|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
 Posted - 11/29/2002 : 14:11:21 [Permalink]
|
Indices?! That's an unusual word for someone with such a poor vocabulary to use.
The reason we don't supply experts is not that there aren't any (I could list the entire history dept of Berkeley) but because that is what is called "Argument from Authority." It is completely worthless in debating any subject.
The NT isn't evidence. It's from the wrong place and the wrong time. There are also all the many volumes of the NT that have been edited out which contradict the remaining volumes. Not to mention it's an obvious work of fiction. |
-------
I learned something ... I learned that Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate Halloween. I guess they don't like strangers going up to their door and annoying them.
-Bruce Clark
There's No Toilet Paper...on the Road Less Traveled |
 |
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2002 : 07:27:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Tokyodreamer Posted - 11/29/2002 : 08:24:51
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by darwin alogos
...there are numerous corroborating indices both within the documents and with out surrounding the same time period supporting his existence and their trustworthiness.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is simply not true.
    What can I say against an ARGUMENT such as TD's?????? |
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2002 : 07:51:32 [Permalink]
|
SLATER: quote:
The reason we don't supply experts is not that there aren't any (I could list the entire history dept of Berkeley) but because that is what is called "Argument from Authority." It is completely worthless in debating any subject.
This is even worse than TD"S,at least all he did was express an opinion,you slander "the entire history dept of Berkeley" and misuse the "Fallacy from Authority";which really means "to quote one authority (in a field where they are experts) in an area where they have no expertise".Like Joe Montana selling me BIG SCREEN TVS,now if he had a book telling me how to play against 'cover two' defense or how to throw a perfect spiral it would be legit,but not 100'in TVS. |
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
| Edited by - darwin alogos on 11/30/2002 08:24:53 |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2002 : 08:21:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
SLATER STATES:The NT isn't evidence. It's from the wrong place and the wrong time. There are also all the many volumes of the NT that have been edited out which contradict the remaining volumes. Not to mention it's an obvious work of fiction
However the world of scholarship disagrees!!!!!!!!!!! quote:
The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which noone dreams of questioning.And if the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt. It is a curious fact that historians have often been much readier to trust the New Testament records than have many theologians. Somehow or other, there are people who regard a 'sacred book' as ipso facto under suspicion, and demand much more corroborative evidence for such a work than they would for an ordinary secular or pagan writing From the viewpoint of the historian, the same standards must be applied to both. But we do not quarrel with those who want more evidence for the New Testament than for other writings; firstly, because the universal claims which the New Testament makes upon mankind are so absolute, and the character and works of its chief Figure so unparalleled, that we want to be as sure of its truth as we possibly can; and secondly, because in point of fact there is much more evidence for the New Testament than for other ancient writings of comparable date.
There are in existence about 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament in whole or in part. The best and most important of these go back to somewhere about AD 350, the two most important being the Codex Vaticanus, the chief treasure of the Vatican Library in Rome, and the wellknown Codex Sinaiticus, which the British Government purchased from the Soviet Government for £100,000 on Christmas Day, 1933, and which is now the chief treasure of the British Museum. Two other important early MSS in this country are the Codex Alexandrinus, also in the British Museum, written in the fifth century, and the Codex Bezae:, in Cambridge University Library, written in the fifth or sixth century, and containing the Gospels and Acts in both Greek and Latin.
Perhaps we can appreciate how wealthy the New Testament is in manuscript attestation if we compare the textual material for other ancient historical works. For Caesar's Gallic War (composed between 58 and 50 BC) there are several extant MSS, but only nine or ten are good, and the oldest is some goo years later than Caesar's day. Of the 142 books of the Roman History of Livy (59 BC-AD 17) only thirty five survive; these are known to us from not more than twenty MSS of any consequence, only one of which, and that containing fragments of Books iii-vi, is as old as the fourth century. Of the fourteen books of the Histories of Tacitus (c. AD 100) only four and a half survive; of the sixteen books of his Annals, ten survive in full and two in part. The text of these extant portions of has two great historical works depends entirely on two MSS, one of the ninth century and one of the eleventh. The extant MSS of his minor works (Dialogue dc Oratoribus, Agricola, Gcrmania) all descend from a codex of the tenth century The History of Thucydides (c. 460-400 BC) is known to us from eight MSS, the earliest belonging to c. AD 900, and a few papyrus scraps, belonging to about the beginning of the Christian era The same is true of the History of Herodotus (c. 488-428 BC). Yet no classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest MSS of their works which are of any use to us are over 1,300 years later than the originals.
