traditions that he heard in both
    countries.

For the fourth time, if you have serious questions about my references, you may check the review articles at the ency. brit. I am not allowed to post them here in their entirety, that is a violation of the law. If you can't find them, send me an email and I will send you the URLs, I can' post them because they are too long and screw up the way the page loads.

It is now incumbent on you, stud, to drop the "dear me!" and the "my goodness" and the demands that people satisfy you with specific references for well-known historical facts.

If you have any substantive criticisms to make -- which, at this point, from your inability to actually make any substantive responses to two threads on this topic, looks slim -- please make them now. If you have any substantive arguments to make, make them.

We are now waiting to hear your justification for the unique, odd, critically different conversion of Europe. We are waiting to hear why it can't be accounted for in ordinary, if complex, naturalistic terms.

Michael


[This message has been edited by turtonm (edited March 20, 2001).]
 
Old 03-20-2001, 09:54 AM   #24
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Lightbulb

Religions like Islam and Christianity spread because their believers are driven to spread them. Most pagan religions don't try to gather converts. People were born into those religions and generally accepted people who were born into others. There weren't wandering preachers trying to bring people to worship of Zeus.

Funny the example of the Norse should be brought up. Many of the Norse who converted to Christianity also kept on believing in Odin, Thor and the like. Very often they wore the hammer of Thor right next to the cross of Christ and thought nothing of it. Religous art from the region shows a fusion of Norse pagan and Christian imagery.

This may seem strange to us modern folk, but to them it was no big deal. Thor existed. Jesus existed. And they thought it wise not to offend either of them.
 
Old 03-20-2001, 10:57 AM   #25
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

See how easy that was Michael? All you have to do is actually quote from something, then we can actually talk about it.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by turtonm:

Oh, BTW, I posted three times now on the subject of references. I told you where I got my info. If you have a problem reading, drop me a note and I'll contribute toward glasses, or remedial reading programs, whatever you believe you need more.</font>
Cute Michael. And stay calm please. When you site a reference, it is common curtousy to offer some kind of page numbers or web sites to help those of us who wish to learn from you.

It also helps us find out when you are full of shit. More on this later in the post.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">The posters here have destroyed Robson on a number of grounds. You have not addressed any of them. You keep saying that Christianity's success is "odd" but refuse to specify what makes it more unqiue than Buddhism in Central Asia, China (which did not sweep away the old gods) or in Japan or Thailand, or India (where it was rubbed out) or the success of Hinduism in SE Asia.</font>
Chrisitanity has been rubbed out in India? Where did Mother Theressa live again? Don't be stupid Michael. Christianity is a relatively new introduction to India, China and the other countries. Lots of people tried to stomp on it in Europe too, but for some reason it managed to triumph in any event. Right now, the number of Catholics and other Christians reported to be in China are about 60 million, which isn't bad given that the place keeps buring and bulldozing their churches.

So before you start celebrating the destruction of Christianity in these countries, but show some historical patience. After all, if you had been Celsus in the late 3rd Century in Rome, you might have been saying the same thing about Christianity in the Empire as well.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">So far, you have neither acknowledged anyone's points in this thread, nor backed up your own claims as to the uniqueness of the Christian conversion of Europe, nor have you defended your assertions from destruction.</font>
This is not hard Michael, until this post, you hadn't actually offered a shred of proof to back you up, and I will get to that in a moment. None of your sceptical collegues have backed up their assertions either, and I refuse to do their work for them.

Once I am done with your post however, my guess is that none of them are going to put anything forward for fear of having it shredded.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Below is from the Ency. Brit., see the entry entitled "Germanic religion and mythology"
  • Another important work ascribed to Snorri is the Heimskringla ("Orb of the
    World"), a history of the kings of Norway from the beginning to the mid-12th
    century. The first section of this book, the "Ynglinga saga," is of particular
    interest, for in it, Snorri described the descent of the kings of Norway from the
    royal house of Sweden, the Ynglingar, who, in their turn, were said to descend
    from gods. Snorri used such written sources as were available; he also relied on
    skaldic poems, some of which were very old. Snorri visited Norway twice and
    Sweden once, and he probably used popular traditions that he heard in both
    countries.
</font>
The 12th Century reference set off a red flag for me, so I looked up your reference.

