An article about early Christian writings describing the date of Jesus' Birth.

[Chas]

Isn't this thread pushing out the envelope of what is deemed appropriate for FL?

If politics is banned, why not this tripe?

Your bible is fiction, kiddies, not history.

 

["Skeet" McD]

Isn't this thread pushing out the envelope of what is deemed appropriate for FL?

If politics is banned, why not this tripe?

Your bible is fiction, kiddies, not history.

Ummmm....with all respect Chas: if it wasn't out of the envelope before, your comment certainly put it out there, and I doubt it will get back in.

Believe what you want--that's your right, and no one will support it more than I--but, kiddies or not, your saying doesn't make it so. While you may, or may not, accept the Bible spiritually--there can be no doubt that many of the people, events, and places it contains can be proved to have actually existed; it is, in fact, at least partly history--whatever else it may be.

Folks can, and will, differ on matters of belief. I, for one, would appreciate less sarcasm and more goodwill, whatever you believe.

Sincerely,
"Skeet"

 

[Andykev]

Call THE FIRE DEPARTMENT

Oh, geez. I hope it doesn't start a forest fire!

I SMELL SMOKE!

I am surprised that this thread made it to the second page. Someone always seems to spoil the polite discussion, which is why we have rules here.

PLEASE KEEP THIS RESPECTFUL OF ALL VIEWPOINTS BE WARNED

:rage:

 

[Chas]

No sarcasm required, my contempt for all Abrahamic religions is enough for me. I've read that sorry excuse for literature from cover to cover - it's one of the most important reasons why I'm an atheist.

If you want to discuss religion, there's plenty of christian web forums out there to join, rather than include it here. I don't come here for a fight - and religion is as divisive as politics. It should not be here, IMHO. It's an insult at the very least to assume that everyone who comes here is a person of faith.

I don't want to see religion here. This isn't a pulpit, and it's one of the few places I know of where I can go and not have to hear/see it.

 

[Widebrim]

No sarcasm required, my contempt for all Abrahamic religions is enough for me. I've read that sorry excuse for literature from cover to cover - it's one of the most important reasons why I'm an atheist.

If you want to discuss religion, there's plenty of christian web forums out there to join, rather than include it here. I don't come here for a fight - and religion is as divisive as politics. It should not be here, IMHO. It's an insult at the very least to assume that everyone who comes here is a person of faith.

I don't want to see religion here. This isn't a pulpit, and it's one of the few places I know of where I can go and not have to hear/see it.

It's one thing to be against a particular subject for a thread--and you may be right in your estimation--but purposefully insulting others and their "faith" is quite another. If you don't believe the Bible, you could give cogent reasons why; simply calling it a "sorry excuse for literature," doesn't move the discussion in any fruitfull direction. As it stands, though, while the thread obviously relates to religion, I don't think that anyone is assuming that everyone who comes here is a person of faith. In addition, the article alluded to also deals with archeology, something which is of interest to many of us, despite our views of "religion."

 

[Chas]

I didn't insult anyone in particular. I stated an opinion that the bible is a bad piece of literature. If someone takes that as a personal attack, then I can't help them. It's not the same at all as me saying to such and such a person "you are an idiot" which I did not do.

It's also cherry-picked ad nauseum as a "spiritual guide". Here are some of the gems you find there:

• Ethnic Cleansing
• Stoning for adultery
• slavery

There's also an interesting passage in Exodus (also in Deuteronomy) that outlines the price for seducing/raping another man's daughter. The price is that the offender pays the father of the girl the "going price of virgins".

So women are property, according to your bible. Are you still in the mood to defend it?

 

[Miss 1929]

I agree that there is no reason for this particular thread to be in the Lounge. Where's the Golden Era relevance?

Politics are divisive. Religion is divisive.

Hats on the other hand...

 

["Skeet" McD]

I think I hear the fire sirens...hope they get here soon!

IAre you still in the mood to defend it?

No. It does not need my defense, nor would it be profitable: matters of belief are not provable.

Now, can we move on? this thread was jogging along calmly enough--surprisingly!--until recently.

One way or the other: I've said my last piece.

