Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

reds8n wrote:In the eighth century, the archbishop of Crete, one Andreas Hierosolymitanus, quoted a description of Jesus Christ which (he said) could be found in a version of Josephus extant at that time. Andreas' report is startling. Jesus, he said, was a dark-skinned hobbit-sized hunchback with a big nose, thinning hair, a patchy beard, and eyebrows that joined in the center in a monstrous fashion.

He actually called Jesus "Hobbit-sized"? I ask because I want to know if you are para phrasing here. In any event, it says volumes about the power of his ministry to have created an enduring system of belief world wide that has survived millenia of persecution. Especially if the description of him is true, because people were definitely not drawn to him by his looks.
This could also explain why some of his closest followers didn't recognize him after his ressurection. He appeared to them in his perfected form.

EDIT: Edited due to sheer dumbassery of the comment.

edited to back up Emperor.

That was not my intention, but I've never before heard Jesus being refered to as a 'hobbit'.

That's why I like this thread so far. It's giving me a lot of new information to explore.

Emperors Faithful wrote:EDIT: Edited due to sheer dumbassery of the comment.

Relapse wrote:edited to back up Emperor.

Thanks, mate!

Just doing my duty, citizen!

Emperors Faithful wrote:That was not my intention, but I've never before heard Jesus being refered to as a 'hobbit'.

Jesus and the Ring of Power.

generalgrog wrote:
Lets just say for a minute that your statement is true about no evidence before the Hebrews. That's still a leap of faith on your part to proclaim that there was no monotheism before the Hebrews. Again another assumption on your part.

His statement is false. Zoroastrianism was essentially monotheistic (the broad categories we utilize to classify the various religions are not possessed of specific accuracy), and quite likely planted the concept in Israelite culture.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

JEB_Stuart wrote:Again, we don't have that much evidence concerning Sumeria, at least not written evidence. We have found a bunch of their buildings and statues, but the written evidence that we do have is either hard to impossible to translate or it is younger and more closely related to Egyptian structure.

Approaching this from a different angle: Judaism was not founded as a monotheistic faith, so utilizing it as an indicator of the concept's age is foolish.

dogma wrote:

JEB_Stuart wrote:Again, we don't have that much evidence concerning Sumeria, at least not written evidence. We have found a bunch of their buildings and statues, but the written evidence that we do have is either hard to impossible to translate or it is younger and more closely related to Egyptian structure.

Approaching this from a different angle: Judaism was not founded as a monotheistic faith, so utilizing it as an indicator of the concept's age is foolish.

Agreed, utilizing it to be the sole basis of the concept is far too simplistic. As far as its founding, I believe otherwise, but I do not deny that the Jews moved back and forth between monotheism and polytheism. Haha, do I need to make a new portrait of you on this thread too Dogma?

JEB_Stuart wrote: As far as its founding, I believe otherwise, but I do not deny that the Jews moved back and forth between monotheism and polytheism. Haha, do I need to make a new portrait of you on this thread too Dogma?

This is absolutley true, as much of the Old Testement is full of situations where the Isrealites fell away from the God of Abraham and started to worship other gods. Many stories of prophets warning and chastizing the Hebrews for this very thing.

GG

JEB_Stuart wrote:Agreed, utilizing it to be the sole basis of the concept is far too simplistic. As far as its founding, I believe otherwise, but I do not deny that the Jews moved back and forth between monotheism and polytheism.

Early Jews were Henotheists; worshiping one god while accepting the existence of others (Polytheism without the pantheon). Over time that belief system evolved into true Monotheism (believing in the existence of only one God).

JEB_Stuart wrote:
Haha, do I need to make a new portrait of you on this thread too Dogma?

Couldn't hurt.

To me the only god is Metal.

\,,/

dogma wrote:

JEB_Stuart wrote:
Haha, do I need to make a new portrait of you on this thread too Dogma?

Couldn't hurt.

Haha, you asked for it!

...When I scrolled down this thread...I didn't see THAT coming...

None of this proves or disproves the existence of God.