But how different is the situation of the New Testament in this respect! In addition to the two excellent MSS of the fourth century mentioned above, which are the earliest of some thousands known to us, considerable fragments remain of papyrus copies of books of the New Testament dated from 100 to 200 years earlier still. The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri, the existence of which was made public in 1931, consist of portions of eleven papyrus codices, three of which contained most of the New Testament writings. One of these, containing the four Gospels with Acts, belongs to the first half of the third century; another, containing Paul's letters to churches and the Epistle to the Hebrews, was copied at the beginning of the third century; the third, containing Revelation, belongs to the second half of the same century.
A more recent discovery consists of some papyrus fragments dated by papyrological experts not later than AD 150, published in Fragments of an Unknown Gospel and other Early Christian Papyri, by H. I. Bell and T. C. Skeat (1935). These fragments contain what has been thought by some to be portions of a fifth Gospel having strong affinities with the canonical four; but much more probable is the view expressed in The Times Literary Supplement for 25 April 1935, 'that these fragments were written by someone who had the four Gospels before him and knew them well; that they did not profess to be an independent Gospel; but were paraphrases of the stories and other matter in the Gospels designed for explanation and instruction, a manual to teach people the Gospel stories'. Earlier still is a fragment of a papyrus codex containing John xviii. 31-33, 37 f, now in the John Rylands Library, Manchester, dated on palaeographical grounds around AD 130, showing that the latest of the four Gospels, which was written, according to tradition, at Ephesus between AD 90 and 100, was circulating in Egypt within about forty years of its composition (if, as is most likely, this papyrus originated in Egypt, where it was acquired in 1917). It must be regarded as being, by half a century, the earliest extant fragment of the New Testament.
A more recently discovered papyrus manuscript of the same Gospel, while not so early as the Rylands papyrus, is incomparably better preserved; this is the Papyrus Bodmer II, whose discovery was announced by the Bodmer Library of Geneva in 1956; it was written about AD 200, and contains the first fourteen chapters of the Gospel of John with but one lacuna (of twenty two verses), and considerable portions of the last seven chapters.'
Attestation of another kind is provided by allusions to and quotations from the New Testament books in other early writings. The authors known as the Apostolic Fathers wrote chiefly between AD 90 and 160, and in their works we find evidence for their acquaintance with most of the books of the New Testament. In three works whose date is probably round about AD100-the 'Epistle of Barnabas', written perhaps in Alexandria; the Didache, or 'Teaching of the Twelve Apostles', produced somewhere in Syria or Palestine; and the letter sent to the Corinthian church by Clement, bishop of Rome, about AD 96-- find fairly certain quotations from the common tradition of the Synoptic Gospels, from Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Titus, Hebrews, 1 Peter, and possible quotations from other books of the New Testament. In the letters written by Ignatius, bishop of .Antioch, as he journeyed to his martyrdom in Rome in AD 115, there are reasonably identifiable quotations from Matthew, Joh |
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
| Edited by - darwin alogos on 11/30/2002 08:28:04 |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2002 : 08:58:44 [Permalink]
|
OVERKILL The information I'm about to give is about an early Christian heretic.The reason I give this to you is to hope to jog the logical thought processes which have fallen under the spell Slater's massive [i]conspiracy[i]origins ofthe NT. Note the time he was alive and when taught his heresy,and that he ALREADY HAD A COPY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT WHICH HE EDITED.That means logically the NT is inexistence prior to Slater's 325 Grand Conspiracy.Please think for yourselves,don't drink the koolaid! Marcion
Related: Roman Catholic Biographies
(mär´shen, mär´seen) , , early Christian bishop, founder of the Marcionites, one of the first great Christian heresies to rival Catholic Christianity. He was born in Sinope. He taught in Asia Minor, then went (c.135) to Rome, where he perfected his theory. In 144 he was excommunicated from the church. He then formed a church of his own, which became widespread and powerful. Marcion taught that there were two gods, proclaiming that the stern, lawgiving, creator God of the Old Testament, and the good, merciful God of the New Testament were different. He considered the creator god the inferior of the two. Marcion also rejected the real incarnation of Christ, claiming that he was a manifestation of the Father. Though generally seen as one of the most important leaders of the somewhat loosely defined movement known as Gnosticism, he did not share some of the main premises of other Gnostic sects. He believed in salvation by faith rather than by gnosis; he rejected the Gnostic emanation theory; and he sought truth in his own truncated version of the New Testament, which included only 10 of the so-called Pauline Epistles and an edited version of St. Luke. He completely rejected the Old Testament. He explained in his Antitheses that since Jewish law was often opposed to St. Paul, all passages in the Bible that suggested the Jewish foundation of Christianity should be suppressed, even including such statements by St. Paul (see antinomianism ). Marcionism emphasized asceticism and influenced the developments of Manichaeism , by which it was later absorbed. Its effect on orthodox Christianity was to cause a canonical New Testament to be assembled and promulgated and the fulfillment of the Old Law in the New Law to be clearly enounced.
