>Where are the real life inspirations for Hercules, Ra, Osiris,
>or Ganesha?

;)

[quote="Worm"]It's not like Jesus broke so much philosophical ground or anything like that.[/quote]

[i]Thank[/i] you.

[quote="co"][quote="worm don't steal caltrops' jokes"]It's about there being some sort of primordial bullshit "blue collar hero" taking on the establishment with his ripped off philosophy 2000 years ago.[/quote]Now you're arguing with yourself, we're not automatically buying into the entire romantic story of the man. Of course there was marketing and manipulation involved, duh.[/quote]
Yeah, if you'll notice my original reaction in this thread was to "and he was a philosopher and wrote wonderful poetry and pissed off the empire". I can only assume through Robb's commendable disregard of reality that he feels the same thing. A historic Jesus is hard to imagine, much less construct in a way that is obvious.

[quote][quote="worm don't steal caltrops' jokes"]It's not a conspiracy theory, it's simply pointing that this religion like many other ancient religions(Greek, Egyptian, Pagan, Hinduism) may be based primarily in fiction.[/quote]great work! Seven pages later your bottom line is this obvious and doesn't at all conflict with saying "yeah there was likely some fucking schlameel with a similar name who did some things that people talked about and were inspired by and ended up becoming part of a big bullshit religion".[/quote]
Haha, what? Where are the real life inspirations for Hercules, Ra, Osiris, or Ganesha? No one would dare state those characters were likely inspired by a real being who did similar things. How is my invocation of ancient and fictional religions not in conflict with that kind of nonsense language?

I do appreciate the "likely", however. It's much better than "as true as your grandmother died of lung cancer from smoking, there was a historical jesus".

Why is the idea of a written work featuring a fictional character so amazing? It's not like Jesus broke so much philosophical ground or anything like that.

The historical Jesus is a mystery, and no amount of idiots like you peppering their screeds with words like "of course" "obviously" and "likely"(which honestly isn't so bad) isn't going to illuminate it further.

[quote="wrom"]It's about there being some sort of primordial bullshit "blue collar hero" taking on the establishment with his ripped off philosophy 2000 years ago.[/quote]Now you're arguing with yourself, we're not automatically buying into the entire romantic story of the man. Of course there was marketing and manipulation involved, duh.

[quote="wrom"]It's not a conspiracy theory, it's simply pointing that this religion like many other ancient religions(Greek, Egyptian, Pagan, Hinduism) may be based primarily in fiction.[/quote]great work! Seven pages later your bottom line is this obvious and doesn't at all conflict with saying "yeah there was likely some fucking schlameel with a similar name who did some things that people talked about and were inspired by and ended up becoming part of a big bullshit religion".

To sum it up:
You're all fools.

It makes as much intuitive sense to accept a historical Jesus as a historical Thor. Saying there was a Thor in reference to a man with no lightning hammer is disingenuous.

I still think Robb should be embarrassed.

[quote]Worm wants us believe that it makes more sense that the church manufactured this story completely using no real people or events at all. [/quote]
You stupid fucking trog. The creation of the new testament predates the church. I'm not stating that they believe this and cover it up.

I'm saying that it is completely wrong to say Jesus obviously existed. It's not just about events or there being an amalgamated Jesus through many great people, those things invalidate the historical Jesus ICJ and Vx are talking about. It's about there being some sort of primordial bullshit "blue collar hero" taking on the establishment with his ripped off philosophy 2000 years ago. The conclusion is reached because it sells and is romantic, nothing but the Christ can be validated with such poor evidence. Christ is a product.

It's just masturbation for one's common sense, "well I dunno much about no history or proof, but it dun makes sense to lil ol me". Dually desiring to be a down to earth slob and know the truth of the most elusive mysteries, it's a crock of shit. For his purported following and approval of my posting history, you might think ICJ would realize that this is what I hate. Black Holes Existing = Smoking Causing Cancer = Jesus Existing = Global Warming, it's just really pathetic.

It's not a conspiracy theory, it's simply pointing that this religion like many other ancient religions(Greek, Egyptian, Pagan, Hinduism) may be based primarily in fiction. However, Christianity needs special status even among the non-believers. Cuz you're fucking pussy whipped.

[quote="Lysander"]blind babble[/quote]Jonsey's right about lots of things in this debate and especially one thing, that academics love to fuck each over and be the first one to be "right" about something and publish it so there's no [i]great groupthink conspiracy[/i]. There's actually a lie that the evolution-deniers love to throw at real scientists, that because there's disagreement about all the mechanisms of evolution and it's considered a "theory" instead of a fact - that somehow evolution isn't as credible as any thinking person knows it is. Sure if you google search on "existence of Jesus", you'll find a bunch of sources that are cited by the christianfreak sites and aren't as credible. But there seem to exist a number of more credible accounts that were written by legit historians [i]of the period[/i] including greek ones, roman ones, and jesuit ones.