The burden of proof is on the believer, the person who tells you to live your life and behave in a certain way based on the rules and laws set out in a book of 'fables and parables' that apparently weren't meant to be taken literally.
Atheism does not mean you deny God - that would require a faith position - it just means you don't worship that for which there is not a single shred of evidence.

I have a feeling that the more intelligent of the posters here who still consider themselves religious do so out of a sense of tribalism - and use their considerable intellects to try and pick holes in the scientific arguments against God. Yes, we know science is fallible - but are you honestly saying a book written thousands of years ago is more reliable as proof of god's existence? There might be a slight possibility that A god could MAYBE exist (although it's not likely). But the Abrahamic God? A personal God?
The answer is NO.

I'm leaving it there, I reckon - Atheists will stay Atheists, God-botherers will stay God-botherers (JOKE!). This argument will just run and run, and to be honest I have to read enough essays as it is!

Relapse wrote:
He actually called Jesus "Hobbit-sized"? I ask because I want to know if you are para phrasing here. In any event, it says volumes about the power of his ministry to have created an enduring system of belief world wide that has survived millenia of persecution. Especially if the description of him is true, because people were definitely not drawn to him by his looks.
This could also explain why some of his closest followers didn't recognize him after his ressurection. He appeared to them in his perfected form.

Ask... and you shall most definitely receive... an... INTERNET UPPER(0)_(o)CUT HADUKEN STRIKE/FALCON PUNCH!!!



At this point... I think the thread is officially mine... pay your homage on the way out, thank you very much. I also like blueberries and stuff, so if anyone knows how to make pancakes... by all means, please do. Chocolate chips too.

Albatross wrote:None of this proves or disproves the existence of God.

The burden of proof is on the believer, the person who tells you to live your life and behave in a certain way based on the rules and laws set out in a book of 'fables and parables' that apparently weren't meant to be taken literally.
Atheism does not mean you deny God - that would require a faith position - it just means you don't worship that for which there is not a single shred of evidence.

I have a feeling that the more intelligent of the posters here who still consider themselves religious do so out of a sense of tribalism - and use their considerable intellects to try and pick holes in the scientific arguments against God. Yes, we know science is fallible - but are you honestly saying a book written thousands of years ago is more reliable as proof of god's existence? There might be a slight possibility that A god could MAYBE exist (although it's not likely). But the Abrahamic God? A personal God?
The answer is NO.

I'm leaving it there, I reckon - Atheists will stay Atheists, God-botherers will stay God-botherers (JOKE!). This argument will just run and run, and to be honest I have to read enough essays as it is!

The thing is, God didn't just leave it at a series of books written thousands of years ago.

@Wrex: ...This thread is SO locked.

@Albatross: I believe you just described an agnostic. Anyhow I find it funny how you say there is no evidence either way, but then you say that science is 'better-er'. I don't understand how you're coming to the conclusion that the existence of A God is unlikely. How is it much more likely that the Universe was created by accident out of nothing?

Also, when it comes to the Abrahamic God, that could easily just be THAT cultures experience with this 'God creature'. What I'm trying to say is, the possibility of a
'personal god' is quite unlikely compared to a 'god of all'.

I'm of a mind that in a lack of evidence, it is safest to assume something does not exist. Hence I'm not the most Religious person you will ever meet.

However, I do believe I can sum up the efforts of every single religion into five little words....

'Be Excellent To Each Other'.

'Nuff said in my book.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I'm of a mind that in a lack of evidence, it is safest to assume something does not exist. Hence I'm not the most Religious person you will ever meet.

However, no one can agree as to what is "evidence."

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:However, I do believe I can sum up the efforts of every single religion into five little words....

'Be Excellent To Each Other'.

'Nuff said in my book.

Absolutely

Cairnius wrote:

If you mean "the Abrahamic God," then most certainly it does not exist. We can trace the development of the concept quite plainly through a study of antiquity. We could point to where the concept of the Jewish "God" came into play on a timeline. Prior to that point, there was no "God," there were "Gods." The pantheons of the Near East all very plainly evolved from the Sumerian pantheon. The names changed, but what the Gods stood for, how they were described in mythology, it flows from one civilization to another. It's no different than the relationship between the Greek and Roman pantheons which most nerds have some passing familiarity with.

