Evolution? How?

Which isn't surprising in the least.



Maybe a bit of each (Island hopping on close proximity archepelego's like that is probably a profitible past time).

Either that, or they were trying to leave the Shire to reach Mordor to destroy the One Ring. Who knows, with scraps of physical evidence like this, in two thousand years time and a few hopeful translations, The Lord of The Rings may overtake the Bible as the selected fantasy of the day, with all manners of wisdom to be squeezed from its swelling pages.

yeh, look at Scientology, or cargo cults.

Thanks for the elk, ros.

Raymond Williams has this to say in Modern Tragedy-

"The concentration camp,especially,is used as an image of an absolute condition,in which man is reduced,by men,to a thing.The record of the camps is indeed black enough,and many other examples could be added."

As Setanta often does.But then Williams goes on-

"But to use the camp as an image of an absolute condition is,in its turn,a blasphemy.For while men created the camps,other men died,at conscious risk,to destroy them.While some men imprisoned,other men liberated.There is no evil which men have created,of this or any other kind,which other men have not struggled to end.To take one part of this action,and call it absolute or transcendent,is in its turn a suppression of other facts of human life on so vast a scale that its indifference can only be explained by its role in an ideology."

When the particular ideology embraced to commit this blasphemy results in a continuous barrage of petty insults and the impugning of other people's intelligence and learning the ideology in question,if such it be,has gone most of the way needed to discredit itself.Possibly all the way.

Come now, spendi, protest as you will, the bible thumpers set themselves up for the derision and contempt they earn. Hell - they're proud of it, even; its that whole martyr thing, you know. Aids in fostering a sense of fellowship and community, I suppose. Its unsurprising a society fronted by an imaginary freind would have imaginary foes; it hardly could be otherwise.

Not really, Gus, most of it comes straight out of my own noggin--even in my twilight years i have a good memory.

But not a perfect memory--for example, i referred to Alexei Mikhailovitch's first wife as Maria Miroslavskaya, and that's wrong. Her name was Maria Miloslavskaya--her family were the Miloslavskys. I should always check things like that, but i get lazy. However, at some point, the nickel does drop.

The narrative is in my head--the minor details are sometimes lacking.

This is specious--the official reason was that he was subverting public morals with his The Art of Love and with the accusations that he had authored scurrilous satires. What scholars contend about is the ulterior motive--not the official reason for the banishment.



I took the time because many others read here, and may take your hatchet job on Octavian to be plausible--so i took the time to dispell that. The point was, as you are now attempting to avoid, that you had claimed Octavian to be barbaric because pagan, and made invidious comparisons to the excellence of our modern christian virtue. The post is to point out that such a position is ridiculous.

I suspect that a good deal eludes your comprehension, and the more so when you don't wish to see something.



You can await until you have grown old and dottering (or more so, at any event). To have read history and come to some conclusions, and then to enumerate the conclusions one has reached and upon what basis is not circularity, it is simply explanation. You deal in sophistry.



Neither the common nor the rare utterances of Spengler are of much interest to me, and are not at all germane to this discussion.



That canard is courtesy of Napoleon, and his very life and career prove it is not true. The English thought him the very devil incarnate--and he was defeated by the English. Nevertheless, he is considered to this day to have been a great man--QED, that "the winners" write history is nonsense.



As i don't traffic in propaganda, this does not apply to what i've written. I am certain that silly old drunks who spend their lives immersed in the literature of a single man, and in particular a single book of that man, consider such self-serving pap to be a valid statement--i suspect you feel the same way, Spendi--that don't make it so.

Kudos, Big Bird, that's a classic . . .

I couldn't find a picture of an "Ilk", but the Elk was funnier anyway

Setanta wrote-



No hatchet job.I'm a great admirer of Octavian.I can't think why you think "barbarian" is derogatory.
But barbarian he was.They were all barbarians.Are you going to say he had nothing to do with Cicero's murder?And he introduced literary censorship.I would invite readers here to study the man and decide for themselves.
A sentence in Cowell reads-
"If he also is regarded as a political ganster on a grand scale,he was a successful one,for he eliminated all his rivals."
The only place the idea that I am "attempting to avoid" a point is your own noggin.I do wish you would realise Setanta that such claims reduce your own credibility and for nothing too as they have no effect on me.It is a great pity that all your studies and efforts are neutralised by your insistence on conducting debates in such confrontational ways.Do you really think that you saying these types of thing gives them credibility?

