stephan huller

And what's with calling me 'Stephen'? It's not just you.

Duvduv

That could be considering the fact that there is no way to independently corroborate any of the claims made by church-approved texts about someone named Marcion or anything he believed.

Chili

I am not Bodhidharma by no means, but he would say: that is like asking to explain the noise made by a whole audience clapping with one hand.

Chili

Right sry and knew it is Stephan.

ApostateAbe

I would hope that rules can be laid out with enough specifics that limit the influence of bias among forum staff. Ambiguity allows some infractions to be penalized and censored but not others, according to the sympathies of the moderators. Any rule against hobby horses would be most fraught with ambiguity serving the biases of staff. If all hobby horses were fairly prohibited, if fairness is possible, I am not sure there would be anything left in the forum. But, my opinion may be slanted, since I am thought to be one of those members carrying around a hobby horse, at least according to the implied accusation of one of the staff.

The rule against personal attacks and related infractions is in most need of specifics, in my opinion. Some members can state their personal attack in ways that may not be a personal attack according to a lawyer, like putting a question mark at the end of it. This problem very much needs a solution. I suggest a list of examples of what counts as a personal attack and another list of what does not.

stephan huller

Yes and for those wishing to develop a false equivalency for Marcion and 'Constantine created the Bible' look carefully at the statement above:

The existence of Marcion has not been questioned or defeated. Schmid, Trobisch and countless others have written on the subject and continue to be fascinated by the subject. It/he only remains the subject of 'contention' on the part of birdbrains and other miscreants who wish to do away with all evidence that gets in the way of their own hobby horse. The study of Marcion demands listening to the sources, the 'Constantine created the Bible' hypothesis demands destroying or ignoring the evidence. There is a difference.

Chili

And I 100% agree, as she is his life that he finds in her, and so then is why love is blind now with substance of it's own that reason cannot see. And that was my point to make.

tanya

Do we possess sources for Aristarchus? No. Nothing remains. All destroyed.

We have reports, including old manuscripts from Copernicus, acknowledging his having seen (the last?) extant copy of Aristarchus' work, brought by the Greek monks, fleeing Constantinople. Constantine's city. Constantine....Yes. Copernicus stole Aristarchus' research, claiming it as his own, and succeeded. Even Galileo gave credit to Copernicus, apparently oblivious of Aristarchus' genius. The Roman Catholic Church destroyed not only Aristarchus' great contribution, refuting the palaver in the bible, it destroyed any document opposing official church dogma.

I deny having either destroyed any evidence, or having ignored any evidence relating to Constantine.

I defy Stephan Huller to point to a single sentence I have written on this forum, attempting to repudiate or deny evidence relating to the question of Constantine's malevolent influence on the introduction of Christianity as the state religion of the Roman Empire. Did he start it? I don't know. Maybe. I doubt it, but I am willing to entertain the notion that it could have happened.

Which among you, good christians, is going to explain to me, why Michael Servetus was murdered by burning (slowly) at the stake, in Geneva, on orders from those two good protestants, Calvin and Luther? Which among you will explain to me, how "Saint" thomas more, became a "saint". He was a fucking murderer.

This religion is a monster. It is horrible. It is responsible for untold, countless murders, assassinations, tortures, rapes and robberies.

Now we have an argument designed to limit who can post, and how they can post.

I am disgusted by this thread. It reeks of fascist ideology, the very strength of Constantine. Use brutal military force, to silence the "enemy".

I don't know if he created the religion. I do believe though, that NONE of the trappings we associate with ANY component of Christianity, would have survived, without his commandment.

The therapeutae were GREEK, not jewish. Try reading something other than your hebrew shit.

stephan huller

I don't even know what to say to this. Have you ever read Sartre's Huis-clos? This is what this is becoming. This is crazy. It has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Nothing. It's just crazy. Why if you have no interest in discussing the evidence that exists from antiquity - and want to limit it owing to the fact that what survives isn't original autographs - why not be grouped together with other like minded intellectuals in a safe place? Why insist on rubbing up against the rest of us who want to see what the evidence says? There is no accommodation here. Either you are interested in discussing the evidence - all the evidence - or you want to destroy, ignore or limit its testimony. There should be a special place for like-minded intellectuals - those who accept the reality that emerges from literary evidence and those who don't.

stephan huller

I think from discussing with tanya (aka 'vid') I have figured out the dividing line. Any opinion that needs all or most of the evidence that survives from earliest (Jewish or Christian) antiquity to be destroyed or ignored in order to be valid should be moved to a special 'safe place' - i.e. another category. Maybe it shouldn't be called 'conspiracy theory' but something like - 'Parallel Universe,' 'Massive Historical Revaluation' or the like. I realize this will probably clear house here but this is done in other forums, no?