stephan huller

Another example of the principle you and Pete work on here at the forum:



http://www.cadenagramonte.cu/english...soners-freedom

To an extent all religions work on this principle. They declare - 'ignore our ignorance, turn your eyes from the contradictions inherent in our arguments; witness instead our zeal and conviction!' But the Acharya faith won't find a lot of followers because it is too deeply rooted in dead religions - Christianity included. It's just a silly, incoherent intellectual abstraction. Something that 'speaks' I guess to failed musicians and wannabe artists I guess.

Robert Tulip

And another synonym for confidence is 'chutzpah', like Josiah's "discovery" of Deuteronomy. Part of the back story here is that Stephan will not brook any criticism of his beloved Judaism, rapidly escalating from civil conversation to allegations of anti-semitism and hatred, rather like we see with his fertile imagination here. Toto has had to rein in Huller's leash on this topic.

All Stephan's wild talk of cults and coffee shops is just febrile calumny with no connection to reality. Acharya S is totally rational and scientific. I criticised Gibson because he opened this thread in order to call for Mountainman to be banned from this forum, even though some of the threads that Mountainman has started recently have been highly interesting and informative (except for the interference from you know who). It leaves me wondering if the three amigos (Gibson, Huller and Spin) are actually Bible Jesus believers with a secret agenda to purge discussion of mythicism. The surreal quality of their arguments leaves me with this as a plausible supposition.

Duvduv

Here is another situation that only gives the impression of (some) secularists being anti-religious intolerant bigots.
The secularist answer to Archie Bunker........the same "tolerant" secularists who want to abolish the 1st amendment for everyone else except themselves.

steve_bnk

Amazing how people manage to squeeze in rants in the strangest places.

'...anti-religious intolerant bigots.
The secularist answer to Archie Bunker....'

You have it quite backwards in the west and USA in particular.

The ability for atheists to exist freely and openly without penalty was won in the courts starting back around the 1920s when an atheist family objecting to their kids being forced to take religious indoctrination in public schools.

And of course the Scopes Trial.

Keep in mind the non-establishment clause in the First Amendment was added because minority Christian sects of the time were afraid of being dominated by the majority sexts.

Organized religion has historically been and remains a main source of bloodshed and conflict. Especially all three Abrahamics.

In response to your comment would you be offended if I said bigoted Jews who believe they are the chosen special of a deity that excludes all others? That would be the definition of both bigoted and racist. Other than rare conversions, one is a Jew not by faith but by birth.

Atheist are not bigots, they have good historical reason in this country to be wary of religion. The stream of atheist demonization by Christian conservative's continues.


And, keep in mind the greatest enemy of Jews in this country continue to be Christian conservatives. It is only over the last decade or so that there has been a Christian shift in the view of Jews as fellow belivers in the same god, and it is far from universal..

I grew up hearing 'Jews killed Christ'.

I doubt you would find many atheist who would overtly discriminate against a Jew. The reality is Jews and atheists are more allies than enemies in the issues of rights in a Christian America.

Juma

Can you give a link to these pictures coause i dont find them. Only a man carring a bed.

thief of fire

I don't profess to understand why, but this forum has for years been a place where much of the content has been people peddling their theories which often challenge traditional understandings.
But often there is no consensus on which :non orthodox: theory is better. If anyone is going to be banned (or whatever) , then we should clearly.
What standard are we using to say what is ok?

spin

If you google "dura europos baptistry" (without quotes) the first item should be "Images for dura europos baptistry". Just click that link and you'll find most. They were mainly on the same wall.

They've all been removed and rehouse at Yale University, but there's a photo of them in situ in Clark Hopkins's book The Discovery of Dura Europos (Yale University Press, 1979), p.97.

Juma

I did that and the only image I found that my have any resemblance to anything in the stories about jeseus is the man carrying a bed. Nothing seems to indicate anything about jesus as we know him.

DCHindley

Thief of Fire,

My personal opinion is that good discussion advances someone's understanding of the facts and issues under discussion. Ideally, someone in the discussion stops themselves and thinks "I didn't know that!" or "I've just learned something new and useful to me!"

Posts that simply make assertions, like for instance "Jesus never existed!" or "The letters of Paul are all fabrications!" (especially with exclamation points. color and large type size), are useless as learning tools. And then there are those who get all testy or defensive over perceived or real slights. And others who get a great kick out of badgering other members mercilessly. All we learn from these kind of posts is that the posters have emotional baggage they cannot adequately deal with.

It is another thing entirely if someone says "In my opinion, a myth was woven around the figure of Jesus, but I cannot see how that can be reconciled with a 1st century human Jesus," or "Because Paul's letters display such a lack of correlation with each other and/or Acts, and the arguments advanced in them lack internal coherence, I am leaning towards the position of the more extreme Dutch Radicals, that they were all 2nd century fabrications." Now there is something to sink one's teeth into (well, not literally).

Others can now ask questions about the poster's assumptions, and the author can explain his/her reasoning further, or maybe take a closer look at the evidence or source to confirm whether it really says or implies what the poster thought it did. Somewhere in that process, someone, either a poster, a responder or a lurker, will give pause and smile, because real learning feels good.

DCH

stephan huller

Bravo!