From Britannica.com Germanic religion and mythology

the complex of stories, lore, and beliefs about the gods and the nature of the cosmos developed by the Germanic-speaking peoples before their conversion to Christianity.

Germanic culture at various times extended from the Black Sea across central Europe and Scandinavia to Iceland and Greenland. The conversion to Christianity in continental Europe in the early 4th century was so thorough that practically all indigenous religious tradition was eradicated. However, the conversion of the Scandinavian countries in the late 10th century allowed a significant amount of information concerning the religion and mythology of the pre-Christian Germanic peoples to survive. Of particular importance are the writings in Old Norse of medieval Iceland, where there seems to have been an antiquarian revival. The literary sources of this isolated outpost of Germanic culture provide much of what is now known about Germanic religion.

...The Prose Edda (c. 1220), written by Snorri Sturluson, gives a rendition of the cosmogony and numerous tales of the adventures of the gods in their struggle against the race of the giants and the powers of chaos. However, any interpretation of the work must take into account obvious Christian influence as well as the author's further manipulation and distortion of his source materials.

...Although the medieval literary sources provide a wealth of mythological materials, truly reliable information concerning actual religious practices and beliefs is meagre.


So what exactly was your point here Michael? As near as I can tell, the Norse stories remained, but the religion was gone. That was Robson's ENTIRE point, as well as mine.

See how much further we can get when we actually look at the sources?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">For the fourth time, if you have serious questions about my references, you may check the review articles at the ency. brit. I am not allowed to post them here in their entirety, that is a violation of the law. If you can't find them, send me an email and I will send you the URLs, I can' post them because they are too long and screw up the way the page loads.</font>
Look up. I just posted the link.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">It is now incumbent on you, stud, to drop the "dear me!" and the "my goodness" and the demands that people satisfy you with specific references for well-known historical facts.</font>
Hmm... stud eh?

Never assume your facts are well known until they are actually tested Michael, and especially don't claim that they say what they don't say when presenting an argument. You are likely to get called on it.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">If you have any substantive criticisms to make -- which, at this point, from your inability to actually make any substantive responses to two threads on this topic, looks slim -- please make them now.</font>
Still not quite calm eh? I had to have your reference first Michael. I am not going to go shooting in the dark, only to have you later telling me that you never used the sources that I looked up. Now that we can put them side by side, and see that we are talking about the same thing, it looks like your argument was pretty pathetic after all. Now we know why you didn't want to offer your sources.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> If you have any substantive arguments to make, make them.</font>
Done.

Thanks.

Nomad
 
Old 03-20-2001, 11:06 AM   #26
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
So what exactly was your point here Michael? As near as I can tell, the Norse stories remained, but the religion was gone. That was Robson's ENTIRE point, as well as mine.
</font>

Then both you and Robson are wrong. Read the source again:

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
However, the conversion of the Scandinavian countries in the late 10th century allowed a significant amount of information concerning the religion and mythology of the pre-Christian Germanic peoples to survive.
</font>
The text clearly states that the conversion that occurred in continental Europe in the 4th century did not take place until the 10th century in Scandinavia. And, in point of fact, it did not take place until the 12 century in some areas.

If you're going to ask for sources, Nomad, then do us the courtesy of actually reading them.

 
Old 03-20-2001, 12:46 PM   #27
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

[quote]
turtonm: The posters here have destroyed Robson on a number of grounds. You have not addressed any of them. You keep saying that Christianity's success is "odd" but refuse to specify what makes it more unqiue than Buddhism in Central Asia, China(which did not sweep away the old gods) or in Japan or Thailand, or India (where it was rubbed out) or the success of Hinduism in SE Asia.

Nomad: Chrisitanity has been rubbed out in India? Where did Mother Theressa live again? Don't be stupid, Michael.

See what I mean about remedial reading? I was referring to BUDDHISM. Read the sentence! I guess I'll have to restrict myself to SVO sentences with one clause from now on....

Christianity is a relatively new introduction to India, China and the other countries.

Who, according to tradition, was working in S. India as early as AD ~50s? I've seen the spear that allegedly ended his life with my own eyes there.

