FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.

Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Reload this Page Pete's theory on Arius as a satirist
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM
Search

 
Page 13 of 14 « First 31112 13 14
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-27-2010, 07:03 AM   #121
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by J-D View Post
No. Neither Arians nor Gnostics were attempting to reconcile their own philosophies with official doctrine, because they did not accept official doctrine.
This description of yours makes it appear that there was no [political] tension at all between on the one hand the official religious philosophy and doctrine proferred by the Christian imperial legislators and on the other hand the traditional Graeco-Roman religious philosophy and doctrine which had previously existed. Is this what you think and/or claim?
mountainman is offline  
Old 04-27-2010, 12:56 PM   #122
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 4,876
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by darstec View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post

Do you have any suspicion at all that Augustine was being deliberately untruthful?
Judging Augustine is difficult. He certainly believed lying to promote the faith was OK. .
Could you give a source for this claim please ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by darstec View Post
But he also believed in impossible things such as headless men with eyes in their bodies/trunks. Perhaps he thought he was telling the truth.
You are probably referring here to a medieval pseudo-Augustinian letter which does make such weird claims.

Andrew Criddle
andrewcriddle is offline  
Old 04-27-2010, 01:49 PM   #123
J-D
Moderator - General Religious Discussions
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: New South Wales
Posts: 27,330
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huon View Post
The Codex Theodosianus was published in the eastern half of the Roman Empire in 438. One year later, it was also introduced in the West by the emperor Valentinian III.
It contained a compilation of imperially inspired law codes commencing from the rule of Constantine to Theodosius (313 to 453 CE). Many of these law codes may be today appropriately described as Draconian. Here are some extracts It appears Constantine was the first Roman Emperor to draft and introduce law codes that proscribed burning people to death.
It only appears that way to somebody who doesn't know that 'proscribed' is the opposite of 'prescribed'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by WIKI
Draconian as an adjective in English qualifies a rule as being of great severity, deriving from Draco, an Athenian law scribe under whom small offenses had heavy punishments
J-D is offline  
Old 04-27-2010, 04:35 PM   #124
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default
Thanks for pointing out my typos and spelling errors but are you going to address the weightier [political] issues in this question outlined below?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by J-D View Post
No. Neither Arians nor Gnostics were attempting to reconcile their own philosophies with official doctrine, because they did not accept official doctrine.
This description of yours makes it appear that there was no [political] tension at all between on the one hand the official religious philosophy and doctrine proferred by the Christian imperial legislators and on the other hand the traditional Graeco-Roman religious philosophy and doctrine which had previously existed. Is this what you think and/or claim?
mountainman is offline  
Old 04-27-2010, 05:16 PM   #125
J-D
Moderator - General Religious Discussions
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: New South Wales
Posts: 27,330
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by J-D View Post
No. Neither Arians nor Gnostics were attempting to reconcile their own philosophies with official doctrine, because they did not accept official doctrine.
This description of yours makes it appear
Only to your hopelessly distorted perception.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
that there was no [political] tension at all between on the one hand the official religious philosophy and doctrine proferred by the Christian imperial legislators and on the other hand the traditional Graeco-Roman religious philosophy and doctrine which had previously existed. Is this what you think and/or claim?
No. I didn't say that or anything like it or anything that would entail anything like it.
J-D is offline  
Old 04-27-2010, 06:06 PM   #126
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by J-D View Post
No. Neither Arians nor Gnostics were attempting to reconcile their own philosophies with official doctrine, because they did not accept official doctrine.
Then what is your point?
mountainman is offline  
Old 04-27-2010, 09:13 PM   #127
J-D
Moderator - General Religious Discussions
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: New South Wales
Posts: 27,330
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by J-D View Post
No. Neither Arians nor Gnostics were attempting to reconcile their own philosophies with official doctrine, because they did not accept official doctrine.
Then what is your point?
That none of the material you have presented provides adequate grounds for your conclusion that Arius was not a Christian.
J-D is offline  
Old 04-27-2010, 09:39 PM   #128
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default
So do you think Arius may have been a Christian satirist?
mountainman is offline  
Old 04-27-2010, 10:39 PM   #129
J-D
Moderator - General Religious Discussions
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: New South Wales
Posts: 27,330
Default
You haven't presented material that would provide adequate grounds for that conclusion either.
J-D is offline  
Old 04-28-2010, 06:14 PM   #130
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by J-D View Post
... none of the material you have presented provides adequate grounds for your conclusion that Arius was not a Christian.
Quote:
Originally Posted by J-D View Post
You haven't presented material that would provide adequate grounds for that conclusion either.
You keep putting the word "conclusion" into my mouth.
I have to keep reminding you that the word I am using is "hypothesis".

That's why I keep asking you whether you know what the word "hypothesis" means.
The word "hypothesis" has a different spelling than the word "conclusion".
To me anyway, this spells out a warning that the two words may represent things that are logically distinct from one another.
mountainman is offline  
 
Page 13 of 14 « First 31112 13 14

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:36 AM.

Top

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