Caesar
-
Posts
683 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Caesar
-
-
No John, I believe he was written about by at least two Jewish historians at the time. I bet this is just the sort of thing Quacker would know in a heartbeat. I'd say that it's pretty foolish to completely doubt that Christ actually existed as a person, because we definitely know that people were starting up his religion and dying for it within a few decades.
I completely agree, but from a secular point of view there can be many possibilities regarding Jesus (I once heard a theory that Christianity began as a Jewish Mystery Religion started by St. Paul who was an agent of the Roman Empire
).However, there are some references to Christ among historians of that time (excluding the Biblical Gospels written from 60 to 90 AD)
"But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilatus, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular." - Gaius Cornelius Tacitus, Roman historian (in his Annals regarding Christian persecutions under Nero, c. 116 AD)
“Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.” - Flavius Josephus, Jewish historian (in his work, Antiquities of the Jews, c. 93 AD)
“Christians... asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so” - Pliny the Younger, Roman historian (in a letter to the Emperor Trajan, c. 112 AD)
There are more, but I think I made my point. There are also the non-Biblical Gospels, some of which are claimed to be older than the four Biblical ones, but there is a good reason they were not included in the New Testament
We can prove the existance of the Apostles- the remains of several of them still exist (notably St. Peter’s body which lies in a tomb under the Great Basilica which bears his name).
Some people believe that there were a few "messiah" in these years, and a lot of popular assemblea. Perhaps there is something real in it.Of course, messiahs were not uncommon in Judea around the time of Christ. For the most part they claimed they were the savior prophesized in the Old Testament, tried to start a rebellion and were inevitably executed by the Romans. This gives good reason for the eagerness of the Romans to get rid of Jesus- unlike in the Gospels, Pontius Pilate was a brutal dictator during his tenure as Judean Prelate, but it probably wouldn’t have been a good idea for the Gospel writers to portray a Roman as partly responsible for Christ’s death when they were writing primarily for a Roman audience
-
I myself came to have doubts about Jesus's existence (yes, you may throw whatever you want at me now), but, for me, it doesn't matter very much, as the message itself can remain relevant, with or without him as real.
The majority of atheists I have talked to at least admit that Jesus was at least a historical figure. Although considering that except for a small number contemporary sources, there is no real historical evidence to the existance of Jesus outside the Gospels, doubting His historical authenticity is understandable for non-Christians. Then again, there isnt any real evidence to Mohammed, Buddha, Abraham or Moses either
-
Well, blood coming from the vagina doesn't constitute, "shitting." However, the "boycott," is rather amusing, since it only draws attention to the episode, probably increasing its viewership.
Originaly they thought she was shitting, until the Pope corrected them
and yes, it did increase the viewership of that episode. Just like all fuss the Muslims started over the Mohammed cartoons promted more and more newspapers to reprint them.
-
Sorry I havent posted in a while,
Doesn't this three modes of existance all seem a bit complicated? And to what ends would we figure it out? And why do we divide everything into its own universe? I mean the holy spirit would seem just as divine as Jesus, yet neither of them are actually in the divine mode of existance. Ah well...Your final paragraph Caesar, is interesting but not quite correct. I mean, if you are proposing what I think you are proposing, namely, that all beings have parts of all three realms in them, it is impossible for one to ever remove themselves from one.Hehe, now I'll tell you what my teacher told the class after we presented all our ideas- the whole point of the exercise it seems was to show us just how many differant possibilities for the nature of the universe exist. Raptor summed it up best I think:
You think that something as large and complex as the universe and existance would be easily explained?I definately agree with you there
Yiuel;
Great images, they really demonstrate that the nature of the universe is ultimately up to the beholder. I think of myself as living in the upper-right image- I think of myself as being part of the universe, but an integeral part of it, as is everyone and everything (would the universe be the same without you- think about it
).I've got something new to discuss today, it is a recent court case in Italy where an atheist filed charges against a Catholic priest for asserting that Jesus existed. Take a look-
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/10/...in1306875.shtml
An Italian judge has dismissed an atheist's petition that a small-town priest should stand trial for asserting that Jesus Christ existed, both sides said on Friday.Luigi Cascioli, a 72-year-old retired agronomist, had accused the Rev. Enrico Righi of violating two laws with the assertion, which he called a deceptive fable propagated by the Roman Catholic Church.