Clueless, as usual. Christianity was introduced to India hundreds of years ago! Hint: what was at Goa? And Cochin from 1502 on? I suggest you get your money back from the college that educated you, stud.

"Relatively new" in China and India. Oh, Nomad, I hope your faith has better defenders. Nestorian missionaries reached China in the Tang, the 7th century AD, big guy. They were there for a couple of centuries, even establishing monasteries there. Shockingly, despite the superiority of Xtianity, the Chinese didn't adopt it. The first Catholic mission was in the 13th century. Shockingly, despite the superiority of Xtianity, the Chinese didn't adopt it.

Here's a one-oage reference, in case you feel the need to demand one for well-known (outside of Xtian apologists) facts:

http://www.columban.org.au/China/cac_98july.htm

BTW, you might account for the utter failure of Christianity to spread in India, since according to tradition it reached India BEFORE it reached many parts of the Roman Empire.

[AFTER DISCUSSION OF SNORRI STURLSON]
[So what exactly was your point here Michael? As near as I can tell, the Norse stories remained, but the religion was gone. That was Robson's ENTIRE point, as well as mine.

My dear Nomad, Robsons contention was that Xtainity wiped out the god-king idea. But, as the paragraph on Sturlson demonstrates, it survived in places. That's all that was intended to do. As usual, you went off on one of your tangents, misunderstanding the point.

All I can say is, when you post sweeping, ethnocentric crap, you should try to read it first.

BTW, you STILL have not made any substantive arguments. Please tell us what is so special about Xtianity's rise that cannot be accounted for by naturalistic explanations.

Game, set, match. I'm off to read some more about those amazing Nestorian missionaries who arrived in China relatively recently 13 centuries ago.

Michael

[This message has been edited by turtonm (edited March 20, 2001).]
 
Old 03-22-2001, 08:33 PM   #28
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Talking

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by turtonm:

turtonm: The posters here have destroyed Robson on a number of grounds. You have not addressed any of them. You keep saying that Christianity's success is "odd" but refuse to specify what makes it more unqiue than Buddhism in Central Asia, China(which did not sweep away the old gods) or in Japan or Thailand, or India (where it was rubbed out) or the success of Hinduism in SE Asia.

Nomad: Chrisitanity has been rubbed out in India? Where did Mother Theressa live again? Don't be stupid, Michael.

Michael: See what I mean about remedial reading? I was referring to BUDDHISM. Read the sentence!</font>
Alright, you got me. I have been talking about Christianity on this thread, and you wanted to change the subject to Buddhism. Now, as for why Buddhism was wiped out in India (something I was not aware had even happened), I haven't got a clue. But I am unsure what that would have to do with Christianity's remarkable success in history.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> I guess I'll have to restrict myself to SVO sentences with one clause from now on....</font>
Naw, just stay on topic. The thread is about trying to better understand what happened in history, and why Christianity has thrived, and so dramatically changed the world.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Nomad: Christianity is a relatively new introduction to India, China and the other countries.

Michael: Who, according to tradition, was working in S. India as early as AD ~50s?</font>
Hmm? Quoting from legends now? In addition to asking you to stay on topic, I would also appreciate it if you would stick to things that have some historical merit. (You know, offering sources, quoting from them, telling us what the titles are and the like. I would have hoped you would be getting how this is done by now).

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Clueless, as usual. Christianity was introduced to India hundreds of years ago! Hint: what was at Goa? And Cochin from 1502 on?</font>
Are you actually this ignorant of history Michael? The arrival of Portuguese explorers in the late 15th Century hardly led to widespread evangelizing of the Indian sub-continent. And just to give you some perspective, a few hundred years in South Asian history is a drop in the bucket. Besides, I have made no claims about the merit of a particular truth claim based solely on its success on gaining converts. (More on this point shortly).

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> I suggest you get your money back from the college that educated you, stud.</font>
Thanks. I'll tell then about your suggestion.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">"Relatively new" in China and India. Oh, Nomad, I hope your faith has better defenders. Nestorian missionaries reached China in the Tang, the 7th century AD, big guy. They were there for a couple of centuries, even establishing monasteries there. Shockingly, despite the superiority of Xtianity, the Chinese didn't adopt it.</font>
What supperiority of Christianity? I have made no such claims here Michael. Christianity is relatively new to modern China.