That's some really backwards thinking there.

If you mean 'gravity' then it certainly does not exist. We can trace the development of the concept quite plainly...

If you mean 'relativity' then it certainly does not exist. We can trace the development of the concept quite plainly...

If you mean 'human rights' then they certainly do not exist. We can trace the development of the concept quite plainly...

The Abrahamic religions all agree that we have learned more about God over the centuries from different prophets. God always existed, always will, but we have learned more over time.

Now this does raise the problems about the poor sods who died too soon but there are work arounds for that. DO I remember right that Jesus spend several days in Hell and or Limbo liberating the righteous souls born before he came? Sorry I'm a bit rusty on that, and I think it came later not in the Bible...




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ketara wrote:Rather than talking about the Abrahamic God and the like, a nice phrase I came across in Philosophy once was the 'God of classical theism'. It refers to the idea of a omnipotent, omniscient God that is shared between all the major religions.

I think the Hindus might be upset with that idea.

And if there is one God shared among major faiths he's a darn two faced liar!

I return to a simple question I posed early on, what may I have for lunch today?

Meat?
Pork?
Beer?
Cheeseburger?

And that's a simple one, and yeah a lot of these are later add-ons by humans not necessarily the word of God but that's just my simple example. For more complex once think about war, abortion, necessity of rites, premarital sex, homosexual sex etc, etc...

Sure there's a general 'be a good person' vibe but major faiths and even sects with in faiths have fundimental differences in how they define being a good person and where the red lines are that make you a bad person.

That's why I can never get on the unitarian bandwagon.

The Abrahamic God is nonsense. I'm an agnostic. We can't know anything about the metaphysical, but the Abrahamic God is certainly nonsense.

All hail the might Dawkins, or perhaps the less-mighty Hitchens.

Emperors Faithful wrote:@Wrex: ...This thread is SO locked.

Does midget-Jesus not please you? I thought this picture was... well... made of pure win? As in the refined type that you can only find after years of searching in the jungle... while being hunted by cannibals, but fighting them off with a whip... then finding that sexy lady, and having a nice "rest"... followed by an epic ending, filled with dinosaurs and lasers... oh, and that thing that you were looking for... the pure win, that is it.

A religion thread 5 pages and growing? Well i am just shocked.

Ahtman wrote:

A religion thread 5 pages and growing? Well i am just shocked.

That's because I am doing my best to stay out!

You guys should look up thunderf00t on youtube. not always accurate, but a good debater none the less

Quite a funny clip, I am sure at one point or another many have had this experience in some way .

Kid_Kyoto wrote:[Now this does raise the problems about the poor sods who died too soon but there are work arounds for that. DO I remember right that Jesus spend several days in Hell and or Limbo liberating the righteous souls born before he came? Sorry I'm a bit rusty on that, and I think it came later not in the Bible...

You have somewhat of an idea of what Mormons think on the question of people that died without knowing of God or children that died without baptism, so I won't go into that in great detail here.
In Luke 23:43, Jesus told one of the thieves being crucified with him that on that day, he would be with him in Paradise, however, in John 20:17, after his ressurection, he says touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to my father.
It is an LDS belief that he was continuing his ministry on the other side of the veil.

Here is an interesting clip with Thunderf00t, interesting guy, and he caught me off guard with his delivery (style really, and a good amount of it) on more than one occasion.
The whole interview/debate is rather good, but it is quite long. Worth the watch I would say.

Wrexasaur wrote:Here is an interesting clip with Thunderf00t, interesting guy, and he caught me off guard with his delivery (style really, and a good amount of it) on more than one occasion.
The whole interview/debate is rather good, but it is quite long. Worth the watch I would say.

its kinda like watching a college professor lecture a 4 year old who believes in fairy tales...

when it comes down to it... here is the flowcharts that kinda show what their arguments are based on...