"The Rev. Righi is very satisfied and moved," Righi's attorney, Severo Bruno, said. "He is an old, small-town parish priest who never would have thought he'd be in the spotlight for something like this."
Cascioli, a former schoolmate of Righi's, said he had not expected the case to succeed in overwhelmingly Roman Catholic Italy.
"This is not surprising but it doesn't mean it all ends here," he said, adding that he's considering taking the case to the European Court of Human Rights.
"This is an important case and it deserves to go ahead," he said.
Judge Gaetano Mautone said in his decision that prosecutors should investigate Cascioli for possible slander.
The ruling was released Thursday in Viterbo, a town north of Rome where the priest is based.Cascioli filed a criminal complaint against Righi in 2002 after Righi wrote in a parish bulletin that Jesus existed, that he was born to a couple named Mary and Joseph in Bethlehem and that he lived in Nazareth.
Righi, 76, said substantial historical evidence proves Jesus' existence.
Cascioli claimed that Righi's assertions violated two Italian laws: one barring "abuse of popular belief," or fraudulently deceiving people; and another barring "impersonation" or personal gain from attributing a false name to someone.
-
Recently I saw something in the news about the Catholics and Muslims in New Zealand attempting to boycott an episode of South Park because it was offensive to Christianity (I happened to see this episode a couple weeks ago and basicaly it shows the Virgin Mary shitting blood onto the Pope who declares she is actualy menstruating). I know we were discussing offensive images in Christianity at one point in this thread, so I just wanted to see what everybody thinks of this specific example.
-
I want to finish high school this year, go back for an extra semester next year (universities like it when you have more u-level courses), work and save up my money until that summer, go on a 2 month trip to europe, then go to university. This is my master plan- whats yours?
-
Poor Tim, the latest victim of the American Vice President.
When will Cheney be stopped? For the good of society, WHEN WILL HE BE STOPPED??!!!
-
The Canadian mens team lost to Russia
-
As promised, here is the "theory" my class has been working on to explain the relationship between God and our physical universe.
But first, lets look at the differant ways people have regarded the universe and God:
This is the universe of ancient times, in specific the Hebrews. Here the Earth is flat, not spherical; below the Earth is the underworld or hell; the Pillars or Columns of the Earth support the Dome of the Sky (with floodgates in it for rainwater) attached to which is the sun and the moon and the stars; above the sky is the Heavenly Seat of Divinity- God.
This cosmology is known as the Hierarchal Universe, with God at the top, hell at the bottom and our world in between. Most ancient cultures possessed a similar cosmology with these basic elements:
Upperworld
(The Divine)
l
Middleworld
(The Living)
l
Underworld
(The Dead)
In the late middle ages people realized that the earth was in fact flat, and reorganized their view of the universe to this:
Here we have the Geocentric or earth-centered universe- the spherical earth is in the center; the sun revolves around the earth; the planets and stars revolve around the earth; outside of the universe is God.
This type of universe began beliefs that maybe God does not exist as a Physical being, but rather a Spiritual one.
Thanks to the work of such people as Galileo and Copernicus, we learned about the Heliocentric, or sun centered, universe where the Earth revolves around the sun as do all the planets. But we now know that our heliocentric solar system is but a small part of the universe:
Here the Earth is to the universe as an atom is to a planet, and the universe probably isnt centered on our solar system either. As to the place of God in the universe, many differant opinions exist, such as- God is outside the universe; God is within the universe (where?); God IS the universe; God does not exist.
Now we get to the theory I am putting forward (I dont necessarily believe it, but it does answer some questions).
Like I said in my previous post, this theory includes the existance of Three Modes of Existance- the Divine, the Spiritual and the Material/Physical. Each mode is also one of the Personifications of God- The Father (Divine Mode), the Son (Material Mode) and the Holy Spirit (Spiritual Mode). All three exist by themselves, but are in fact One God- the same applies to the 3 Modes of Existance.