It just makes more common sense to accept that Jesus was a person (or people) who's teachings and speaking out inspired a number of people whose movement was coopted by the Roman Catholic church in order to solidify it's power. I don't care what actual events actually happened and I'm damn sure there were no "miracles". Hell, at that time it was probably a miracle to have the brains to say "wash your hands after you shit".

Worm wants us believe that it makes more sense that the church manufactured this story completely using no real people or events at all. His [size=150][b]conspiracy theory ass[/b][/size] wants us to set aside our knowledge that what the church has usually done is assimilate what people already believe into it's belief system in order to [u]bring them into the fold[/u]. For example, look at latin america where the church demolished native temples and built churches worshipping their new Saint RainGod or whatever. Why completely manufacture someone when it's easy enough to torture and kill a real man?

AMusingly, I just watched the episode of Dilbert where Dogbert writes a book on "chronic Cubicle Syndrome" yesterday. Jonsey, if you are having trouble understanding how it's possible for a myth to become unargued fact just through heresay then I recommend you watch that. It works because everyone wants it too. Jesus, look at the Wikipdeia asshole who spent three years pretending to be a P.H.D when it turns out he's just some maggot kid fucking with people. You just don't argue with a PHD holder on anything he says in his chosen field, whether what he's saying is right or wrong. They know this. Er go, they can say whatever the fuck they want to, and as long as they all manage to agree with each other in a vague, general manner than it becomes fact. Fuck man, anyone can write a book. I'm not saying that it's happened in this case, just that it can happen and the fact that scholars and scientists are people too is something you need to think about before deciding who to trust about anything.

That's my point. There aren't any.

Jonsey: 1
Worm: 0

Let's see if Worm can pull it out with some facts or evidence.

No, I'm full of semi-worthless information stuffed into my head. hey! I could be a graduate student or something. That was me looking something up in a book, which is more valuable than the information itself.


THE
BOOTSTRAP
AARDVARK

[quote="AArdvark"]Mithraism was a pagan religion rooted in the Roman world in the first century.[/quote]

Mithraism! You are full of surprises, Master AArdvark.

Okay, I now believe and worship the Invincible Sun God.

Mithraism was a pagan religion rooted in the Roman world in the first century. (God, this is like a school report!)

the celebration Natalis Solis Invicti (birth of the invincible sun god) was, not surprisingly, on Dec. 25th. The religion became so popular that Emperor Aurelian proclaimed it the official state religion around the early 300s.

The church, in an effort to promote thier own brand of religion, officially changed the birthdate of Jesus to Dec. 25th to offer a head-to-head competition on the sun worshippers beliefs. before that the bithdate was unclear, although many thought it must have been sometime in the spring. In those days birthdays were unimportant, it was the death day that counted.

Now, again this does not either prove or disprove anything. It does demonstrate that the church is made up of ordinary men who wanted to stay in power and would do pretty much anything keep it that way. Maybe that's the real issue.

THE
DON'T MAKE ME DO
RESEARCH ANYMORE
AARDVARK

He keep things lively, doesn't he? This is why [size=150][b]Worm[/size][/b] is invited to my Dinner Party.

What was that religion that was in... OH, hang on a second while I open a book. See, now I start researching and the whole world is in danger...


THE
CRACK
AARDVARK

"And HE scribeth into hith journalth 'thith guyth in the futureth ith such a pricketh' "

Well then, is there anything else to be said for or against the Jesus issue?

I understand that jesus supposedly kept a journal, as did all the supposed disciples. I guess they could write. Something like that would have been saved and probably copied. But again this falls under the no-proof edict.


THE
MORE SMOKE AND MIRRORS
AARDVARK

[quote="Ice Cream Jonsey"][quote]I mean he might as well admit that he believes in the tower of babel making God if he's gonna go down this path.[/quote]

You know what - look that up. I think you will be surprised. Nobody believes that the Tower of Babel made God.[/quote]
Uh, if I meant that I would have typed "God making tower of babel". I'm sorry I didn't include the hyphen, but 'tower of babel making' is an adjective there.

EDIT: I wrote verb instead of adjective previously. You took it to be 'subject verb object' but the tense isn't proper for that kind of structure. I'd need to use 'which' as in "The Tower of Babel which made God".

EDIT: EDIT: I was going to go with "world ending God", more succinctly "the God which ended the world". The former obviously doesn't mean a world that ends God because of the tense.

Remember that part about how religion and politics start more wars? This is a prime example. Tower of Babel?

Now where are we heading. Actually, I already know.


THE
DISASTER
AARDVARK