Note also what he edited was the Jewish roots in the NT,hmmmm?
|
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
| Edited by - darwin alogos on 11/30/2002 09:02:28 |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2002 : 19:27:00 [Permalink]
|
What can I say against an ARGUMENT such as TD's??????
TD didn't present an argument. He made an observation. He noted that you were lying. You should apologize.
This is even worse than TD"S,at least all he did was express an opinion,you slander "the entire history dept of Berkeley"
It's only slander if it isn't true. It is true, and it is a compliment to them for not falling for the bullshit story of christ.
and misuse the "Fallacy from Authority"
Had I meant, "Fallacy from Authority" I would have said "Fallacy from Authority". Argument from authority means to give a person credence simply for being that person and not because they have the facts.
Now your "authority", F.F.Bruce, is either a scoundrel or a jackass.
Somehow or other, there are people who regard a 'sacred book' as ipso facto under suspicion, and demand much more corroborative evidence for such a work than they would for an ordinary secular or pagan writing From the viewpoint of the historian, the same standards must be applied to both.
What he doesn't tell you is that it is the same standards for both that the NT fails. That No One requires it to have a different set of standards except christians. They have a poorly written story about a superhero and they want you to believe it without proof. By faith alone--HA!
because in point of fact there is much more evidence for the New Testament than for other ancient writings of comparable date.
This is an oft repeated lie, but it is still a lie.
The best and most important of these go back to somewhere about AD 350
That's three hundred and seventeen years after is was supposed to have happened. Is Bruce the Jackass or does he just take his readers to be idiots?
He doesn't note that there are no other Christian artifacts that date from before 325. No art, no churches, no nothing. It's not just bibles, no other church records date from before 325.
also in the British Museum, written in the fifth century…written in the fifth or sixth century, and containing the Gospels and Acts in both Greek and Latin
Now we are 400+ years and 500+ years.
I'm beginning to think that RD over estimates your intelligence.
Something that was made 500 f**king years later is your proof of an historic Jesus???!!!
For Caesar's Gallic War (composed between 58 and 50 BC) there are several extant MSS, but only nine or ten are good, and the oldest is some goo years later than Caesar's day
This is the second time you have reposted this same drivel.
The next time correct where it says GOO years to 900 years.
Yet no classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest MSS of their works which are of any use to us are over 1,300 years later than the originals.
This is a strawman. The copies of the books he is talking about all trace back to authors who were writing of personal experiences. Julius Caesar wrote The Gaelic Wars (he even took the time to look up the spelling, something Bruce didn't). He fought the wars he wrote about.
When Herodotus or Thucydides on rare occasions include the workings of gods in their books WE DISCOUNT THE EXISTENCE OF THESE GODS. You refuse to do the same for this book, and then dare to say you are held to higher standards.
No one claims that the NT was written by anyone who had ever met Jesus. The bible traces back to several generations after the time the action took place-even if you use the dates Christians insist on. It was written in a different century from the action, in a different language than the characters would have spoken and in a different country than where the action is set. The authors (as RD already posted) didn't even know the location of the towns the action happened in.
It is easily proved by experiment that it is difficult to copy out a passage of any considerable length without making one or two dips at least.
An outright lie. A publishing industry existed in the Roman world. Professional scribes made clean and true copies consistently. It was their job.
The interval then between the data of original. composition and the earliest extant evidence become so small to be in fact negligible
Another strawman. The original is a work of fiction. It doesn't matter if the copies are 100% accurate or not, it still remains fiction.
