Random Fashion Thoughts (Part 3: Style farmer strikes back) - our general discussion thread

[double00]

oh see i was doing it wrong

 

[double00]

It's not a competition, you know, it's just contingency, how things happened. Morality could have evolved in different ways and indeed it has evolved in different ways outside of Christian history.

Even the basic foundations of Christian moral philosophy were not created by Christians (or even by Jesus or Paul), they merely communicated, as many thinkers did in their place and time, a combination of:

1. Judaic thought (which is theist, but the relationship of god to man (and vice-versa) is very different than in Christianity);
2. Ancient Greek philosophy - which was not remotely theist in the way that Christianty understands the concept - the philosophy of Aristotle which is arguably the foundation of a lot of what we think of as 'Christian' is not dependent upon the 'gods' they acknowledged. In any case, while powerful in the minds of many, the ancient Greek gods could be challenged, argued with, faught and were petty, vindictive and mean and people could even become gods - the only fundamental difference between a god and a person in Ancient Greek thinking is the question of mortality.
3. Mithraism and many other pre-Christian beliefs in the region which seem to have had connections to Indian proto-Buddhist thinking - which is also not dependent on either concepts of 'god' or indeed 'good' and 'evil' (or 'sin') and yet derived moral precepts for living. This Buddhism also shares with many Asian systems of thought, like Taoism - there can be gods, magic, the supernatural and much more in various versions of such thinking, but they do not determine the basis for a moral human life. That is to be found in contemplation. What is eternal in Taoism, for example, is the method of uncovering what is moral, not the morality itself (the first sentence of the Tao-Te-ching says as much).

i think we may have gotten crossed up here. put another way the question i am asking is what virtue does atheism allow that deism does not?

 

[smittycl]

wow debate me you coward

I loved living in Germany where they had the water broken down into gas levels. I always, being an Army guy at the time, grabbed the most gaseous, macho water. Great stuff.

 

[smittycl]

Interesting thread.

Every time I drive across the top of the beltway here in DC I pass the Mormon Temple in all its Disneyfied splendor. No matter how tall the spires, how bright the glass, how solid the stone, it still rests on an intellectual foundation of sand. A religion created by a convicted criminal and proven charlatan. In developed in public view and was commented on the entire way. Clearly a man-made creation.

The others fall into the same paradigm but they had a significant head start. The ancient Hebrews simply mined every myth and legend of the Ancient Near East to help cement a culture. Its unlikely Moses ever existed or the Exodus ever happened. Walk into a Christian Church, whether Catholic, Orthodox or any of the tiresome Protestant denominations ("Follow the shoe! No, follow the gourd! Wait, we must gather shoes...!") and you're really in the church of Paul or Peter. Jesus was an interesting historical figure but in no way divine. Do what first year theology students are taught and make a graph of all four Gospels and list the major events. You'll see where they differ between the earlier and later ones. Kind of eye opening.

Like the parable of Jesus and the accused adulteress ("Let he who is without sin cast the first stone...)? Not in any of the original copies of the New Testament. Added in 12th century. Don't even get me started on Islam. Purely derivative. Medieval Arabs on record as being miffed that God apparently saw fit to talk to Jews and Christians but not them. They made it up.

Anyway, after years of serious reading I've come to appreciate the Brit position of "It's all bollocks." Check out Hitchens' "God is Not Great." Virtually irrefutable.

Wow, that felt good... That is all. Carry on.

Oh, and sparkling water rocks!

 

[Zamb]

Interesting thread.

Every time I drive across the top of the beltway here in DC I pass the Mormon Temple in all its Disneyfied splendor. No matter how tall the spires, how bright the glass, how solid the stone, it still rests on an intellectual foundation of sand. A religion created by a convicted criminal and proven charlatan. In developed in public view and was commented on the entire way. Clearly a man-made creation.

The others fall into the same paradigm but they had a significant head start. Its unlikely Moses ever existed or the Exodus ever happened. Walk into a Christian Church, whether Catholic, Orthodox or any of the tiresome Protestant denominations ("Follow the shoe! No, follow the gourd! Wait, we must gather shoes...!") and you're really in the church of Paul or Peter. Jesus was an interesting historical figure but in no way divine. Do what first year theology students are taught and make a graph of all four Gospels and list the major events. You'll see where they differ between the earlier and later ones. Kind of eye opening.

Like the parable of Jesus and the accused adulteress ("Let he who is without sin cast the first stone...)? Not in any of the original copies of the New Testament. Added in 12th century. Don't even get me started on Islam. Purely derivative. Medieval Arabs on record as being miffed that God apparently saw fit to talk to Jews and Christians but not them. They made it up.

Anyway, after years of serious reading I've come to appreciate the Brit position of "It's all bollocks." Check out Hitchens' "God is Not Great." Virtually irrefutable.

Wow, that felt good... That is all. Carry on.

Oh, and sparkling water rocks!

LOL,

you're said a lot but actually said not much........
Hitches book is a poor example to use, Funny that he was a rabid anti theist, but somehow his brother peter is a Christian. but enough if Hitchens now

do you clear o explain this for us:

Its unlikely Moses ever existed or the Exodus ever happened.
evidence please of your claim or assumption
Please read this
https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/were-hebrews-ever-slaves-in-ancient-egypt-yes-1.5429843


The ancient Hebrews simply mined every myth and legend of the Ancient Near East to help cement a culture.
Like which ones?
the concept of monotheism as practiced by the Jews was a radical departure from anything in antiquity, the only parallel you have is Zoroastrianism, and there are disputes as to which is older. i would love for you to give examples


I will get back to NT and te authenticity of the Gospels later........