Most commentators I have seen think Ovid's banishment was as a result of Augustus suspecting him of "abetting in some way or other the intrigue of the younger Julia and Silanus".(Roman Women by JPVD Balsdon), but others do think it was the publication of Ars Amatoria coupled with the censorship.But nobody seems sure and there is only Ovid's own account to go on."Two crimes destroyed me,a poem and a blunder."But even that is suspect as it was a plea to be allowed back to Rome.A grovel.



Do you deny that?In what way is such a comparison "ridiculous" bearing in mind the fuss over this "rendition" business.Augustus would not have had the slightest compunction about torturing prisoners.His generals were ordered to "do what it takes".



There is a very great deal eludes my comprehension and there is nothing I don't wish to see if I get the chance.



I have to because I know that there are some facts concerning ID/SD that SDers not only don't wish to see but might turn their hair white.But you didn't deal with the circularity at all.It is the "explanation" I was talking about.



The only explanation I can think of for that is that you have not read Decline Of The West.The "second religiousness" is very germane to this thread.It is impossible to dismiss Spengler with a casual wave of the arm without risking your audience tittering.



What difference does Napoleon make to an obvious truth which was well know before he hit the deck.
He was a complete idiot anyway.Obviously Orwell has also passed you by.

I have no idea what your last paragraph means.

timber wrote



That is very true about some.Maybe they should read Isaiah.I won't say how many I think the "some" is.

But is it right to assume all the religious people should share the derision and contempt on a partial case.Your use of "bible thumpers" is certainly a smear on more serious believers.

I am not aware of any passage from the gospels which casts doubt on the Deity of Christ. Christian teaching holds that Christ was fully God and fully human. Passages which reflect His human attributes (He was tired, He was hungry, He felt pain, etc) do not negate His Deity.

In Mark, as Christ is dying we read



Here, a centurion who has probably witnessed or assisted in dozens of crucifixions is portrayed as being astonished at Christ's manner of death.

Why?

Apparently this description, if true, is completely unlike what you would see at a normal crucifixion. Readers of that day who had also witnessed crucifixions would likely agree, or else the writer has recorded the event in such a way as to immediately discredit it in the eyes of his contemporaries (an unlikely assumption).

What was so unusual about this? Apparently among the possible medical causes of death involving crucifixion, suffocation is at or near the top of the list.

Suspended by the arms or hands for hours, the body sooner or later is completely exhausted of energy. However to breathe, the victim must continually push with the legs or pull with the arms or both , to raise himself to a sufficient level to draw air into the lungs.

The suspension has stretched, torn, wearied, distorted and distended the muscles supporting the rib cage and breathing becomes more and more difficult. When the arms and legs then fail of their strength, the victim is gasping, smothering, dying for lack of breath.

But here Christ is portrayed as first quoting the Old Testament and then crying out , both instances are said to be in a loud voice. Then suddenly, He is dead.

Jesus had said of this time

So the remarkable manner in which Jesus died on the cross was apparently far different from what you would see at any other crucifixion. This is consistent with other parts of the gospels where Jesus indicates that He knew He faced death and was willing to do so.

I am not sure how that squares with your author's contention that Jesus was 'out of the loop'.

-----------------------------

The specific passages detailing the Passion in each gospel are quite long, and filled with all sorts of detail. I still do not know what specifically in these long passages you think contradicts between the gospel of Mark and the gospel of Luke. Perhaps if I had read the book you referred to, I would have an idea where you are coming from. But I have not read it.

Im more surprised at your seeming lack of critical analysis of Mark and Luke on this one segment.
Is there anywhere in Mark. s passion where Christ conveys that HE is a deity. (Remembering that Mark is the first of the synoptic chronicallers).
In Mark Jesus is silent throughout no?
He is mocked by the people , temple, and the thieves , and he says nothing
he gives up the ghost with a question? "Why have you forsaken me?"