Humans are both Physical and Spiritual Beings: our senses are in tune with the Physical Universe- what we can see, touch, hear ect.- while we are also in tune with the spiritual universe, some people more than others. To die is to be removed from the physical universe and become wholly spiritual. To cease to believe in the Spiritual is to remove ourselves from the Spiritual Mode and become wholly physical.
I will post more updates to this later
-
Victor Horta was an amazing architect. I like his use of glass and marble his works. Very impressive
The use of Gothic architecture in medieval Flanders is quite intriguing because, as you mentioned above, great building projects in central and western europe were almost exclusively religious-oriented, but in the Flanders region many civil and public buildings recieved the same attention.
In regards to the Architecture of the Third Reich, I found this interesting site detailing the architecture and Hitler's "World Capital". It also includes stuff on the new and strange weapons the nazis wanted to build and the mysticism and occult influences of Nazi Germany. Both interesting and creepy.
-
Well, I'll get the ball rolling again
Recently I have been reading about an interesting type of architecture that existed in the 1930’s and 40’s. It consisted of a mixture of Baroque style architecture and Classical architecture (particularly that of the Romans). This unique style lasted only for a short while and few buildings were ever completed using the style, but it is an intriguing topic in the history of architecture especialy for it’s Ideological purpose and the notoriety of it’s architects, but also for the grandeur and massive scale which had been planned. I am talking about the architecture of the Third Reich.
Adolf Hitler regarded himself as a talented artist and architect (although he failed admission to the Viennese Academy of Arts twice). He admired the late and neo-Baroque styles as well as Classical Dorian (Greek) and Roman architecture. Hitler wanted a style of architecture that would reflect decadence of the Baroque, the timless Classical styles while at the same time giving an image to his political and ideological philosophies.
Enter Albert Speer- Hitler’s chief architect and attempted assassin. Speer coupled Hitler’s vision with real architectual prowess. His most well known creations (that were built) include the Zeppelintribune (the Nuremberg parade grounds and colonade, modelled on the Pergamon Altar) and the Reichskanzlei (Chancellery). Speer also devised the Law of Ruin Value, which states that even in decay, great buildings should possess an aesthetic appeal as magnificent ruins. To the nazis this meant that even when their planned buildings would be inevitably reduced to ruins thousands of years in the future (although it happened much sooner then they anticipated), people would look upon those ruins and see the remains of a great bygone empire- just like how we look at the ruins of ancient Rome and Greece. To achieve this, Nazi political buildings were to avoid being constructed with “modern” materials such as steel girders and concrete, rather stone and marble were favored.
The Zeppelintribune in Nuremberg designed by Albert Speer- The parade grounds of the Nuremberg rallies had a definite Imperial look, with an almost religious design centering on Hitler.
Reichskanzlei (Reich Chancellery) designed by Albert Speer
Probably the greatest buildings of Nazi Architecture were never built. Hitler envisioned a new Berlin- the Welthauptstadt Germania (literaly, the German World Capital)- which would reflect the power and prestige of the Nazi Empire (after their assumed victory in WW2) as well as Nazi ideals. The new Reichs Chancellery was only a single part of Hitler’s vision.
The center of this “World Capital” was to be the the Volkshalle complex, a massive governmental monument. The Reichs Chancellery and the 1936 Olympic stadium (which was to be the center of the “Aryan Games” that were to replace the olympics and take place only in Berlin) are the only parts of the Welthauptstadt Germania to have been completed (in fact Hitler wanted Speer to design and build a third, larger Chancellery). The main complex was to be organized along a central 3 mile long avenue- at the southern end was to be a model of the Arc de Triomphe, although almost much larger being 100m (400ft) high. At the north end was to be Hitler’s crowning achievement, the Volkshalle- an enormous Dome (the largest ever built) based on the Pantheon in Rome. It would have been over 200m high (700ft+) with a diameter of 250m (800ft)- sixteen times the size of the Dome atop the Basilica of St. Peter. At the north end of the Volkshalle building was to be a large gilded niche (further showing the similarities between it and the Pantheon) where Hitler as cosmocrator would address a crowd of 200,000 essembled on the 3 tiers of seating that rose from the floor of the Volkshalle to the rim of the Dome. Sitting atop the Dome would be the statue of an eagle grasping in it’s claws a globe (as opposed to the normal swastika). On the north façade two mytholigcal figures in stone would stand- on the west end would be Atlas supporting the heavens, and on the east would be Tellus supporting the Earth.