"Skeet"

 

[Chas]

>>I agree that there is no reason for this particular thread to be in the Lounge. Where's the Golden Era relevance?
>>Politics are divisive. Religion is divisive.

What I said from the start. It has no place here, and plenty of other places for the religious to go.

 

[reetpleat]

FWIW, my take is since there is no Biblical imperative (i.e., a commandment, or an implied directive) to observe or celebrate the birth of the Lord Jesus, I focus on that for which there is an imperative, i.e., Communion or Lord's Supper, baptism, the assembling together, and so on.

Which is not to say I don't celebrate Christmas- I do! It's just not, for me, about the birth of the Savior.

But, I dare say, all of these have roots in pagan traditions. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

 

[reetpleat]

No sarcasm required, my contempt for all Abrahamic religions is enough for me. I've read that sorry excuse for literature from cover to cover - it's one of the most important reasons why I'm an atheist.

If you want to discuss religion, there's plenty of christian web forums out there to join, rather than include it here. I don't come here for a fight - and religion is as divisive as politics. It should not be here, IMHO. It's an insult at the very least to assume that everyone who comes here is a person of faith.

I don't want to see religion here. This isn't a pulpit, and it's one of the few places I know of where I can go and not have to hear/see it.

I have to disagree with you Chas. Yoou don't get much more non judeo christian than me. But i feel no need to say anything here. i do haver an interest in it from a historical point of view, but thhat is it.

But this thread seems to be pretty tame. Now, if someone starts saying that christianity justifiess anti gay marriage, or the war, or anything like that, I might feel the need to comment. But no one is saying that here. And please, no one comment on this. I am just saying i don't think anyone is saying anything that is all that controversial or demands any kind of retort from disagreeing readers.

And if suddenly a bunch of people started posting threads dedicated to christian ideas and discussions, i might object on the basis that this is not what thhis forum is about. But this seems just kind of interesting from a cultural perspective, and a historical perspective. This discussion does nnot even require belief in any of it. This is strictly a historical discussion.

that is my opinion anyway.

 

[reetpleat]

I didn't insult anyone in particular. I stated an opinion that the bible is a bad piece of literature. If someone takes that as a personal attack, then I can't help them. It's not the same at all as me saying to such and such a person "you are an idiot" which I did not do.

It's also cherry-picked ad nauseum as a "spiritual guide". Here are some of the gems you find there:

• Ethnic Cleansing
• Stoning for adultery
• slavery

There's also an interesting passage in Exodus (also in Deuteronomy) that outlines the price for seducing/raping another man's daughter. The price is that the offender pays the father of the girl the "going price of virgins".

So women are property, according to your bible. Are you still in the mood to defend it?

In college, i took a class called The Bible As Literature. Quite a good class. And frankly, examining the bible as literature reveals quite good literature. Now, anyone who thinks the bible is all fact may well think it does not matter if it is good literature. But anyone who believes the bible is a collection of stories based on some historical facts, but also designed to be good literature as a spiritual examination of the nature of god, will see that there is a good reason for it to be compelling literature. it gets people thinking.

It's all there. Love, war, betrayal, trickery, incest, adultery, treachery, fear, courage, famine, flood, enslavement, escape, dreams. This is some ofthe best literature of the age. That may well be why it lasted. As a matter of fact, many biblical stories are seem to have their roots in older legends and stories, such as the flood. You can't really mess with the classics.

 

[Widebrim]

I didn't insult anyone in particular. I stated an opinion that the bible is a bad piece of literature. If someone takes that as a personal attack, then I can't help them. It's not the same at all as me saying to such and such a person "you are an idiot" which I did not do.

It's also cherry-picked ad nauseum as a "spiritual guide". Here are some of the gems you find there:

• Ethnic Cleansing
• Stoning for adultery
• slavery

There's also an interesting passage in Exodus (also in Deuteronomy) that outlines the price for seducing/raping another man's daughter. The price is that the offender pays the father of the girl the "going price of virgins".

So women are property, according to your bible. Are you still in the mood to defend it?

Well, Charles, what you actually wrote was that the Bible was a "sorry excuse for literature" (and that the whole topic was "trite"), which implies that anyone who believes it is an idiot. Although this is going to be fftopic: , permit me to continue. As I do, please keep in mind that the Bible is not just considered as a "spiritual guide," but as a history book as well, which sometimes simply records lives, practices, and events that transpired (or were about to transpire).

