- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Castro Loves Hippie Software
|
|
|
Comments (45)
25 earlier comments in the full thread.
quote:: which is why we see so many religiously-themed "Free Software people are a religious cult!" stories, although the real Jesus would probably be pretty happy about it. ::quote
Assuming, for the sake of the argument, that he actually existed.
Assuming, for the sake of the argument, that he actually existed.
>Assuming, for the sake of the argument, that he actually existed.
Ummmm....
You realize, of course, that the question that Jesus was a historical figure as well as a religious one? For that matter, he is a figure in two major faiths -- Christianity as the Son of God, and Islam as a prophet and teacher.
Ummmm....
You realize, of course, that the question that Jesus was a historical figure as well as a religious one? For that matter, he is a figure in two major faiths -- Christianity as the Son of God, and Islam as a prophet and teacher.
quote:: You realize, of course, that the question that Jesus was a historical figure as well as a religious one? ::quote
I am quite well aware that Jesus is believed to be an historical figure, I am also aware that he is a religious one. I am also aware that there is no historical evidence to support the New Testament, and therefore Christian and Muslim, assertion that he existed.
But for the sake of any argument that contrasts what the majority of Christians believe about Jesus, with the way in which many others, such as the far and rabid right, act and teach, while pretending to uphold those values that the majority of Christians believe are those Jesus held true, I am prepared to pretend that he really was an historical figure.
I am quite well aware that Jesus is believed to be an historical figure, I am also aware that he is a religious one. I am also aware that there is no historical evidence to support the New Testament, and therefore Christian and Muslim, assertion that he existed.
But for the sake of any argument that contrasts what the majority of Christians believe about Jesus, with the way in which many others, such as the far and rabid right, act and teach, while pretending to uphold those values that the majority of Christians believe are those Jesus held true, I am prepared to pretend that he really was an historical figure.
> the question that Jesus was a historical figure
Huh??? never heard that one. Plenty of proof for the existence of Jesus the man, which makes him historical. Roman records if nothing else. It's the 'Christ' part that's a leap of faith.
Huh??? never heard that one. Plenty of proof for the existence of Jesus the man, which makes him historical. Roman records if nothing else. It's the 'Christ' part that's a leap of faith.
quote:: Roman records if nothing else ::quote
There are no Roman records that support the assertion that Jesus existed, no eye witness accounts, no records, and Nazareth wasn't even a village in the first century, let alone major town, with it's own synagogue, as claimed in the NT. There are however plenty of Roman records that provide evidence that there were people who believed he existed. No the same thing. The Josephus accounts are known 3rd or 4th century forgeries. In short there are only the claims made in the NT, the earliest of which are the Pauline accounts which never mention a living person, but instead the Christ or Saviour or redeemer, all titles, or similar to titles, given to the Pagan Saviour Gods like Apollo or Attis or Mithrus. It was only later, after Paul's Epistles that Jesus as a person was fleshed out, first by the writer of the Gospel of Mark, who gave him a life, then by the writers of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, who gave him a birth, and later we are taken full circle back to the disembodied Gnostic/Pagan vision of an eternal Saviour as the word of God, who was there from the beginning, by the writer of the Gospel of John.
There are no Roman records that support the assertion that Jesus existed, no eye witness accounts, no records, and Nazareth wasn't even a village in the first century, let alone major town, with it's own synagogue, as claimed in the NT. There are however plenty of Roman records that provide evidence that there were people who believed he existed. No the same thing. The Josephus accounts are known 3rd or 4th century forgeries. In short there are only the claims made in the NT, the earliest of which are the Pauline accounts which never mention a living person, but instead the Christ or Saviour or redeemer, all titles, or similar to titles, given to the Pagan Saviour Gods like Apollo or Attis or Mithrus. It was only later, after Paul's Epistles that Jesus as a person was fleshed out, first by the writer of the Gospel of Mark, who gave him a life, then by the writers of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, who gave him a birth, and later we are taken full circle back to the disembodied Gnostic/Pagan vision of an eternal Saviour as the word of God, who was there from the beginning, by the writer of the Gospel of John.
> In short there are only the claims made in the NT...
I suppose you're equally skeptical of the existence of Confucius and the Buddha then.
I suppose you're equally skeptical of the existence of Confucius and the Buddha then.
> I suppose you're equally skeptical of the existence of Confucius and the Buddha then.
Not to mention Mohammed. And, actually their were numerous historical Buddha. I suppose the next denial will be Ghandi...