The ultimate purpose of the Volkshalle is still being debated, but many scholars believe that Hitler meant it to become a Temple to his dynasty (see any links to Roman religion?), and the multitude of imperialistic symbolism, much of it out of classical mythology and Roman imagery, seems to suggest that. The architect seemed to agree in an interview-
"Hitler believed that as centuries passed, his huge domes assembly hall would acquire great holy significance and become a hallowed shrine as important to National Socialism as St. Peters in Rome is to Roman Catholicism. Such cultism was at the root of the entire plan." - Albert Speer
Truly in the plans and designs of his architecture, Adolf Hitler showed his true plans- a world dominated by Nazism and new religion based on the worship of the power and glory of the Nazi Empire and a cult of Hitler’s dynasty.
The Volkshalle designed by Albert Speer- Notice the model of the Brandenburg Gate in the lower right corner that gives you a sense of just how big this building would have been.
The Volkshalle Complex- Volkshalle Complex with the Volkshalle Dome in the North, the old Reichstag on the east and the Fuhrer’s Palace to the west, forming a central square (or forum?) at the north end of the avenue.
Welthauptstadt Germania- Model of Hitler’s capital with the Volkshalle in the distance.
Interior of the Volkshalle= Planned Interior of the Volkshalle. Notice the central niche.
The Fuhrer’s Palace- A definite Roman look here. Hitler’s own “Golden House”?
To think that this is what might have been is a chilling thought.
-
The Art and Architecture Thread
"Art is the desire of a man to express himself, to record the reactions of his personality to the world he lives in" - Amy Lowell (1874 - 1925)
As the title suggests, this is a thread for discussions on art and architecture. Here you can discuss anything from a style of architecture you like, to Aesthetics, to an artist who inspires you.
Note : for the sake of those of us with dial-up, please post links to any images you want to display rather than the image itself.
-
This is actually what I believe, as I think that the spirit is the product of all relations between matter in the brain. It is not matter per se, but all its relations.
In other words, spirits are a creation of our mind from your viewpoint, am I right?
I tend to view spirits as entities that exist spiritualy, that is they dont exist within the bounds of what we believe to be reality. So they dont exist within the material or physical universe.
In my theology class we are coming up with a theory regarding what we call "modes of existance". Basicaly we have come up with 3 levels of existance (Divine, Material and Spiritual) that are One (think of Christian terms- God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit- 3 distinct Beings existing as One God). I will try to explain this in more detail later.
I never heard it was a theist argument, and actually, I find it rather... unuseful. I take it as an atheistic argument, or at least, a secularist argument, because the further you go in science, the further has become God, about natural explanations.The text I found this theory in stated it as a "modern" theistic argument. Although I have to agree that it is secularist.
-
The Canadian Women's Hockey team got Gold
!!!!They beat Sweden 4-1! The US got bronze
-
Canada hasnt been doing that well in the last two hockey games, we have get it togather if we want to slaughter the Americans again.
But, I don't listen to olympics much, I tend to have problems with the whole concept, that I think partially flawed.I tend not to look at the politics of the olympics- this is one of the few events I try not to analyze as I just want to relax and watch some wholesome entertainment.
-
ever heard of the "God of the Gaps" theory?
Yes, I have. Although it claims to be theistic, I see it as an attempt to disprove theism. The theory claims that anything beyond current human understanding (ie. scientific understanding) can be attributed to God. However, most modern scientists hold that everything can, and will, be explained through science (a view I personaly do not share)- so that will eventualy "disprove" God in this theory. How can a theory claim to be theistic and at the same time claim that theism will one day be provem false?