Regarding "ethnic cleansing"- During the time of the Old Testament, the God of the Bible was setting apart for himself a physical people, the Hebrews, who became the physical nation of Israel. It was through them that God was to speak, particularly through prophets and the Mosaic Law. In order to prevent His people, or representatives, from adopting/adapting the often idolatrous practices of their neighbors (practices which God had warned the latter to desist), He often used Israel to destroy those peoples. To call this "ethnic cleansing" is to miss the above motivation, and to therefore mis-use the term.

Stoning for adultery- In ancient times, as in modern, the family unit was the building block of society. This was especially true of ancient Israel, which was ordered to keep detailed records of tribal/clan genealogies (particularly among those who were priests and rulers). To allow adulterers to live and potentially continue their practices, would have placed in jeopardy the Hebrew tribal structure, from which Jesus was to have arisen. In addition, as Israel was to be faithful to its God, the union of man and wife was to be an analogy of such loyalty and devotion (although this is more developed in the New Testament).

Slavery- In His dealings with the ancient Hebrews, God dealt with them at the level and culture that they were at. His main concern was to use the Hebrews as part of His plan of redemption, culminating in the work of Jesus. However, what we know as "slavery" is not to be equated with the ancient practice; it was more akin to indentured servitude. A male slave, for example, was to be freed after six years, unless (hard for us to understand) he loved his master and desired to remain with him for life. A female "slave" was to be treated by her master as his own wife; if married to his son, then as his own daughter. The actual punishment for capturing and selling a person into bondage (our modern concept of slavery) was death.

Women as property- When a woman married in ancient times, she brought with her a dowry. If she became single again, that dowry went with her as a means of support. If a man seduced/raped a woman, the money paid to her father for the offense was basically the "going rate" of a dowry in those days, and would eventually be given to the woman if she married. (It's true that by the time of the 1st Century AD, Hebrew women were generally held in very low esteem, but it was Jesus who went on to elevate the position of women, although this is often lost by modern Christians.)

Again, sorry for being off topic, but since Charles brought up these subjects in this thread, I felt that they should be addressed in this same thread.

 

[Chas]

What's your point?

 

[Widebrim]

I agree that there is no reason for this particular thread to be in the Lounge. Where's the Golden Era relevance?

Politics are divisive. Religion is divisive.

Hats on the other hand...

Ah, yes, hats ...Sara, I can agree with you to a certain point, but consider this: I once questioned, for example, the relevancy of posting comments about a film that had nothing really to do with the Golden Age. The response from a bartender (one whom I respect) was that the forum was open to general comments on just about everything, that film included. I didn't care for the answer, but had to live with it. (The other "tongue-in-cheek" response I received from a Lounger offered a different perspective: The film qualified due to the fact that the protagainist brandished a M-1 Garand rifle from the Korean War!) At any rate, I do see and sympathize with your point.

Lee

 

[Widebrim]

What's your point?

I simply commented on the "spiritual gems" that you brought up, my friend, and I'll leave it at that.

 

[carebear]

It would seem to be easier to simply not go into a thread with a title/subject that clearly shows it concerns a topic you don't like/respect than to waste your time/disdain by popping in simply to complain about it.

Those who care will read and respond and you can go about your merry way totally unhindered in any way.

At least that seems the more rational response; versus deliberately entering a thread, the subject of which you apparently have nothing but disdain for, simply for the... pleasure?... of criticizing it.

Almost seems counter-productive in a way, as each post you make brings it back to the top of the page whereas with one fewer contributor it is certain to more quickly fall lower and lower on the page over time.

Irrational and counter-productive, unless the true purpose of needlessly entering that thread of no interest to one's self is simply to stir up trouble and attempt to "draw a foul" and get it closed. Spoiling it for others on general principle.

Which seems rude.

After all, a complaint about the subject being inappropriate could and should be taken to a mod via PM.

 

[HoundstoothLuke]

Maybe we should all stop here and have a nice cup of tea instead, before a moderator arrives to nip this in the bud.