Not to mention Mohammed. And, actually their were numerous historical Buddha. I suppose the next denial will be Ghandi...
quote:; I suppose you're equally skeptical of the existence of Confucius and the Buddha then. ::quote
As far as I can tell Confucius is an historical person who's existence is recorded in secular historical documents, his teaching of the three ways was later adopted as a religious philosophy. The Buddha, usually referred to as Siddhartha Gautama is not considered by Buddhists as the only Buddha, but I am not aware on any historical documentation that supports the notion that he was not legendary. On the other hand I've never really looked all that hard, as I have no particular interest in their philosophies.
I live in a Christianised country, where the assertion of the existence of Jesus of the NT is made on a daily basis. I was brought up a Christian, and spent a great deal of time finding out everything I could about Jesus. In the end the only description of Jesus we have is what is written in the NT, there is simply no secular historical documentation that support the view that he existed, he seems to entirely fictitious, no less so than any of the other Saviour Gods of antiquity (Attis, Adonis, Mithrus, Apollo etc), and in fact every one of his attributes is in one way or another shared by those Saviour Gods.
As far as I can tell Confucius is an historical person who's existence is recorded in secular historical documents, his teaching of the three ways was later adopted as a religious philosophy. The Buddha, usually referred to as Siddhartha Gautama is not considered by Buddhists as the only Buddha, but I am not aware on any historical documentation that supports the notion that he was not legendary. On the other hand I've never really looked all that hard, as I have no particular interest in their philosophies.
I live in a Christianised country, where the assertion of the existence of Jesus of the NT is made on a daily basis. I was brought up a Christian, and spent a great deal of time finding out everything I could about Jesus. In the end the only description of Jesus we have is what is written in the NT, there is simply no secular historical documentation that support the view that he existed, he seems to entirely fictitious, no less so than any of the other Saviour Gods of antiquity (Attis, Adonis, Mithrus, Apollo etc), and in fact every one of his attributes is in one way or another shared by those Saviour Gods.
quote:: Not to mention Mohammed. And, actually their were numerous historical Buddha. I suppose the next denial will be Ghandi...::quote
We can know that Mohammed existed as his existence is recorded in Secular historical documentation, not just as an assertion th the Quran. Likewise Ghandi, his existance is recorded in secular historical documentation with ey witness accounts etc.
There are no Secular accounts of the existence of Jesus, No Roman or Jewish record of his alleged birth, No Roman or Jewish records of his Life, and no Roman or Jewish record of his death or for that matter resurecction. The only accounts of his alleged existence are in a collection of Books (with exception of some of the writings of Paul) by authors unknown, written for purposes other than documenting history, the New Testament.
We can know that Mohammed existed as his existence is recorded in Secular historical documentation, not just as an assertion th the Quran. Likewise Ghandi, his existance is recorded in secular historical documentation with ey witness accounts etc.
There are no Secular accounts of the existence of Jesus, No Roman or Jewish record of his alleged birth, No Roman or Jewish records of his Life, and no Roman or Jewish record of his death or for that matter resurecction. The only accounts of his alleged existence are in a collection of Books (with exception of some of the writings of Paul) by authors unknown, written for purposes other than documenting history, the New Testament.
Lol tracyanne, another world conspiracy. Personally, I'd take Roswell any day over that one.
quote:: Lol tracyanne, another world conspiracy. Personally, I'd take Roswell any day over that one. ::quote
What conspiracy, the various writings in the NT, and others not included, were written to spread what the writers believed was the word of God, an entity they believed to be as real as the bread they ate, or the neighbour next door, there was no conspiracy just faith. But faith does not make the subject of those writings a reality, as it does not make the ancient Pagan belief in Attis and Adonis and Mithrus etc a reality.
As for Roswell, if you want to believe that Roswell is about spaceships from other worlds, and Alien visitors, and a Government cover up, be my guest. You are equally free to believe that, in spite of the absolute lack of any supporting evidence, and glaring discrepancies between the claims of the NT account and actual documented history, that there was a bloke called Jesus who is the subject of the NT, be my guest, but if you feel the need to convince me, show me the evidence, otherwise you're just blowing hot air.
What conspiracy, the various writings in the NT, and others not included, were written to spread what the writers believed was the word of God, an entity they believed to be as real as the bread they ate, or the neighbour next door, there was no conspiracy just faith. But faith does not make the subject of those writings a reality, as it does not make the ancient Pagan belief in Attis and Adonis and Mithrus etc a reality.