Does a spirit exist in matter?Depends on who you talk to. I can get further into this, but first I would like to know what you mean by "spirit"- an angel or a demon in Judeo-Christian theology; the Holy Spirit in Christianity; the soul of a living being (from any religious theology); the "ghost" of a dead person; or a paranormal being from any religion?
-
Sorry for the double post,
but I just wanted to ask about the opinions on where God could exist- ie. if God created the universe and the universe is space and time, where is God? Can God's place even be described as a "where"?
-
Does the abuse of a power give justification for taking it away? To what degree? and in what cases would their be the opposite of what you answered?
I think so. In terms of governmental power I believe it should be taken away if a government or a leader abuses his/her power, but often it cant be taken away.
In terms of individual rights, such as Freedom of Speech and Expression, I believe that the line should be drawn where the intentions are. If a group does something (and it doesnt have to be violent) with the intention to provoke another group to violence, the first group should have their rights restricted to prevent violence. For example, a neo-nazi group marching through a Jewish area shouting anti-Jewish slogans with the intention to provoke a violent reaction from the Jews, or the Orange Parade.
Another cool thing I heard was that some Jewish cartoonists started a competition to draw cartoons about the Holocaust. Nice way of showing those Muslims that other cultures actually dare to criticise themselves and even laugh with the worst thing ever done to them.Nice little way to tell the Muslims to loosen up
You have to have to be able to laugh at your own religion sometimes- my parish priest told me that
-
But being shot???They should not be shot. Definately not killed, they're just children, a product of demented parents.
I never meant that to be taken literaly- merely a indication of my anger and disgust towards them
But, and this can tie back into the main topic, they are only exercising their right to Freedom of Speech and Expression, arent they
? -
Its good to see a new face in this topic
I think that the ORIGINAL Bible was an absolute authority, but I don't trust human nature.In your opinion, what is the original Bible- The Latin Vulgate; the Hebrew Tanak; the Dead Sea Scrolls, ect.?
I agree with your point about human nature- we are indeed beings that corrupt and pollute God's world (and not just physicaly), but that does not mean that what has been corrupted cannot be redeemed
Once again, I have always felt the "presence" of God, if you will, more deeply in a wild place in nature, than in any church. What better place to worship God than amongst things he created? To me, churches are largely empty symbols of human depravity, thinking they could ever come up with anything worthy to worship God in.Everyone finds God in a differant manner. I, for example, seem to feel that presence of God in the complete opposite way as you- I feel the presence of God every sunday at mass in the Cathedral. I feel the Divine presence in the throngs of the faithful, the heavy smell of insence, the solemn (and vibrant) latin hymns, the immense pipe organ that shakes the entire church when its played. I have found God at church, and I see his teachings in the Universal (ie. the Catholic) Church. Just goes to show that God comes to us in differant forms and in differant ways
So of course I have a differant opinion of church buildings- I see them as a testament to human talent, creativity and ingenuity. All the great monuments of the world were built for religious purposes- the pyramids, the parthenon, Solomon's Temple, the Hagia Sophia, Notre Dame of Paris, the Great Basilica of St. Peter- all wonders created out of the very talents and gifts God gave us. What better place to worship the Creator of all things than in a place built with the gifts He bestowed on us.
To me, theistic vs atheistic debates are largely pointless. In the end, there are no answers. It all comes down to what you believe in.It does all come down to faith (or lack thereof), but in some ways we see what we want to see. I believe that evidence of God is all around- we ourselves are evidence- but people demand scientific evidence; evidence that can be taken to a labratory, tested, researched, scurtinized and debated over; and that kind of evidence simply does not exist, or if it does we as humans can never realize it.
I mean, split things back all the way to the beginning. Simply put, you cannot make nothing from something. Once you have established that base, it's a simple matter to prove the existance of a god. Where did the first matter come from?This is basicaly another form of the the Cosmological Argument- something cant come from nothing, everything has a cause.