Marcion
You fail to note that everything we have on Marcion dates from after 325 CE. Nothing from his time mentioning his existence has been passed down to us.
|
-------
I learned something ... I learned that Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate Halloween. I guess they don't like strangers going up to their door and annoying them.
-Bruce Clark
There's No Toilet Paper...on the Road Less Traveled |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2002 : 00:11:56 [Permalink]
|
| Don't worry folks Slater drank all the koolaid! |
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2002 : 08:19:04 [Permalink]
|
SLATER WHINES: quote:
Marcion
You fail to note that everything we have on Marcion dates from after 325 CE. Nothing from his time mentioning his existence has been passed down to us.
Please tell us Slater just how it is that you KNOW that, plus even if it were true are you going to take us down that slippery slope of historical paranoia that says "Well if DA comes up with another heretic or church father quoting the NT then they all MUST HAVE been written after 325AD,even if its 10volumes of documents"(ie THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS quote:
His three works are known as the First Apology, the Second Apology, and the Dialogue with Trypho. Irenaeus tells us that Justin Martyr wrote a work against Marcion, which is now lost. Some authentic materials are preserved in the fragments of Justin quoted by other writers, although some of these fragments may be suspect.
Just look at the above quote Irenaeus(who quotes in his writings extensively from the NT to both teach doctrine and refute heresies) makes a casual comment about Justin refuting our poster child Marcion,now all three of these writers lived before Slaters infamous 325AD and all three qoute the NT,but THIS CAN'T BE FOR I THE MAGNIFICENT SLATER DECREE IT SO. However,for those of us who study just the FACTS of history its forms a perfect paper trail about the existence of the NT and the person it describes[Jesus]. |
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
| Edited by - darwin alogos on 12/01/2002 08:23:27 |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2002 : 08:38:10 [Permalink]
|
[quote]Argumentum ad verecundiam (argument or appeal to authority). This fallacy occurs when someone tries to demonstrate the truth of a proposition by citing some person who agrees, even though that person may have no expertise in the given area. For instance, some people like to quote Einstein's opinions about politics (he tended to have fairly left-wing views), as though Einstein were a political philosopher rather than a physicist. Of course, it is not a fallacy at all to rely on authorities whose expertise relates to the question at hand, especially with regard to questions of fact that could not easily be answered by a layman -- for instance, it makes perfect sense to quote Stephen Hawking on the subject of black holes.
[emph. mine]
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html[quote] SLATER: "and misuse the "Fallacy from Authority"
Had I meant, "Fallacy from Authority" I would have said "Fallacy from Authority". Argument from authority means to give a person credence simply for being that person and not because they have the facts.
DA Now of course we know Slater doesn't error he's just so intelligent this fact just sliped his mind. |
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
| Edited by - darwin alogos on 12/01/2002 08:42:46 |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2002 : 08:39:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by darwin alogos
Don't worry folks Slater drank all the koolaid!
Insipid comments such as yours fall far short of rebuttal. Can you suggest something in the NT that you find particularly probative? |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2002 : 09:17:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by darwin alogos
quote:
His three works are known as the First Apology, the Second Apology, and the Dialogue with Trypho. Irenaeus tells us that Justin Martyr wrote a work against Marcion, which is now lost. Some authentic materials are preserved in the fragments of Justin quoted by other writers, although some of these fragments may be suspect.
...,for those of us who study just the FACTS of history its forms a perfect paper trail about the existence of the NT and the person it describes[Jesus].
DA, you are truly an idiot. At the very least read and think about what you write and quote.
You hope to verify Jesus by asserting Marcion. You hope to verify Marcion by asserting Justin. You hope to verify Justin by asserting Irenaeus. So what can be said about your "perfect paper trail" to Irenaeus? The Catholic Encyclopedia notes: "None of these writings have come down to us in the original text, though a great many fragments of them are extant as citations in later writers (Hippolytus, Eusebius, etc.)."
In brief, your "perfect paper trail" sucks. Even were this not the case, all you're left with is a rabid antisemite who knew no one and witnessed nothing.
|
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2002 : 08:00:35 [Permalink]
|
RD Complains: quote:
You hope to verify Jesus by asserting Marcion. You hope to verify Marcion by asserting Justin. You hope to verify Justin by asserting Irenaeus. So what can be said about your "perfect paper trail" to Irenaeus?