As for Roswell, if you want to believe that Roswell is about spaceships from other worlds, and Alien visitors, and a Government cover up, be my guest. You are equally free to believe that, in spite of the absolute lack of any supporting evidence, and glaring discrepancies between the claims of the NT account and actual documented history, that there was a bloke called Jesus who is the subject of the NT, be my guest, but if you feel the need to convince me, show me the evidence, otherwise you're just blowing hot air.
I don't think you're going to find many who buy that here. We're also treading very close to the acceptable bounds of the sites topic rules, so this is the last post on it for me. I also find the whole defense of this ironic because I'm not even Christian, but, I've never had a reason to doubt that Jesus was a historical figure. I still can't see your case.
I know that this is the latest denial craze, but I suggest that your 'evidence' is the lack of historical evidence rather than any positive finds. Now that's hot air.
In additional to testimony of those who knew & met him we do have the records of the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus. A brief google turned up this article. http://www.issuesetc.org/resource/archives/maier3.htm which pretty much explains your major doubts.
Anyway, I'm out of it.
I know that this is the latest denial craze, but I suggest that your 'evidence' is the lack of historical evidence rather than any positive finds. Now that's hot air.
In additional to testimony of those who knew & met him we do have the records of the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus. A brief google turned up this article. http://www.issuesetc.org/resource/archives/maier3.htm which pretty much explains your major doubts.
Anyway, I'm out of it.
>no eye witness accounts
Hmmm. Not to say anything, but the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are precisely that.
So...I suppose there was no John the Baptist, either. No Pontius Pilate, no Herod, either. Hey -- that Solomon guy. I'm sure he never existed either, and so not temple in Jerusalem.
FYI -- The Da Vinci Code was fiction. That's why it shows up in the fiction section at book stores.
Hmmm. Not to say anything, but the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are precisely that.
So...I suppose there was no John the Baptist, either. No Pontius Pilate, no Herod, either. Hey -- that Solomon guy. I'm sure he never existed either, and so not temple in Jerusalem.
FYI -- The Da Vinci Code was fiction. That's why it shows up in the fiction section at book stores.
> ...but I am not aware on any historical documentation that supports the notion that he was not legendary.
There's no historical documentation supporting the notion that Christ was not legendary either. What you're arguing is that there's no evidence supporting his existence either, which is not the same thing.
Written documentation from most of human history is non-existent. Outside of a very small minority of rich, political, military, or just plain lucky individuals; there is no demonstrable evidence that most of the human race has existed. Taking the gospels as a guide, unless you count lucky, Jesus was none of the above. His family was not rich, military, or political. Except for his teachings and his death, there's no reason any evidence for him should exist. And his teachings and death were in the backwater area of a backwater province of the Roman empire. Even Jerusalem was only important to the Jews, not the rest of the empire. Events there were unlikely to attract enough attention to be recorded in Rome or elsewhere in the empire, and the Jews had every reason not to keep such records.
A very reasonable argument can be made that the only conceivable reason for the religious records we do have is that the observers at the time actually did believe in the resurrection.
> ...but if you feel the need to convince me, show me the evidence, otherwise you're just blowing hot air.
I have no reason or desire to convince you of Christ's existence. That's entirely your affair, but if you want to disprove his existence to those who wish to accept it, you also will have to do far better than the above.
There's no historical documentation supporting the notion that Christ was not legendary either. What you're arguing is that there's no evidence supporting his existence either, which is not the same thing.
Written documentation from most of human history is non-existent. Outside of a very small minority of rich, political, military, or just plain lucky individuals; there is no demonstrable evidence that most of the human race has existed. Taking the gospels as a guide, unless you count lucky, Jesus was none of the above. His family was not rich, military, or political. Except for his teachings and his death, there's no reason any evidence for him should exist. And his teachings and death were in the backwater area of a backwater province of the Roman empire. Even Jerusalem was only important to the Jews, not the rest of the empire. Events there were unlikely to attract enough attention to be recorded in Rome or elsewhere in the empire, and the Jews had every reason not to keep such records.
A very reasonable argument can be made that the only conceivable reason for the religious records we do have is that the observers at the time actually did believe in the resurrection.
> ...but if you feel the need to convince me, show me the evidence, otherwise you're just blowing hot air.
I have no reason or desire to convince you of Christ's existence. That's entirely your affair, but if you want to disprove his existence to those who wish to accept it, you also will have to do far better than the above.