________________________


Luke, when read "stand alone" alone, has Christ chatty in his trial, he admonishes the women in the square to weep for themselves
He forgives the wrist nailers
He pardons one of the criminals
He gladly gives up his "spirit" as if he "was in the loop to his mission" This writer would have us believe that Christ Knew what he was about

All these points I reiterate because Ive gotten nothing in response that even approximates a critical analysis of two "Questioned documents", that, at least to me, appear to be definitions of the word "contradict"

Im not going to do anything lame like read you the OED definition of contradict but youre evading the whole point, and in doing so, you reveal your selective critique of what you read, along with the .
The contradctions and supposed ommissions among the gospels and books of NT. These were laid out for us in middle school, and for Catholics, at least, Tradition equals Scripture, so theyve spent probably more time not preaching Evangelical mumbo jumbo, and instead arguing the mysteries of Faith often with the predictable outcome that some would opt out.
I left because science is actually easier, it doesnt rely on any "slight of hand" or dispensation of logic.

Just to revisit a theme from a page or so back, lets look at barbarity from a Christian perspective.

In 311, the Emperor Galerius issued The Edict of Toleration, grantng Christians equal status under law with Pagans and Jews, "... to bring all things into harmony with the ancient laws and public order of the Romans, and to provide that even the Christians who had left the religion of their fathers should come back to reason ...", and providing specifically that Christians might " ... hold their conventicles, provided they do nothing contrary to good order ... ", and concluding with the decree they " ... "be able to live securely in their homes."

In 313, The Empire consisted of West, under Christian-leaning Constantine, and East, under Licinius, a diffident Pagan. The Edict of Milan was published in the names of the 2 Emperors, further establishing that " ... any one of these who wishes to observe Christian religion may do so freely and openly, without molestation ... ", explicitly granting Christians " ... free and unrestricted opportunity of religious worship ... " and conceding " ... to other religions the right of open and free observance of their worship for the sake of the peace of our times, that each one may have the free opportunity to worship as he pleases ; this regulation is made we that we may not seem to detract from any dignity or any religion ... "

Licinius did not take the edict much to heart, and allowed, even encouraged, discrimination against and persecution of Christians in his half of the Empire. This was but one of the many frictions between Constantine and Licinius, frictions which built to a full scale war which by 326 left Licinius executed and Constantine sole Emperor.

In 324, Constantine, in what amounted to a slap at Licinius, a move in an Imperial power play, declared Christianity to be the only officially sanctioned religion of the Roman Empire. That year, among other endeavors, he saw to the sack and plunder of The Temple of the Oracle of Apollo, including the civilizedtouch of having all the priests tortured to death. Accompanying this was the purging of all non-Christians from the sacred peninsula of Mt Athos, traditional site of temples and worship through around a millenia of Greek culture. The temples of course were sacked and plundered.

The following year, 325, saw the convocation of The Council of Nicea, which pretty much was the equivalent of Christiantiy's Constitutional Convention. Church and Empire essentially wedded one another, combining the power and authority of each into a single entity.

In 326 Constantine, as sole Emperor, Licinius out of the way, continued his persecution of pagans, sacking and plundering the temples of Asclepius and of Aphrodite throughout the empire, with the customary treatment meted to the priests and functionaries of those temples.

By 330, siezures from pagan temples and storehouses and the confiscation of goods, lands, and chattel from the folks unfortunate enough to have been associated with same had become the chief finance source for the construction of Constantinople, the newly-founded seat of Constantine's empire. Naturally, along with Imperial buildings, church buildings were put up - lavishly - thanks to the growing influx of formerly pagan assets into the Imperial Treaury.

In 335, Constantine ordered the sack and plunder of all pagan temples and other pagan facillities throughout Asia Minor and The Levant. A neat civilzed twist was added with the decree that all "Soothsayers and magicicians" be crucified.

Succeeding to the throne on his father's death, Contantius II (named for Constantine's father) in 341 initiated a pogrom against "all the soothsayers and the Hellenists ... ", bringing over the next decade or so the collapse of Graeco-Roman paganism and the untimely, often most uncomfortable, deaths of untold thousands of adherents to the traditional religions.

