Reply to Re: Monarchs and Popes are stupid.
If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
They are. So why aren't you doing so, if you are so keen to argue with me? I have better things to do than look up tons of exact quotes from all these texts to satisfy your beliefs.
Because you're the one making a claim! You're claiming that "The bible says A", while I'm merely saying "Does it really say A? I don't quite believe you." You have the burden to provide proof.
In the mock example that "Jesus is a dog", are you the one who needs to DISPROVE that claim? Of course not, I'm the one who should cite a source that supports the claim, and if I don't, you can feel free to just laugh at me and call me a fool.
In that particular example, it would actually be possible to disprove the claim - I'm pretty sure the bible explicitly states that Jesus is human. However, what if I made a more ambiguous claim? For example, that "Jesus had a big red birthmark on his butt." There's no way for you to disprove that claim, because no part of the bible (hopefully no apocrypha either) goes into detail about Jesus's butt. You can't deny that I might be right. But there's no reason for you to take that claim seriously, either, you can just say "Where's your proof? I don't believe you." If I then don't provide proof, you again just laugh at me and call me a fool.
"And lo and behold, a big red splotch graceth the rear cheeks of our lord and saviour, and from every day henceforth til the end of days, I give you this sign: the lord's visage shall manifest in the butts of dogs from Judea to Megiddon, as a sign of our covenant."
Err, I kind of lost track of whatever argument I was in the middle of making while 'quoting' that. Umm, let's see:
But just for your joy, I looked it up on Google, just to see which one would pop up first and one of the first that did is from The Second Treatise of the Great Seth (yeah, probably didn't know RTSoft was around back then.
), which I'd suggest you read, btw.
I'm really glad you did, because now the discussion can actually move forward, rather than just being a series of dubious claims being thrown back and forth over and over again.
Anyway, the quote from Jesus goes:
"I did not succumb to them as they had planned. But I was not afflicted at all. Those who were there punished me. But I did not die in reality but in appearance, lest I be put to shame by them... I was rejoicing in the height over all the wealth of the archons and the offspring of their error, of their empty glory, and I was laughing at their ignorance."
I read 'The Second Treatise of the Great Seth', and it was pretty interesting. I'll say this, though: It reads like the kind of thing written by some sort of secret society, purposefully challenging and blasphemous towards the canonical dogma. I really doubt this text was even on the cutting board at all when they were voting on what texts to include in the bible, for example. Instead, it feels like third party fan fiction (like the Extended Universe of Star Wars).
Something with slightly less tenuous connections to the bible, are things that are actually referenced to in the bible: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-canonical_books_referenced_in_the_Bible (Most of which I haven't read myself. Ugh, just getting through the bible was grueling enough.)
Some say that another died in Jesus' place (this person varies a LOT) and some state that it was Jesus on the cross but he didn't die. I believe in the latter one, personally, because there's something strange about the whole death thing itself. In the Bible, after Jesus dies, a lot of people (including Pontius Pilatus) are surprised at how unbelieveably fast Jesus had died. Which would go to suggest that he didn't die, but went into some state unconsciousness and faked his death. What also suggests it was Jesus on the cross, is when Jesus appears later and tells his disciples to touch his injuries, which were from the torture he suffered. Throw in the fact that we all know it's not possible to return from the dead, at least by the technology of those times, it all points to the theory that Jesus didn't die on the cross.
Umm, okay. It sounds to me like you're now treating Jesus, and his crucifixion, as real things that actually existed in history. Neither of which are confirmed at all (I think you said as much earlier), as almost all references to those events come from the religious stories themselves, rather than any credible historical records. Personally, I think the canonical account (that he died and was resurrected) makes for a better story. =)
The other quote about a higher power God doesn't know.
Yeah, I googled The Gospel of Judas, and it does say something to that effect. It seems like this dude, Saklas, corresponds to the god featured in the old testament. Again, though, this text reads more like a second century conspiracy theory, than something on the same level as the books that made it into the bible, but was left out.
Because you're the one making a claim! You're claiming that "The bible says A", while I'm merely saying "Does it really say A? I don't quite believe you." You have the burden to provide proof.
In the mock example that "Jesus is a dog", are you the one who needs to DISPROVE that claim? Of course not, I'm the one who should cite a source that supports the claim, and if I don't, you can feel free to just laugh at me and call me a fool.
In that particular example, it would actually be possible to disprove the claim - I'm pretty sure the bible explicitly states that Jesus is human. However, what if I made a more ambiguous claim? For example, that "Jesus had a big red birthmark on his butt." There's no way for you to disprove that claim, because no part of the bible (hopefully no apocrypha either) goes into detail about Jesus's butt. You can't deny that I might be right. But there's no reason for you to take that claim seriously, either, you can just say "Where's your proof? I don't believe you." If I then don't provide proof, you again just laugh at me and call me a fool.
"And lo and behold, a big red splotch graceth the rear cheeks of our lord and saviour, and from every day henceforth til the end of days, I give you this sign: the lord's visage shall manifest in the butts of dogs from Judea to Megiddon, as a sign of our covenant."
Err, I kind of lost track of whatever argument I was in the middle of making while 'quoting' that. Umm, let's see:
But just for your joy, I looked it up on Google, just to see which one would pop up first and one of the first that did is from The Second Treatise of the Great Seth (yeah, probably didn't know RTSoft was around back then.
), which I'd suggest you read, btw.I'm really glad you did, because now the discussion can actually move forward, rather than just being a series of dubious claims being thrown back and forth over and over again.
Anyway, the quote from Jesus goes:
"I did not succumb to them as they had planned. But I was not afflicted at all. Those who were there punished me. But I did not die in reality but in appearance, lest I be put to shame by them... I was rejoicing in the height over all the wealth of the archons and the offspring of their error, of their empty glory, and I was laughing at their ignorance."
I read 'The Second Treatise of the Great Seth', and it was pretty interesting. I'll say this, though: It reads like the kind of thing written by some sort of secret society, purposefully challenging and blasphemous towards the canonical dogma. I really doubt this text was even on the cutting board at all when they were voting on what texts to include in the bible, for example. Instead, it feels like third party fan fiction (like the Extended Universe of Star Wars).
Something with slightly less tenuous connections to the bible, are things that are actually referenced to in the bible: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-canonical_books_referenced_in_the_Bible (Most of which I haven't read myself. Ugh, just getting through the bible was grueling enough.)
Some say that another died in Jesus' place (this person varies a LOT) and some state that it was Jesus on the cross but he didn't die. I believe in the latter one, personally, because there's something strange about the whole death thing itself. In the Bible, after Jesus dies, a lot of people (including Pontius Pilatus) are surprised at how unbelieveably fast Jesus had died. Which would go to suggest that he didn't die, but went into some state unconsciousness and faked his death. What also suggests it was Jesus on the cross, is when Jesus appears later and tells his disciples to touch his injuries, which were from the torture he suffered. Throw in the fact that we all know it's not possible to return from the dead, at least by the technology of those times, it all points to the theory that Jesus didn't die on the cross.
Umm, okay. It sounds to me like you're now treating Jesus, and his crucifixion, as real things that actually existed in history. Neither of which are confirmed at all (I think you said as much earlier), as almost all references to those events come from the religious stories themselves, rather than any credible historical records. Personally, I think the canonical account (that he died and was resurrected) makes for a better story. =)
The other quote about a higher power God doesn't know.
Yeah, I googled The Gospel of Judas, and it does say something to that effect. It seems like this dude, Saklas, corresponds to the god featured in the old testament. Again, though, this text reads more like a second century conspiracy theory, than something on the same level as the books that made it into the bible, but was left out.