Yeah, this discussion is definitely on the bleeding edge of our ToS. Let's bring it back to techie stuff - as we should the political discussions. ;-)
I know we wonder OT, and we generally allow some of that. But we're treading on thin ice here. There are lots of great places for political and religious discussions.
Thanks!
I know we wonder OT, and we generally allow some of that. But we're treading on thin ice here. There are lots of great places for political and religious discussions.
Thanks!
quote:: I don't think you're going to find many who buy that here. We're also treading very close to the acceptable bounds of the sites topic rules, so this is the last post on it for me. ::quote
I am aware of that. I keep forgetting that I'm talking to Yanks, my original comment in an Australian context would have been greeted with something along the lines of "yeah for the sake of argument" or a shrug, or some other comment that demonstrated that the person wasn't particularly interested in whether the bloke existed - most of the people I know are either Agnostic or Atheist. I keep forgetting that America is an incredibly religious country, and that most Americans buy into the Christian view. Personally if anyone wants to debate me on the topic Don knows where I can be found. I'd much rather talk about Linux, and how to get Linux to the masses, anyway.
Before I end, and this is my last post on the subject. Comments about known historical figures, for whom there is ample secular historical evidence as an argument supporting the existence of Jesus of the NT are simply invalid. We can know that Pontius Pilate and Herod existed because not only are they mentioned in historical accounts (contempry Roman records) but there is also documents that they signed in existence, as indeed there are for Paul. All of which can be cross referenced with other historical documents.
If any one wants to debate this further ask Don where I can be found.
Now let me talk about what I've managed to do on my laptop.
I'm running my desktop on my laptop without the 3D desktop, but as I mentioned above I can scroll through the desktops using the mouse (I can't remember how I set that bit up, it happened after I fooled around after turning of the XGL effects). But I've been playing with the Gset-GCompriz config GUI and I've managed to get the Left, Right (which on the 3D desktop causes the Cube to rotate) to move to each of my desktops (no rotating cube though) and Left, Right (which on the 3D desktop slides the currently selected application window onto another desktop - rotating the cube as it goes) to move the currently selected application window to another desktop (no rotating cube here either)
I've set up 9 desktops in a 3 by 3 grid in the pager that sits in the task bar, and I've discovered that I can also use Up, Down to move up and down the desktops in the grid, and Up, Down to move the currently select application window to the desktop above or below, as seen in the Grid.
I think that's pretty cool. I'm actually getting a lot of the 3D functionality plus I get the functionality that doesn't translate onto the 3D desktop - thinks like being able to fully program a window to have no border or float above all others or be forced to open at a certain size every time I open it.
I am aware of that. I keep forgetting that I'm talking to Yanks, my original comment in an Australian context would have been greeted with something along the lines of "yeah for the sake of argument" or a shrug, or some other comment that demonstrated that the person wasn't particularly interested in whether the bloke existed - most of the people I know are either Agnostic or Atheist. I keep forgetting that America is an incredibly religious country, and that most Americans buy into the Christian view. Personally if anyone wants to debate me on the topic Don knows where I can be found. I'd much rather talk about Linux, and how to get Linux to the masses, anyway.
Before I end, and this is my last post on the subject. Comments about known historical figures, for whom there is ample secular historical evidence as an argument supporting the existence of Jesus of the NT are simply invalid. We can know that Pontius Pilate and Herod existed because not only are they mentioned in historical accounts (contempry Roman records) but there is also documents that they signed in existence, as indeed there are for Paul. All of which can be cross referenced with other historical documents.
If any one wants to debate this further ask Don where I can be found.
Now let me talk about what I've managed to do on my laptop.
I'm running my desktop on my laptop without the 3D desktop, but as I mentioned above I can scroll through the desktops using the mouse (I can't remember how I set that bit up, it happened after I fooled around after turning of the XGL effects). But I've been playing with the Gset-GCompriz config GUI and I've managed to get the Left, Right (which on the 3D desktop causes the Cube to rotate) to move to each of my desktops (no rotating cube though) and Left, Right (which on the 3D desktop slides the currently selected application window onto another desktop - rotating the cube as it goes) to move the currently selected application window to another desktop (no rotating cube here either)
I've set up 9 desktops in a 3 by 3 grid in the pager that sits in the task bar, and I've discovered that I can also use Up, Down to move up and down the desktops in the grid, and Up, Down to move the currently select application window to the desktop above or below, as seen in the Grid.
