|
|
|
| The anti-christmascard |
|
gnolam
Member #2,030
March 2002
 |
Kikaru: step away from the Chick Tracts and come out with your hands over your head. Quote: so tell me.. What is foolish about witchcraft? and why With most major religions, you at least have some kind of "wisdom of the ages" excuse to fall back upon - not so with "witchraft" or wicca. -- |
|
LennyLen
Member #5,313
December 2004
 |
Quote: With most major religions, you at least have some kind of "wisdom of the ages" excuse to fall back upon - not so with "witchraft" or wicca. That's not entirely true. Wicca as it's taught today may be a relatively new thing, but it's based on religions that are thousands of years old, and can share their wisdom as well. And lets face it, modern christianity differs from ancient christianity quite signigifcantly as well.
|
|
Kibiz0r
Member #6,203
September 2005
 |
Scientology doesn't have any of that wisdom stuff. It's just for Star Wars fans. "omg thetan count? im ttly in!" --- |
|
Kikaru
Member #7,616
August 2006
 |
At this point, I take offense. A few things: Jesus was born (roughly) on October 3, so December 25 has nothing to do with it. At this point, I will say this much: The New Testament is most likely the most historically accurate collection known to man, next to the Old Testament. I would suggest you read the New Testament through, with no outside biases. It could be very educational. |
|
gnolam
Member #2,030
March 2002
|
Quote: That's not entirely true. Wicca as it's taught today may be a relatively new thing, but it's based on religions that are thousands of years old, and can share their wisdom as well.
Yeah. "Based on" as in "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre is based on a true story". You take something with a grain of truth in it (e.g. Ed Gein) as inspiration and then you simply make shit up. Quote: At this point, I will say this much: The New Testament is most likely the most historically accurate collection known to man, next to the Old Testament.
Didn't I tell you to step away from the Chick Tracts..? -- |
|
Kikaru
Member #7,616
August 2006
|
This is not a point for sarcasm or humor, I take this as a very serious insult to myself and my God. This is quite frankly unacceptable. |
|
X-G
Member #856
December 2000
 |
Quote: The New Testament is most likely the most historically accurate collection known to man, next to the Old Testament.
The events in the bible are neither factual, nor historically accurate; hell, even for a book written a few hundred years after the events it's supposed to have chronicled, it does a pretty crappy job when you get down to the relevant details. And let's not get started on the old testament, which has very little grounding in reality to begin with... Put down the Chick Tract and get down to Earth with the rest of us. You'll like it here. EDIT: Oh! I almost forgot! I just have to revive this old classic, while on the topic: http://olympus.olf.sgsnet.se:9660/cthulhutract.gif SUPER-EDIT: There's no flamewar; just a debate on the historical veracity of a set of documents. For reference, the earliest known copies of the gospels are from the 4th century; earlier than that, we just have fragments. Even being generous, most estimates as to the age of the gospels range in the 60-110 CE ranges, long after the events they are supposed to be relating. (For further context, also consider that the average lifespan was much shorter back then; some 30-40 years at most. The gospel according to John was written in 90-110 CE, meaning he can't even have been born by the time of Iesus ben Yosef's death, and the earliest - Mark - is from around 60-70 CE, meaning that if he had a generous lifespan of 40 years, he would have been no older than 10 at the time of his death.) -- |
|
Kikaru
Member #7,616
August 2006
|
I take this as a very serious offense. You don't seem to have enough intelligence to investigate for yourself, as all that I have seen has been simple myth that tries to disprove the Bible. (I hold no lasting grudges against anyone on this forum) The old testament was copied word by word and letter by letter. If anything did not match, the scribe who did it would most likely be killed. They even had the spacing between letter and lines to be the same! The New Testament was written not 15 years after Jesus' death, which meant that people who had seen him were still alive. This meant that it was not long enough for legend to entirely replace truth. End of argument! |
|
Dennis
Member #1,090
July 2003
 |
Amen. If I was a moderator, I'd end this unholy flamewar immediately. --- 0xDB | @dennisbusch_de --- |
|
Johan Halmén
Member #1,550
September 2001
|
IIRC, Matthew's, Mark's and Luke's Gospels were written about 60 AD and John's Gospel about 90 AD. And one of them had at least two authors. And the New Testament was edited (i.e. put together) some 300 years later. Lots of books were left out. It is very obvious that the books left out would have told us a bit different story. Some may think this would mean that the Bible gives us a false and biased story. But any biasing here actually has to do with religion and faith itself. The events in the 4th century were very crucial for the whole Christianity and what we call today Christian belief relies heavily on the "biasing" where the "right" books were chosen and the "wrong" books were left out. The "wrong" books may be loaded with historically interesting things, but they are not important for the Christian belief itself. The left out Gospels may tell stories about Jesus from Nazareth as a mean little kid using his super power to bug other kids. And about a 30 year old man, who actually tried to become the king of a unified Jewish people. Not to mention Maria from Magdala, who obviously played an important part in the life of the strange man from Nazareth. The New Testament might not be historically very accurate, but Christians believe the editors did a good job anyhow. History as a scientific discipline has its written laws, but religion is belief and simply is not science. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Years of thorough research have revealed that what people find beautiful about the Mandelbrot set is not the set itself, but all the rest. |
|
Kikaru
Member #7,616
August 2006
|
DIDN'T SOMEBODY SAY THIS WAS AN "UNHOLY FLAME WAR"!?!? THEN WHY HASN'T IT STOPPED YET!?! |
|
Johan Halmén
Member #1,550
September 2001
|
It's probably not unholy enough. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Years of thorough research have revealed that what people find beautiful about the Mandelbrot set is not the set itself, but all the rest. |
|
LennyLen
Member #5,313
December 2004
|
Quote: THEN WHY HASN'T IT STOPPED YET!?! Because you keep replying.