In 353, Constantius II ordered the death penalty for worshipers practicing pagan sacrifices and revering pagan idols. The following year, Constantius II formally ordered the closing of all pagan temples throughout the Empire, turning many of the sacred sites into such things as stables, rubbish tips, brothels, gambling houses, and barracks. Other pagan sacred structures were mined for their building materials, much of which went into the construction of Christian churches all over the Empire, with most of the rest going to the expansion of Constantinople. Included in the decree was the call for the execution of all "idolaters". As repositories of pagan thought and tradition, many great libraries were burned, with consequent loss to the patrimony of humankind.

By thelatter half of the 4th Century, Constantius II had authorised and seen to the organization of detention centers for the torture and execution of non-Christians arrested within the Empire - perhaps the first dedicated "Death Camps".

Breifly, beginning in 361, a nephew of Constantine's, Julian, successor to Constantius II, attempted to return at least tolerance for the ancient Hellenic worship practices, decreeing that all " ... may hold their meetings, if they wish, and offer prayers according to their established use ... and for the future, let all people live in harmony ... Men should be taught and won over by reason, not by blows, insults, and corporal punishments ... "

Julian was assassinated in early 363, and his successor (and, in our contemporary terms, a "person of interest" in the assassination), Jovian, resumed the prejudicial promotion of Christianity, rescinding all of Julian's more liberal and tolerant decrees. In 364, Jovian had the Library of Antioch and all its contents (apart from those of immediate cash-equivalent value, of course) burned. Among Jovian's edicts were the death penalty for all who worshipped the ancestral gods or practiced any form of divination or ancient ritual, even if such worship or practice were carried out in private, and a call for the confiscation of all goods, lands, and chattel of apprehended participants - and their immediate families and known co-conspirators.

In 365, a decree officially forbade the practice or observation of paganism in any form within the Imperial Army, and provided that no non-Christian might attain any rank, authority, or command with the Army.

In 370, Valens, successor to Jovian, launched a pogrom against all non-Christian peoples in the Eastern half of the Empire, resulting in again untold thousands of deaths, a swelling of the Imperial Treasury, and the elimination of just about any remnant of support or endorsement for Jovian's liberal reforms.

In 372, Valens oredered the Governor of Asia Minor to exterminate all the followers of the ancient practices and to destroy all the associated writings and other works throughout the province.

In 380, Valens' successor Theodosius decreed " ... (A)ll the various nations which are subject to our clemency and moderation should continue in the profession of that religion which was delivered to the Romans by the divine Apostle Peter ... ". delcaring non-Christians to be " ... loathsome, heretics, stupid and blind ... ". In another edict, Theodosius outlawed all disagreement with The Church, declaring those who did not hew to the party line to be "insane" and "forfiet of their possessions".

In 381, Theodosius deprived non-Christians, particularly those who had "fallen away from The True Religion" of all civil rights under law, and further outlawed the visiting of the site of any pagan temple or other pagan place of reverence or worship - on pain of death.

In 384, Theodosius tasked the Army with eradicating all vestige of paganism from the Empire. The detention centers originally established by Constantius II became a thriving concern, with much research and development going into the matter of expediting the disposal of the recalcitrant disbeloievers flooding into them.

In 388, Theodosius outlawed the public discussion of religious matters, other than as conducted by the Christian clergy under the auspices and authority of the Christian Church.

In 390, all non-Christian dating systems and calendars were outlawed, and the Christian persecutions of non-Christians reached a fever pitch, with what amounted to lynch mobs of Christians rampaging, looting, burning, and killing at will through non-Christian quarters of cities, as the Army looked the other way.

In 391, a Theodosian decree forbade not only visting ancient sacred sites not already "converted" to the use of Church and Empire, but prohibiting the possession, display of or even looking upon the vandalized statues and artifacts. Pagan revolts begin to crop up, and are put down ruthlessly. Burnings at the stake and crucifixions were scheduled entertainments in any of the larger cities of the Empire. Among the notabe events of that year was the destruction of Alexandria's magnificent Serapeion, a temple fortified as a holdhout by desperate pagans, the slaaughter of all within, and, of course, the torching of the temple's fabulous library.

In 392, Theodusius formally outlawed all non-Christian rituals and observances, and references thereunto, naming them "superstions of the Gentiles". Persecution of non-Christians in the Empire by then amounted to an organized military campaign. The ancient games, including but not limited to the Olympics, were likewise outlawed.

