stephan huller

"Du mußt Amboß oder Hammer sein"

Transient

"You must be Anvil or Hammer"
Do I get a prize?
Or do I need to decipher what that message means? Might need help with that one

maryhelena

Secret messages - goodness me.....and what do those do for friendly communication?

Anyway, since the subject has turned to anvils and hammers - and I hear music from some pop song wafting over this thread - how about upping the cultural level around here?

Music and anvils and hammers - Josef Strauss and Feast of Fire/Feuerfest - played by Andre Rieu at Schonbrunn, Vienna (DVD) Absolutely hilarious.....

Transient

hey that guy is great - Andre Rieu ie

Song of Erra

The phrase is attributed all over the net to Goethe—but seems to go no further back than a 1960's TV show called “The Prisoner”.

The script:

Number Two: You are too strong. We'll see. “Du musst amboss oder hammer sein.”
Number Six: “You must be anvil or hammer.”
Number Two: I see you know your Goethe.
Number Six: And you see me as the anvil?
Number Two: Precisely. I am going to hammer you.

Pretty deep stuff. Maybe it means “hit or be hit”, or maybe Stephan Hermann Huller (ultra-serious academic extraordinaire) is very subtly accusing maryhelena (plumber by day, fantasy character by night) of committing the “bifurcation” fallacy.

Yet we'll never know, will we? Stephan Hermann Huller no longer converses generously with all human beings, since he knows that some are more equal than others.

Transient

All starting to sound a bit gnostic and cryptic for me - time to rest my little grey cells for a while.
My world around me is much simpler than the world I run into here

maryhelena

:thumbs:
:clapping::clapping::clapping:

Iskander

Mit Fried’ und Freud’ ich fahr’ dahin,

Sheshbazzar

I won't bother to re-post all the various statements that I, and others posted in the original thread, that clearly stated in no uncertain terms, that -we- generally, and I particularly, DO NOT accept mountainman's 'fourth century conspiracy' theory.

But simply because one does not agree with some portion of, premise of, idea of, or with the -speculations- being offered by another forum member, is no excuse for not presenting ones opposing views and counter-arguments politely, and in a courteous gentlemanly manner, without hurling demeaning insults post after post at the collective intelligence of all other posters on this board not agreeing with your own narrow opinions.
This statement serves as an Example;
If you are not tolerant, you are intolerant. Anyone 'who promote(s) toleration' of any views not agreeing with your own narrow views, therefore ...'are really not that interested in finding the truth' ?

This Forum is not the Holy Roman Catholic Church.
Tolerance is a highly valued virtue here.
(No one gets excommunicated, beheadeded, or burned at the stake for stating their opinions .)

There are other posters participating in this Forum who have devoted decades of their lives, and tens of thousands of hours in the study, examination, and discussion of the contents of ancient religious documents.
We endeavor to tolerantly maintain a respectful discussion of whatever subject matter is under consideration, not mount sweeping accusations and put downs, such as that other Forum members "are really not that interested in finding the truth."
Excuse me_ I am a Hebrew, and a publicly confessed 'Believer' in יהוה אלהים
in all accordance to what the words signify to -me-, personally.

That however does not entail that I have to believe or accept every piece of trash that religion has invented.
If I 'embarrass' and 'ridicule', it is the obviously contradictory and the outlandish IDEAS and the contrived, fabricated WRITINGS that I embarrass, not individual persons, dead or the living.

Fine, you have made your opinions clear.
Mountainman, whom even I do not agree with, presents the opinion that he believes to be the most rational, logical, and economical explanation for the rise of the Christian religious phenomenon and structure.
Quite simply his perspective is not your perspective, nor my perspective. But as a fellow human being, he is entitled to an equal measure of an equal right to be heard, and to register his opinions.
No one is being forced to agree with them, or even argue them, if they really bother you too much, you can simply put him on 'ignore'.
Your own opinion and assertion, I am sure we are all quite familiar with it by now.
Tut. tut. Stephan. I, and the larger majority of posters here do NOT accept the 'unworkable fourth century conspiracy theory' as it is presented by mountainman.
You have now made this charge several times, yet each time I posted logical explanations for a natural and logical development of the Manichaen religion during the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE, you totally ignored the posts, did not answer a single question being posed, nor supply any refutation of the actual points being raised.
But simply reverted to the parroting of contradictory and discredited Catholic writings. My posts are still present in that thread, you are still welcomed to address them there.
Stephan, whom is it that you think you are addressing here?
Who exactly is this 'you' that you intend to 'correct'?
Stephan, who are these 'yourselves' ? just -anyone- disagreeing with you?

Ummm, Steven, the subject -has- been discussed and challenged -repeatedly- in this Forum -for years and years- before you arrived.
Why do you think it is that Toto becomes so exasperated when mountainman opens up yet another thread, or replies with -anything- to any post???

I'll be glad to further lay out my arguments for why I believe that Mani was originally 'un-Christian' in the thread this one was split from.
It is not at all complicated, to understand it, all you need do is lay aside long discredited Roman Catholic polemic.