Freethought & Rationalism Archive

03-26-2002, 07:30 PM

x

[ March 26, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]

03-26-2002, 07:36 PM

In answer to the slaugther of innocent children I understand this to be equal to the premature birth of the child within. In Macbeth it is called "from his mother's womb untimely ripped" and therefore "we've scorched the snake, not killed it and now we'll be subject to the malice of its former tooth."

The "untimely ripped" has critics thinking of it being the forerunner of modern abortions but really has nothing to do with this.

Herod was the human ruler of the subconscious mind wherein the Christ child was born and to kill this child would be to transform the potential Divine comedy into a Senecan tragedy (these two are opposites). In a not-so-divine or Senecan tragedy, Herod remains in power of which the paradox "sinful yet saved" is evidence in "born again" Christians--while the bible clearly states that "he who is in Christ cannot sin" (1Jn.3;9). Notice that in Luke 23:12, Herod from the subconscius mind and Pilate from the consciuos mind have become friends and actually speak highly in favor for the release of "this man" (three times the word "this man" is used to convey this) while the Jews were after the "Jesus-the-Jew" image of "this man." Herod, in the end, was eager to see Jesus whom at one time he was so eager to kill.

What I find so ironic is that fundy Christians, eg. Baptist and other "born again" sects, do not recognize that their own "child within" has been killed and they will travel to the ends of the world to fornicate others who have not yet been born again (and so kill their firstborn). Funnier yet, the American government is all in favor that this national disgrace be spread the world over.

[ March 26, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]

Arrowman · 03-26-2002, 07:44 PM

Umm - No.

Hondo · 03-26-2002, 08:14 PM

ABSOLUTELY NOT!

Hondo

never been there · 03-26-2002, 08:22 PM

Amos, sorry to puncture your psychoreligious musings, but the Herod who ordered the slaughter of the innocents (a.k.a. Herod the Great) was a different king from the Herod who was Pilate's contemporary (Herod Agrippa).

The former was son of Antipater, and died some time around 4-3 BCE. The latter, whose name was actually Julius Agrippa, was the grandson.

Sir Nevah Entitar · 03-26-2002, 08:26 PM

I only see an x.

sullster · 03-27-2002, 03:24 AM

I am not sure about any child within, but I do see bizarreness within Amos. Man o man.

Ron Garrett · 03-27-2002, 04:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by never been there:
Amos, sorry to puncture your psychoreligious musings, but the Herod who ordered the slaughter of the innocents (a.k.a. Herod the Great) was a different king from the Herod who was Pilate's contemporary (Herod Agrippa).

The former was son of Antipater, and died some time around 4-3 BCE. The latter, whose name was actually Julius Agrippa, was the grandson.

Other than the Gospel of Luke, who has written a fiction to make Jesus into a Moses figure, there is absolutely no historical evidence whatever that Herod the Great had male children in Bethlehem massacred. Christians make much over the forged passages in Josephus' Atinquities that refer to Jesus, but they have no comment when you point out that though Josephus details Herod's various murders and assasinations and clearly is anti_Herod, no mention of this singular act of barbarism whatever is made.

[ March 28, 2002: Message edited by: Malleus Veritas ]

never been there · 03-27-2002, 04:46 PM

Gee, Ron. If you insist on unfair tactics like bringing actual facts into the argument, debating Amos isn't going to be any fun at all!

Eudaimonist · 03-27-2002, 04:56 PM

In reply to x, I declare y! Nay, z!

In reply to the second post, my response is "huh?", coupled with a blank stare.

03-26-2002, 07:30 PM	#1
Amos Guest Posts: n/a	Does this not deserve a reply? x [ March 26, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>

03-26-2002, 07:36 PM	#2
Amos Guest Posts: n/a	In answer to the slaugther of innocent children I understand this to be equal to the premature birth of the child within. In Macbeth it is called "from his mother's womb untimely ripped" and therefore "we've scorched the snake, not killed it and now we'll be subject to the malice of its former tooth." The "untimely ripped" has critics thinking of it being the forerunner of modern abortions but really has nothing to do with this. Herod was the human ruler of the subconscious mind wherein the Christ child was born and to kill this child would be to transform the potential Divine comedy into a Senecan tragedy (these two are opposites). In a not-so-divine or Senecan tragedy, Herod remains in power of which the paradox "sinful yet saved" is evidence in "born again" Christians--while the bible clearly states that "he who is in Christ cannot sin" (1Jn.3;9). Notice that in Luke 23:12, Herod from the subconscius mind and Pilate from the consciuos mind have become friends and actually speak highly in favor for the release of "this man" (three times the word "this man" is used to convey this) while the Jews were after the "Jesus-the-Jew" image of "this man." Herod, in the end, was eager to see Jesus whom at one time he was so eager to kill. What I find so ironic is that fundy Christians, eg. Baptist and other "born again" sects, do not recognize that their own "child within" has been killed and they will travel to the ends of the world to fornicate others who have not yet been born again (and so kill their firstborn). Funnier yet, the American government is all in favor that this national disgrace be spread the world over. [ March 26, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-26-2002, 07:44 PM	#3
Arrowman Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Adelaide, South Australia Posts: 1,358	Umm - No.

03-26-2002, 08:14 PM	#4
Hondo Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Ca Posts: 51	ABSOLUTELY NOT! Hondo

03-26-2002, 08:22 PM	#5
never been there Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Winnipeg, MB Posts: 2,144	Amos, sorry to puncture your psychoreligious musings, but the Herod who ordered the slaughter of the innocents (a.k.a. Herod the Great) was a different king from the Herod who was Pilate's contemporary (Herod Agrippa). The former was son of Antipater, and died some time around 4-3 BCE. The latter, whose name was actually Julius Agrippa, was the grandson.

03-26-2002, 08:26 PM	#6
Sir Nevah Entitar Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Florida Posts: 18	I only see an x.

03-27-2002, 03:24 AM	#7
sullster Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: North of Boston Posts: 1,392	I am not sure about any child within, but I do see bizarreness within Amos. Man o man.

03-27-2002, 04:46 PM	#9
never been there Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Winnipeg, MB Posts: 2,144	Gee, Ron. If you insist on unfair tactics like bringing actual facts into the argument, debating Amos isn't going to be any fun at all!

03-27-2002, 04:56 PM	#10
Eudaimonist Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Sundsvall, Sweden Posts: 3,159	In reply to x, I declare y! Nay, z! In reply to the second post, my response is "huh?", coupled with a blank stare.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.