First,I wish YOU would just READ carefully and quit trying to create smokescreens. I wasn't trying to "verify Jesus by asserting Marcion ect...",I was merely pointing WHY Historians and Classical Scholars have GREAT CONFIDENCE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT(besides the already mentioned:bibliographic;external;and internal tests ) it has this "paper trail" from both FRIEND AND FOE.This is quite unique in historical research. As far as your other complaint: quote:
"None of these writings have come down to us in the original text, though a great many fragments of them are extant as citations in later writers (Hippolytus, Eusebius, etc.)."
Surely your not pulling a Slater and saying"if we don't the originals we CAN'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED!" If you are you had better read again what I posted about ALL our knowledge of the ancient world(guess what we don't possess ANY ORIGINALS FOR ANYTHING). So unless your content to fall into historical solipsism don't blow a gasket when you read "None of these writings have come down to us ect...". Plus as far as Irenaeus we have corroborating evidence as to his historical reliability. Untill the finding of the Nag Hammadi documents: Nag Hammadinäg hä´mädi, a town in Egypt near the ancient town of Chenoboskion, where, in 1945, a large cache of gnostic texts in the Coptic language was discovered. The Nag Hammadi manuscripts, dating from the 4th cent. AD, include 12 codices of tractates, one loose tractate, and a copy of Plato's Republicmaking (http://www.encyclopedia.com/articles/08940.html).The only source of information we had on The Gnostics was from Irenaus( and guess what his critique and quotes from their writings was meticulously accurate). So what's you beef?
|
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
| Edited by - darwin alogos on 12/02/2002 08:03:48 |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2002 : 09:41:57 [Permalink]
|
Talk about your smokescreens.
"if we don't the originals we CAN'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED!" Who said that? Who said that we didn't have the originals?
Plus as far as Irenaeus we have corroborating evidence as to his historical reliability.
What a meaningless smokescreen of a statement.
Untill the finding of the Nag Hammadi documents…The only source of information we had on The Gnostics was from Irenaus
The Nag Hammadi dates from the 340's CE. The writings of Irenaeus from 325 CE.
The reason that there isn't an historical Jesus is that he left no evidence. Nobody saw him, nobody wrote about him, he left no official records, he has no hometown, he wrote no letters or books…he left no trace. The NT was written in a different country, a different language, and a different time. Even if we use Xian dates of 70 CE--and I defy you to justify that date--an entire lifetime has still passed.
Also you haven't explained, although you've been asked several times, why the Gnostic books are wrong and yours is right?
|
-------
I learned something ... I learned that Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate Halloween. I guess they don't like strangers going up to their door and annoying them.
-Bruce Clark
There's No Toilet Paper...on the Road Less Traveled |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2002 : 10:36:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by darwin alogos
Surely your not pulling a Slater and saying"if we don't the originals we CAN'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED!"
Stop your pathetic little dance and show us this "perfect paper trail".
To repeat: your "perfect paper trail" sucks. Even were this not the case, all you're left with is a rabid antisemite who knew no one and witnessed nothing.
|
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2002 : 11:00:11 [Permalink]
|
This is gettin' good (chaos draws me near  ).
Just for the hell of it, let's assume that the Jesus account contains a certain amount of fact. Let us further assume that Jesus managed to piss the Romans off enough that they gave him an enthusiastic flogging and then crucified him, not an uncommon fate for a public nuisance in those days. Sorry, but I will not assume that he rose from the dead three days later with out much better evidence that the Bible offers. That's either superstitious bullshit or an outright con -- I suspect the latter.
Jesus was a very common name then, much as it is now in Latin America. And I don't doubt that there were a lot of itinerate preachers floating around, some crazier than others. It is, after all, a good way to get a little coin without too much exertion -- beats hell out of carpenter work, anyway. So, how many of those preachers were named, Jesus?
I don't know, either.
The mere premise that a preacher named Jesus got crucified, even verified by ancient documents, is not nearly enough to prove that he was the son of God. Indeed, it has yet to be confirmed that his heavenly father exists, nor that a lady named Mary committed adultry with him.
In short, what we have here is a minor cult beginning with the rabid followers of a single person (you see that idiotcy, even today) that somehow became a major religion where most cults fail. Luck of the draw and some very eloquent speakers, I think.
Hmm. By the way, 90-and some odd percent of the world's population don't think of Jesus as the son of God. Christianity is still a minority among the world's religious populations. I don't know (or much care) what the percentages are.
f |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
