matthew wrote:Is a first hand account of an event necessarily the most valid?
You are incredible.
Steve Albini seems to be weaseling on me.
31You are incredible.
"Why stop now, just when I'm hating it?" - Marvin
You are incredible.
Steve Albini seems to be weaseling on me.
32matthew wrote:Is a first hand account of an event necessarily the most valid?
actually, yeah. at least you admit that the bible is not a first hand account.
that's why they have witnesses in court.
that's why people perform scientific experiments and write stuff down and test it over and over to make sure they've got it right.
that's why when you tell your friends a story about what happened to you the other day, and then they try to tell it to someone else, they fuck it all up, and never tell it right.
centuries of playing 'telephone' and losing meaning through translation do not provide for 'evidence'.
Furthermore, much of the gospel was recalled from seeing Christ do and say the things he did. Three of the four Evangelists were guys who walked with Jesus. So you're wrong yet again Gramsci.
Matthew, Mark and Luke were written in the 0060's, which would be roughly 27 years after Jesus' death.
John, which you've misquoted a few times already, was written in the late 0080's to early 0090's, which would be about sixty years after jesus' death, and therefore even more susceptible to fuzzy memory than the other three.
kerble is right.
Steve Albini seems to be weaseling on me.
33Gramsci wrote:the alleged existence of this Christ.
I'm sorry but Jesus is a real man who actually existed and was a certain "Chrestus" mentioned in Roman annals, executed under Pontius Pilate. If nothing else Gramsci, you have to at least concede that there was a Jesus of Nazareth.
Steve Albini seems to be weaseling on me.
34sunlore wrote:Was it Nietzsche who said that catholicism is a religion for chimney sweepers?
No, that was me.
It’s an awful religion. The idea that you are “born bad” and need to be redeemed by having to accept a bunch of supernatural clap-trap or you go to an eternal life of suffering is just vile concept.
For all the “love” element of Christianity and co. the idea of a hell condemns them all to sadistic perversions.
Steve Albini seems to be weaseling on me.
35Matthew, and I don't mean to be personal in this, but it seem as though you characterize yourself as a rebel, particulary in regard to how you see the organized Catholic church. You like to pour cold water on the idea that priests somehow mediate between yourself and God. Frankly, I find this outlook much more akin to Protestantism. I strongly feel that you wouldn't get yourself into such tangle with your faith positions if you were Protestant?
I think I have gathered this much from reading your posts.
I think I have gathered this much from reading your posts.
Last edited by Cranius_Archive on Fri Feb 24, 2006 5:11 am, edited 2 times in total.
Steve Albini seems to be weaseling on me.
36[runs and high fives, in succession: Cranius, Gramsci, Chapter Two, Sunlore, Nico Adie/Slaps matthew in the head]
kerble is right.
Steve Albini seems to be weaseling on me.
37matthew wrote:Gramsci wrote:the alleged existence of this Christ.
I'm sorry but Jesus is a real man who actually existed and was a certain "Chrestus" mentioned in Roman annals, executed under Pontius Pilate. If nothing else Gramsci, you have to at least concede that there was a Jesus of Nazareth.
No. He was caesar. Jules, that is.
Last edited by sunlore_Archive on Fri Feb 24, 2006 5:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
Steve Albini seems to be weaseling on me.
38William Burroughs wrote:Do not offer sympathy to the mentally ill.
Tell them firmly:
I AM NOT BEING PAID TO LISTEN TO THIS DRIVEL.
YOU ARE A TERMINAL FOOL!
Steve Albini seems to be weaseling on me.
39How can we then trust any source as valid then? Almost all narratives are at least second hand. Stories are passed down generation after generation, person to person to person etc. How shall we know who to believe. Who can we trust for a true account?
Steve Albini seems to be weaseling on me.
40matthew wrote:Gramsci wrote:the alleged existence of this Christ.
I'm sorry but Jesus is a real man who actually existed and was a certain "Chrestus" mentioned in Roman annals, executed under Pontius Pilate. If nothing else Gramsci, you have to at least concede that there was a Jesus of Nazareth.
Jesus' name in Aramaic was Jehoshua, or Joshua. There was already another Joshua in the texts, so they changed Joshua's name to Jesua or Jesus. Jesus was a collection of stories grouped together as a symbol of piety and grace.
kerble is right.