But since you appear to be interested in making claims about the truth of Christianity based on its apparent success (or lack thereof) in gain converts in some parts of the world, I would like to talk about the success of atheism in China right now. After all, if all one needs to do in order to secure the masses is to convert the leaders, then atheism should be dominating China hands down. And from your point of view, it may even please you that they are still busy, 50 years later, persecuting Buddhists, Christians, Fulan Gong (sp?) and other theistic and spiritualistic movements. Yet these belief systems stubbornly persist.

Isn't it a wonder that all of these lucky Chinese have yet to see the light and embrace the truth of atheism? After all, the entire leadership has been dominated by atheists since 1949 right? And you do believe that atheism is true right? I suppose here you will tell me how dumb and uneducated the peasants are there, but once they get better educated, then they will come around.

Now, some quick questions, are you going to argue that Christianity (or Buddhism or any other religion for that matter) is not true because it has not converted the whole world yet. Would you embrace any of them if one did come to dominate the world and convert everyone? And would you say that the continued abysmal performance of atheism in winning over more converts (even in countries where atheists ran the show for decades) reflects on its intellectual or moral unsoundness truthwise? After all, if you want to argue that Christianity (or any other religion) is not true because it has not won over everyone, would you apply the same standard to atheism?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Here's a one-oage reference, in case you feel the need to demand one for well-known (outside of Xtian apologists) facts:

http://www.columban.org.au/China/cac_98july.htm</font>
Thanks for the site. It is an awesome read, and very inspiring. To quote from the author:

The Cultural Revolution (1966-1976)

The Cultural Revolution was launched by Mao Zedong as a means to purge and destroy those who were beginning to question some of his policies, the so-called revisionists. As the process of the movement got out of control, there were few ordinary Chinese who did not fear for their life or escape its traumas. The Catholic Church, still viewed as a foreign body closely allied to capitalism, was the hardest hit. There was no distinction made between the members of the official Church or those of the unofficial Church, all together were forced underground and suffered intensely. Churches were demolished or turned into theatres or factories; all religious activity was forbidden. Children were encouraged to report on their parents and teachers.

Restoration of Religious Freedom (1979&gt; )


After the end of the Cultural Revolution in 1976 China began to open itself to friendly relations and exchanges with foreign countries. The United Front Policy was reactivated as part of a movement towards liberalisation and modernisation. In October 1979, it was announced that the policy of religious freedom would be restored and Christians could believe and practise their faith openly. During the same year the Bureau of Religious Affairs and the CCPA were reactivated and began the task of reopening Churches. Although freedom of religion is official government policy, Article 36 of the revised Constitution states: "No religious affairs may be dominated by any foreign country".

The Church in China now has the huge task of bringing about its own internal reconciliation and its reconciliation with the universal Church. It has also to demonstrate to its own people that it is a Chinese Church in union with the universal Church and not a foreign Church.
China can no longer be viewed in the traditional sense as a missionary territory in need of others to come and evangelise it. It has truly earned the status of, and should be recognised as, a true local Church on the way to full maturity.


I had no idea Christianity had made so much progress in such a short period of time, and against such incredible hardships. Thank you again for the article, I encourage everyone to read it.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">BTW, you might account for the utter failure of Christianity to spread in India, since according to tradition it reached India BEFORE it reached many parts of the Roman Empire.</font>
I am not interested in accounting for anything (although given your article, I would now have to add the success of the Church in China to my list of historical curiousities). I just think we should take a closer look at what has really happened in history, and any sources you might have would be welcome.

On the other hand, I, for one, would never want to stake the legitimacy of a truth claim on whether or not everyone came to believe it. Is that your argument here Michael?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">[AFTER DISCUSSION OF SNORRI STURLSON]

Nomad: So what exactly was your point here Michael? As near as I can tell, the Norse stories remained, but the religion was gone. That was Robson's ENTIRE point, as well as mine.