I think that's pretty cool. I'm actually getting a lot of the 3D functionality plus I get the functionality that doesn't translate onto the 3D desktop - thinks like being able to fully program a window to have no border or float above all others or be forced to open at a certain size every time I open it.
tracyanne, you really should acquaint yourself with the writings of Josephus ... He writes about Jesus the man ...
> Now let me talk about what I've managed to do on my laptop.
My wife just got her new system in this afternoon. It's a barebone system from Mwave (http://www.mwave.com) with an Mwave Hermes case, an MSI K9N6SMG-V motherboard, an AMD 64x2 5000+ processor, 2 GB of DDR2 667 memory, a floppy drive, a 16X DVD, two 500 GB Western Digital SATA 2 hard drives, and a 20X DVD burner ordered separately from NewEgg. I installed everything earlier today, and she's been busy installing Slackware 11 using the two drives as a RAID 1 array.
I think she's going to like it. :)
My wife just got her new system in this afternoon. It's a barebone system from Mwave (http://www.mwave.com) with an Mwave Hermes case, an MSI K9N6SMG-V motherboard, an AMD 64x2 5000+ processor, 2 GB of DDR2 667 memory, a floppy drive, a 16X DVD, two 500 GB Western Digital SATA 2 hard drives, and a 20X DVD burner ordered separately from NewEgg. I installed everything earlier today, and she's been busy installing Slackware 11 using the two drives as a RAID 1 array.
I think she's going to like it. :)
This didn't translate very well when I copy pasted it from another site I'd posted it on, so I'll try again.
I'm running my desktop on my laptop without the 3D desktop, but as I mentioned above I can scroll through the desktops using the mouse (I can't remember how I set that bit up, it happened after I fooled around after turning of the XGL effects). But I've been playing with the Gset-GCompriz config GUI and I've managed to get the CTRL ALT Left, CTRL ALT Right (which on the 3D desktop causes the Cube to rotate) to move to each of my desktops (no rotating cube though) and SHIFT CONTROL ALT Left, SHIFT CONTROL ALT Right (which on the 3D desktop slides the currently selected application window onto another desktop - rotating the cube as it goes) to move the currently selected application window to another desktop (no rotating cube here either)
I've set up 9 desktops in a 3 by 3 grid in the pager that sits in the task bar, and I've discovered that I can also use CONTROL ALT Up, CONTROL ALT Down to move up and down the desktops in the grid, and SHIFT CONTROL ALT Up, SHIFT CONTROL ALT Down to move the currently select application window to the desktop above or below, as seen in the Grid.
I think that's pretty cool. I'm actually getting a lot of the 3D functionality plus I get the functionality that doesn't translate onto the 3D desktop - thinks like being able to fully program a window to have no border or float above all others or be forced to open at a certain size every time I open it.
DarrenR114 I'll happily discuss Josephus on a different forum, just ask Don where I can be found.
I'm running my desktop on my laptop without the 3D desktop, but as I mentioned above I can scroll through the desktops using the mouse (I can't remember how I set that bit up, it happened after I fooled around after turning of the XGL effects). But I've been playing with the Gset-GCompriz config GUI and I've managed to get the CTRL ALT Left, CTRL ALT Right (which on the 3D desktop causes the Cube to rotate) to move to each of my desktops (no rotating cube though) and SHIFT CONTROL ALT Left, SHIFT CONTROL ALT Right (which on the 3D desktop slides the currently selected application window onto another desktop - rotating the cube as it goes) to move the currently selected application window to another desktop (no rotating cube here either)
I've set up 9 desktops in a 3 by 3 grid in the pager that sits in the task bar, and I've discovered that I can also use CONTROL ALT Up, CONTROL ALT Down to move up and down the desktops in the grid, and SHIFT CONTROL ALT Up, SHIFT CONTROL ALT Down to move the currently select application window to the desktop above or below, as seen in the Grid.
I think that's pretty cool. I'm actually getting a lot of the 3D functionality plus I get the functionality that doesn't translate onto the 3D desktop - thinks like being able to fully program a window to have no border or float above all others or be forced to open at a certain size every time I open it.
DarrenR114 I'll happily discuss Josephus on a different forum, just ask Don where I can be found.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
"As usual, the mainstream media, the writers for John Stewart, Stephen Colbert, David Letterman, Bill Maher, etc. found no material worthy of their bosses’ smirky irony in the scene."