 

[smittycl]

While it’s quite possible a group escaped the Egyptians the ways it was described in the Hebrew Bible make it seem more monumental than it likely was. Plagues, Dead first born, parted seas, burning bushes? Historically unsupportable and likely contrived merely to cement a religion/ethnicity.

Certainly monotheism was a unique concept at the time but they did lift the flood myth straight from the Sumerians, elements of the Genesis story pre-date the writing of the Book of Genesis. Their writings clearly reflect their influences.

We could go back and forth for ever and remain unconvincing to each other. Bart Erhman has some great writing on th Historical Jesus.

Best to return to fashion and sparkling water.

 

[Zamb]

While it’s quite possible a group escaped the Egyptians the ways it was described in the Hebrew Bible make it seem more monumental than it likely was.

again this is merely an assumption on your part. it is very difficult go go back in history and recount exactly how things happened, but there is no reason for me to doubt the story. I am not a determinist or a materialist. my philosophy has room in it for the supernatural. the existence of a universe........something rather than NO- THING is already a supernatural reality

Certainly monotheism was a unique concept at the time but they did lift the flood myth straight from the Sumerians, elements of the Genesis story pre-date the writing of the Book of Genesis. Their writings clearly reflect their influences.
.

Nah.........the babylonian myth, the Sumerian Myth AND the Genesis Flood account are ALL one Story told by different people who had a COMMON ancestor. NOAH.
if you look at the account of Genesis 10, it clearly tells you that after the flood, all the decendants of Noah lived together under Nimrod....
it has been argued that Gilgamesh/Nimrod is the same individual........where you see a stealing of a myth, others like myself see a common experience by a common ancestor being retold by the descendants with variations in the different accounts

We could go back and forth for ever and remain unconvincing to each other. Bart Erhman has some great writing on th Historical Jesus.

Best to return to fashion and sparkling water.

I am not trying to convince you, but to simply give you another perspective, or at least new information to consider in forming your conclusions.
I am aware of Professor Erhman's writings. he does make some good points but overall I think he has a wrong understanding. the idea of applying 20th/ 21st century scrutiny to ancient documents that were never written by our modern standards is ridiculous at worst and foolish at best

 

[Zamb]

Also , it wast just monotheism that was a radical departure, it was also the very idea of a God inaccessible to man but only accessible by his will and revelation.
the very fact that this God was purely Spirit and essentially formless that there was to be no representation of him in any form whatsoever because while his character remained consistent, the revelation of his being was as he saw fit at any given point
(a Pillar of Cloud/ A fire/ An angel in a burning bush/Power in the middle of a whirlwind etc etc etc)

 

[javy]

i feel like this is going to haunt me for a while

 

[LA Guy]

The best thing on grailed right now is the $6k Margiela Dollar Wallet and the comments on that listing

No link, but do choose a few choice quotes for us, please.

While it’s quite possible a group escaped the Egyptians the ways it was described in the Hebrew Bible make it seem more monumental than it likely was. Plagues, Dead first born, parted seas, burning bushes? Historically unsupportable and likely contrived merely to cement a religion/ethnicity.

Certainly monotheism was a unique concept at the time but they did lift the flood myth straight from the Sumerians, elements of the Genesis story pre-date the writing of the Book of Genesis. Their writings clearly reflect their influences.

We could go back and forth for ever and remain unconvincing to each other. Bart Erhman has some great writing on th Historical Jesus.

Best to return to fashion and sparkling water.

Narrative is everything.

 

[double00]

^ Or nothing. Unreality is the dominant motif of the plague story whether you take it literally or figuratively. Its a crappy example to hold to historical account.

 

[clee1982]

are we still on the only religion can ultimately define morally right vs. wrong. i.e. you need a sole arbiter, I don't disagree if you think in the certain philosophical kind of way (i.e. anything man made is subject to change therefore not permanent etc.).

Though what if some other culture deem that it doesn't need to be absolute to start with (wouldn't jive with the premises, but that's just reality to that culture, which to debate it a bit pointless since it's just go on tangent on its own).

 

[ManofKent]

If Jesus is not truly the Son of god and by extension bears the Divine, then there is no basis to elevate his teachings as nothing more than that of a good moral philosopher and his sacrifice on the cross then is simply martyrdom and a vain death of a good man

That's about where I'm at.

A lot of Paul's teachings are very complex and not easy to understand. Paul was both a jew and a roman citizen, having the great work of accepting Jesus as Savior/ God while reconciling that with the strict monotheism of his Judaic faith of which the Shema was (and is) its central tenet

The more I read, the more he seemed to contradict himself and what I took from Jesus's teachings as reported in the four gospels. Modern Christianity seems to be more Paulinity than Christianity and I think the church(es) took a wrong direction.

there is a lot on the OT that makes a lot of us moderns uncomfortable, with the rise of science, secular governments, separation of church and state etc, it is difficult to deal with the issue of how God is at times presented in OT scripture

I think that's an understatement! I find it interesting - for me it reads like a mix of documenting oral history, folklore and fable.

2. Christianity teaches that salvation comes only through Jesus Christs complete work on the cross. there is nothing that the believer can do to save himself outside of accepting the GIFT of salvation. other religions teach works. mediation/ self discipline/ etc

Probably my biggest problem with modern Christianity - and again very much the creation of Paul. I struggle with the idea that belief and faith is more important than one's deeds.

 

[LA Guy]

I always thought of Nimrod as this guy:

The ultimate Sentinel who was able to defeat Juggernaut, and it took Rogue borrowing all of the X-Men's powers to defeat it.

I wonder if my mom threw out all my comics. I always loved John Romita Jr.s drawings that were more like blocked out sketches of action than anything else.

 

[LonerMatt]

Sparkling water and religion are ******* garbage.