Michael: My dear Nomad, Robsons contention was that Xtainity wiped out the god-king idea. But, as the paragraph on Sturlson demonstrates, it survived in places. That's all that was intended to do.</font>
See how much you could benefit by actually reading the articles carefully yourself? The source you gave us (Ency. Brit) tells us that we can't really know much of anything about what the Norse believed at this time since there is almost no records remaining. On that basis, while your faith in them is touching, I am curious to know why you give them so much credence (I mean besides the fact that you think they reinforce your existing prejudices).

Also, if you take a look around, god-kings were gone from the Christian world long before they vanished in other cultures. Japan gave it up after the Americans forced them to do so in 1945, and Tibet still has one I believe, in the person of the Dhali Lama. Considering the fact that Christian dominated cultures inevitably eliminated this practice of elevating kings to the status of gods, Id say that Robson's point is well made.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> All I can say is, when you post sweeping, ethnocentric crap, you should try to read it first.</font>
Were you addressing yourself here? I am still curious as to how you misread your own quotation so badly. You must have known that I was going to look it up once you finally gave to me.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">BTW, you STILL have not made any substantive arguments. Please tell us what is so special about Xtianity's rise that cannot be accounted for by naturalistic explanations.</font>
I am not making any such claims here. I found Robson's comments interesting, and given the abysmal level of historical education I have found amongst many atheists, I thought I would share it. Articles like the ones you have offered us here will help to alleviate that ignorance I believe.

Thank you Michael.

Nomad
 
Old 03-22-2001, 09:21 PM   #29
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
See how much you could benefit by actually reading the articles carefully yourself? The source you gave us (Ency. Brit) tells us that we can't really know much of anything about what the Norse believed at this time since there is almost no records remaining.
</font>
When you're fresh out of data, substitute a lie, eh, Nomad? That is not what the article says at all.


Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
However, the conversion of the Scandinavian countries in the late 10th century allowed a significant amount of information concerning the religion and mythology of the pre-Christian Germanic peoples to survive. Of particular importance are the writings in Old Norse of medieval Iceland, where there seems to have been an antiquarian revival. The literary sources of this isolated outpost of Germanic culture provide much of what is now known about Germanic religion.

Old Norse verse forms, both Eddic and skaldic, are considered to be especially valuable because the conservative nature of their poetic structures facilitated the survival of ancient elements of Germanic myth and legend.


[...]

Snorri based the Heimskringla on earlier histories, but he gathered much fresh material of his own. He particularly valued poems transmitted orally from the time of the original historical events they described, and he selected those poetic traditions that seemed to be both authoritative and reflective of contemporary politics and human nature. His genius lay in his power to present all that he perceived critically as a historian with the immediacy of drama.

[...]

Although the medieval literary sources provide a wealth of mythological materials, truly reliable information concerning actual religious practices and beliefs is meagre.
</font>
What you misunderstand here is that this reference is talking about the various rituals and daily practices. We have a good understanding of the Norse belief system; but we do not know what the ritual was for welcoming a newborn baby. We know how the disir were worshipped; we don't know what role they played in christening a new home.

You're out of element (as usual), Nomad. I've been studying Germanic mythology for over ten years, both privately as well as at the Univ. of Wash., and quite frankly you don't know what you're talking about.


Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Also, if you take a look around, god-kings were gone from the Christian world long before they vanished in other cultures.
</font>
That's irrelevant. Your source claimed that after Christ, there were no more god-kings.
The Japanese emperor as well as the Ynglings put the lie to that claim, since both royal lines are definitely after Christ.

Your move.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Japan gave it up after the Americans forced them to do so in 1945, and Tibet still has one I believe, in the person of the Dhali Lama. Considering the fact that Christian dominated cultures inevitably eliminated this practice of elevating kings to the status of gods, Id say that Robson's point is well made.
</font>
Except that Japan is not a christian-dominated culture, and neither is Tibet (unless you think China is christian?) You lose, and Robson's point is refuted.

 
Old 03-22-2001, 10:46 PM   #30
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Thumbs down

Omnedon

I see that your standard response now is to label all Christians that offer a view that you oppose is to lable us liars, and to slander us freely. Your sometimes apologies strike me as hollow and forced (at best), and your posts show no interest in serious discussion.

So, from this point forward, unless you actually decide to offer something interesting to a thread, and show at least a bare minimum of courtousy, you and I are done.

Good bye.

Nomad
 
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:19 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.