BTW Caesar, your "Majority" point, is useless. There have been many examples throughout history where the majority was wrong - just look at Galileo and Copernicus vs the rest of civilization when proving that the Earth revolved around the sun.I agree. The arguments I showed are actualy a variety of differant arguments I researched. This is why I tend to stick to the Metaphysical/Logical Arguments for the existance of God, as they can be backed up with logic and reason. St. Thomas Aquinas taught that religion and reason can be compatible (and found ways to make them so) at a time when there was great conflict between the two.
-
Hmm, I'll tread lightly for the moment...
If we follow Relativity, time and space is within the Universe, that is, something not even relevant when we discuss the origin of the Universe. But we try hard. But if time and space is within it, as is maybe causality, so discussing any cause autside the Universe is irrelevant. But it goes beyond the Universe, beyond our knowledge.Well, from my POV, time and space are creations of God. But I suppose you are right to it is beyond our knowledge. Our human understanding cannot truly comprehend the nature of the universe.
Hindus believe that the human mind is in capable of understanding God.
Pantheistic Argument - This has been probably the best argument I heard. The flaw here is proposing a second level for everything, therefore explaining nothing. Yet, truth might be a second level, but then again, there are thousands of way to imagine that second level, not only a god.I like this analogy which deals with Pantheism-
you are to God, as an individual blood cell in your vein is to you." The analogy further maintains that while a cell may be aware of its own environs, and even has some choices (free will) between right and wrong (killing a bacterium, becoming malignant, or perhaps just doing nothing, among countless others) it likely has little conception of the greater being of which it is a part.My main question when dealing with Pantheism is if we are meant to be physical elements of God, or spiritual.
Note how I do feel there is some truth BEHIND reality. Being atheist doesn't mean pure materialism. It is just that I question the nature of this reality.So, would you classify yourself more as an agnostic, rather than a full atheist?
Also, from an other idea (that reality is all what I need to know how to live), any reflexions on truth will be useless, unless it has itself a reality, which we could ultimately control. (As if a character of my stories was aware of the book's reality, and changed the words in my book, to change his own reality...)Heh, we have come back to the question of our own reality
-
It was with Soheib Bencheikh, a French muslim from Marseille, probably the wisest person I have heard since a few weeks, in the media.
I agree, this man does make a very good point
Worse, here, it's not even satirical. They do think it deeply. Yiuel's worst nightmare.Wow, these girls are really f***ed up. These people should be shot
Look at some of their lyrics:
Rudolf Hess, man of Peace
He wouldn't give up and he wouldn't cease
Remember him and give a pause
I dont know to which Rudolf Heß they are refering to (the Nazi politician, or the Commandant of Auschwitz), but I do know that both were terrible people who could never in a million years be called "men of peace". This type of racism really angers me.
-
Here is a little something that can go up for discussion, a topic that is at the core of any theological debate.
Recently in my theology class we were asked to look at the arguments for the existance of God (and there are many) from an objective point of view and find a specific argument that makes the most sense to us personaly (I go to a Catholic HS, so it is assumed that everyone believes in God). Now this of course got me thinking- I usualy tend to stick to the Cosmological argument, but lets look at a few other arguements and maybe have a little debate between theists and atheists
Metaphysical/Logical Arguments
Cosmological Argument - St. Thomas Aquinas came up with this one. Basicaly, the Law of Cause and Effect states that everything has a cause, all causes have effects and all effects are causes of other effects. The Law of Cause and Effect applies to everything in the Universe (thus everything subject to Time). Therefore the Universe itself must have a cause- as an infinite universe is against almost all current theories (the Big Bang theory in particular)- hence the First or Ultimate Cause which must exist outside the universe and not subject to time (therefore being a cause, although not having one). God can therefore be described as the First Cause.
Mathematical Argument - Still trying to understand this one, but simply it descibes God as the Absolute Infinite, a mathematical concept.
Ontological Argument - A controversial position, but has a good many defenders. This argument suggests that the Concept of God implies the existance of God- that is, if we concieve of God than God exists. It is not hard to see why this is controversial
Pantheistic Argument - The name itself is the argument- Greek: Pan-theos, or God is All. This argument says that all that exists, even ourselves, is God. This is the basis of Mysticism.