In 395, Arcadius succeeded Theodosius, and pursuant to edicts of his, and under the direct authority of The Empire, hordes of Christianized Goths, under Alaric, raged throughout Greece, slaughtering or enslaving any who failed to take up The Cross, and wreaking havoc on such temples and sanctuaries as remained.

In 396, Arcadius declared paganism to be high treason against The Empire, with customary sanction for such crime visited upon any guilty of same. Or probably guilty of same. And in some cases rumored to be guilty of same.

The following year, Arcadius orders the demolition of all remaining pagan temples and sites, and the removal of any statuary, icons, artifacts, writings, and objects of value.

In 398, The 4th Council of Carthage forbade all, even Christian bishops and scholars, from reading or discussing pagan works.

In 399, Arcadius, impatient with progress, re-emphasized his decree to demolish all remaining pagan sites, calling for the holy work to be carried out with the utmost speed and diligence.

Now, that synopsis of Christianity's civilized, gentle, love-inspired, charity-driven early growth closes with the advent of the Fifth Century. There we come across the likes of John Chrysostom and others of similar bent, and things start getting really civilized, drawing on and building upon past practice and success.

Primary reference: The Medeival Sourcebook

Pauligirl, "good lookin' out" . . . note the emphasis on counting "the heads" of citizens, and not the entire population of the empire.

I submit, spendi, that no allusion was made to all religious people, further that not all Christians are bible thumpers, yet further that never have I averred all Christians were bible thumpers, and finally that I have and frequently have stated I have little problem or quarrel (though still some) with Christians who are not bible thumpers. Bible thumpers discredit themselves and their cause, and are an embarrasment to the foundational premise of the proposition on which they base their cause. There is no smear.

No.

Jesus' quotation of the Old Testament was not some hopeless question of a depressed and despondent dying man. It was a reference to specific elements of the crucifixion that had been foretold hundreds of years before.

Psalm 22 begins with the words and includes descriptive elements of the crucifixion such as

and

and

________________________




Christ speaks at his trial in Mark also.





Luke's account

and Mark's

really differ only in the inclusion of detail by Luke. I don't see how this can be construed as a contradiction.

Mark has been telling us throughout his account that Jesus knew what He was about.

Mark 8:31

and

Mark 12:6-11

and

Mark 9:31

and

Mark 10:34

The Bible says this, the Bible says that...

Now, immediately following the birth of Jesus Matthew has Joseph and family flee to Egypt to avoid Herod's slaughter of babes (itself a singular and spectacular event unremarked in any other annals), remaining in hiding there for some years. Luke has them shortly after the nativity return to Nazareth, from whence he has Joseph and Mary present the infant at the temple in Jerusalem 40 days following the birth, and he recounts that each year the family returned to Jerusalem for the Feast of Passover. Obviously, we're dealing with a miracle here; as the Bible is inerrant, Jesus and family possessed the unique ability to be 2 places at once.

That's hardly the only miracle surrounding the events of the nativity; the census, of which unique among Roman censii there remains no record nor other reference, and which census was carried out in a manner nowhere else evidenced as being consistent with Roman practice, reportedly occurred during the reign of Herod, and while Quirinius was governor of Syria.

There are multiple miracles here; not only does history plainly and unambiguously record that Quirinius became governor of Syria a decade following Herod's well-documented death, but neither did any record or other mention of this utterly remarkable census survive. Obviously, in order to fulfill different prophecies, God effected a simultaneous spatial and temporal incongruity, recorded only in the Gospels, and he caused the Romans to do something they never before had done, never since repeated, and of which massive undertaking the Romans kept no record nor made any mention.

Then there is the miracle of Jesus' dual prophecy-fulfilling birth to a virgin and his descent from the House of David, via 28 generations traced from one of Joseph's fathers, and via 41 generations traced from Joseph's other father; not only is Joseph unique in humanity by virtue of having 2 different fathers (to say nothing of the amazing 13-generation age difference between those 2 fathers), but Joseph, who was not the father of the product of the virgin birth, passed his miraculous dually patrilineal heritage to Jesus who miraculously was not his son.

Yup, it just can't be plainer; nothing but miracles can explain any of that.