|
|
Kikaru
Member #7,616
August 2006
|
Just PLEASE stop talking about it? It's really taxing on my nerves. I have too much stress already. Please... |
|
LennyLen
Member #5,313
December 2004
|
Quote: Just PLEASE stop talking about it? Just hit the "Hide Thread" button, if you can't handle reading a few words.
|
|
23yrold3yrold
Member #1,134
March 2001
 |
Learn to accept other people's point of view. I mean, geez, I'm a Sunday school teacher; if anyone around here should be taking offense, it's me. -- |
|
Kikaru
Member #7,616
August 2006
|
I know, I'm just a little irritable right now... |
|
Kibiz0r
Member #6,203
September 2005
|
Why does the historical context of the books matter? We don't debate over the time of writing of The Iliad... Of course, nobody took The Iliad and made it into a belief system. --- |
|
Kikaru
Member #7,616
August 2006
|
Could we please not talk about this anymore? Couldn't we get back to the "topic?" Please? |
|
Johan Halmén
Member #1,550
September 2001
|
Ok! 7. Delay your personal Christmas by two weeks and save 50 %. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Years of thorough research have revealed that what people find beautiful about the Mandelbrot set is not the set itself, but all the rest. |
|
gnolam
Member #2,030
March 2002
|
Kibiz0r said: Why does the historical context of the books matter? Because of this statement: Kikaru said: The New Testament is most likely the most historically accurate collection known to man, next to the Old Testament.
And yes, there is still a "hide thread" button... Somewhat on topic: -- |
|
Ariesnl
Member #2,902
November 2002
 |
Quote:
Yeah. "Based on" as in "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre is based on a true story". You take something with a grain of truth in it (e.g. Ed Gein) as inspiration and then you simply make shit up.
Witchcraft is not a "revival" religion. It'a a way of "knowing" how the world fits together and works. Tell me what's the smarter way: ...And ALL other revival religions you know about... If you truely want to know what witchcraft is, read a good book about it. @ 23yrold3yrold Perhaps one day we will find that the human factor is more complicated than space and time (Jean luc Picard) |
|
Andrei Ellman
Member #3,434
April 2003
|
My thread! My lovely thread! What have you done to it!!! X-G said: (For further context, also consider that the average lifespan was much shorter back then; some 30-40 years at most. The gospel according to John was written in 90-110 CE, meaning he can't even have been born by the time of Iesus ben Yosef's death, and the earliest - Mark - is from around 60-70 CE, meaning that if he had a generous lifespan of 40 years, he would have been no older than 10 at the time of his death.) I always thought that average lifespan meant average expected age at birth. Due to the high infant mortality in those days, it meant that in order to bring the average age back up, several people lived well beyond 40, and I wouldn't be suprised if it was not uncommon for some people to live until their 70's. AE. -- |
|
Ariesnl
Member #2,902
November 2002
|
True.. And it depended on where you lived also. for some reason people in colder area's had a bigger life expectency Perhaps one day we will find that the human factor is more complicated than space and time (Jean luc Picard) |
|
23yrold3yrold
Member #1,134
March 2001
|
Quote:
@ 23yrold3yrold
Did I say you did? Was I even talking to you? -- |
|
|
|