Empirical Arguments(based more on assumptions than logic)
Teleological argument - The Universe is not random, and therefore must have had an intelligent designer- ie. God.
Anthropic argument - The very fact that we exist is testament to the existance of God.
Majority argument - People in all times and places possessed a belief in God in some manner or another, therefore God exists (I once used Occams Razor in a debate to show that it is more likely for the 5% of humans who are atheist to be wrong, than for 95% to be suffering from mass dilussion).
Moral argument - Morality cannot exist without God.
In terms of Christianity (maybe we can hear from some other religions), there are two opposing viewpoints on arguing the existance of God- the older tradition (Thomism) is held by the Catholic Church. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that the existance of God can be demonstrated through reason and logic, leading to the arguments put forth by scholars like St. Thomas Aquinas.
The other viewpoint (held by most protestant denominations) is that the existance of God can only be proven to each individual by faith alone. Some fundamentalist groups go so far as to denounce any logical search for proof of God's existance as a sin.
-
And look what the escalation did for them... didn't Constantinople get sacked just for the heck of it as the Crusaders were on route for number nine or something? It was ridiculous.
That was the fourth Crusade. Basicaly the Crusaders gathered in Venice to sail off to invade Egypt (and from there the Holy Land) in Venetian ships, but the Doge of Venice would not let them leave without paying an enormous amount of money. The crusaders were unable to pay so the Venetians decided to use them to eliminate their old trade rival- Constantinople. The crusaders looted the city and killed any nobles they could find, and a prostitute sat on the patriarch's throne.
So the fourth crusade had nothing to do with a Holy War, instead it was caused by the greed of Venice. I believe the Church fervently denounced this crusade, but nobody listened.
General Theology Discussion Thread
in Hall of Intellectuals
Posted · Edited by Caesar
No kidding, about 5 churches claim to have Jesus's foreskin, many more claim to have differant "parts" of Him, and there are so many Pieces of the True Cross out there that Jesus must have died on a forest
But the fact is that there are many important relics that have been authenticated. Of course many forgeries have been made over the years, but most of the relics placed in altars have been proven as have most of the relics officialy recognized by the Catholic Church (just because a parish somewhere claims to have Christ's toenail doesnt mean it is recognized as the real thing by the Vatican). However, the Church does take more care now to authenticate relics than it did in the past.
1. The Gospels had existed in oral tradition before they were written down. Most scholars agree that the Gospels were written by people who personaly knew the Apostles (St. Mark for example was the secretary for St. Peter in Rome)- the Gospel of Mark was written first (he was the only one to actualy write his gospel); the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were written about the same time and named after prominent Christian leaders by their friends (the Book of Acts was written by the writters of Luke's Gospel); the Gospel of John was written by friends of St. John the Apostle (as was the Book of Revelations). Of course there are other Gospels, but the 3 synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John were used because of their accuracy, their sources and their time period.
2. St. John the Apostle was alive at the time of Jesus, and he lived to 80 AD because he was the youngest of the Apostles (I'm guessing he was only about 16 around the time of Christ).
3. What reasons do you have to say the Gospel writers were not guided by the Holy Spirit?
History says Pontius Pilate was cruel even by Roman standards. Several years after he executed Christ he was exiled to Gaul for his ruthless suppression of some rebellious Samaritans.
The Romans had trouble from rebell leaders, so Pilate was convinced by the Jewish leaders (who he didnt really like btw) to execute Jesus who they viewed as a threat to their power.
Secondly, the Gospels did have an angeda- to teach people about Jesus. Each of the Gospels was written for a specific audience after all- the Gospel of Mark was witten for Roman Christians; Matthew was written for converted Jews; Luke was written for gentile Christians; John was written for the Universal Church. The fact that they were each written for a specific audience has nothing to do with their authenticity. I'm not saying the Gospel writers lied, I'm just saying they downplayed the part of Pilate in the death of Christ for obvious reasons.