RugbyRebels

The Old Testament, which is basically a plagiary of the Judaist Torah, was found to be more violent than the New Testament (written by the Romans, likely at the Council of Nicea in 325AD) and more than twice as violent as the Quran.

"Killing and destruction are referenced slightly more often in the New Testament (2.8%) than in the Quran (2.1%), but the Old Testament clearly leads—more than twice that of the Quran—in mentions of destruction and killing (5.3%)."

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-enter ... ebook-post

And your point is? AFAIC all religion is a waste of time & effort & whether 1 is more violent/peaceful/sexually invigorating
than another is irrelevant.

It's not my point. It's the result of a study published in Britain's Independent. Personally I'm not a fan of conventional religions and find them a little childish, to be honest. They were likely created to control people, for better or worse, and have been appropriated to that end throughout the ages, leading to an endless amount of evil being committed in their name. Meanwhile, it has been my personal observation, having lived long-term in several countries, including both Christian and Muslim, that the devoutly religious are often among the kindest people you will meet.

This is nonsense. "referencing" violnece isn't the point. The fact that the old Testament promotes genocide of the enemies of Israel might be, were the whole lot not a load of superstitious mumbo jumbo.

Agreed. Both the Old Testament and Torah clearly state their God told the Jews to rise up and slaughter the peaceful inhabitants of Canaan (ancient Palestine).

However, they do offer an invaluable chronicle of ancient Middle Eastern history, with a great deal of the mythology/religion involved being lifted directly from Zoroastrianism and pagan Egyptian religions, unsurprisingly. Basic concepts such as Heaven and Hell, the Devil and angels, are all taken from the former, while tales such as the Great Flood and Moses being sent down the river mirror those in the Legend of Gilgamesh, which takes us right back to the dawn of civilization in Iraq.

The Zeitgeist series covers this particularly well...

If we're discussing violent works of fiction then I'll put forward Lord of the Rings.

Not sure if this thread is about envy or hubris

Was hubris one of the elves?

BBD wrote:Was hubris one of the elves?

I think perhaps Hubris was the dog in the Famous Five series, lashings of ginger beer and all that. Which gets us back I suppose to the Bible and the Quran and their long standing admiration for ginger beer lovers

Mellsblue wrote:If we're discussing violent works of fiction then I'll put forward Lord of the Rings.

Today I watched all 3 Hobbit films in a row. That took up just over half the time I was sitting in the plane.


Sent from my genius using brilliance

Lizard wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:If we're discussing violent works of fiction then I'll put forward Lord of the Rings.

Today I watched all 3 Hobbit films in a row. That took up just over half the time I was sitting in the plane.


Sent from my genius using brilliance

That's nothing, I once watched Daredevil followed by Elektra whilst on a plane, both films that could only be watched as a captive. At the start of the first film we were flying over some red stuff in Oz, at the end of the second film we were flying over some red stuff in Oz.

I once took a long train journey having decided to catch up on season two of game of thrones on my iPad. All was well until the shagging started...

Sandydragon wrote:I once took a long train journey having decided to catch up on season two of game of thrones on my iPad. All was well until the shagging started...

Well at lest you made it past the opening titles

Which Tyler wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:I once took a long train journey having decided to catch up on season two of game of thrones on my iPad. All was well until the shagging started...

Well at lest you made it past the opening titles

If in Wales the shagging might have been on the train rather than on the iPad, or both.

What's interesting is that the Jews reject Jesus as surely as the Christians reject Muhammad, but the Muslims actually accept Jesus as having been one of the prophets, although no reference was made to Jesus until the Council of Nicea in 325AD. Seems like it took a long time for news of a man who performed miracles to seep out, although the people who were actually on the scene at the time deny it all. & did Muhammad actually exist? If Moses was the Judaist and Christian version of the pagan Egyptian prophet Musa, who also went up the mountain and received instruction from the Big Guy, then would the Islamic prophet sort of fit right in there? I have to confess I could not read the Quran right through, just as I could finish Buddha's teachings, because it all just read like simple philosophy to me, where the Christian Bibles had a little more action and history in them which kept me going despite a lot of inane ramblings in between. But I read a book about the life of Muhammad, and was somewhat alarmed to discover he actually got by through banditry prior to his enlightenment at the age of 40, even killing some folks. & it would seem he attempted to spread the gospel, so to to speak, through similar tactics. As for Jesus, his life reflects the cycle of the sun, as did the lives of many solar deities in pagan religions, being born at the winter solstice, growing up, multiplying the crops and healing the sick, then being struck down in the prime of life, or at his zenith, with his "thorny crown."

& as an aside, Father Christmas also represents the sun in Nordic mythology, a fat guy in a red suit flying across the sky and disappearing down the chimneys at dusk. He is not to be confused with Santa, who is based upon the 4th century Greek priest Nicholas (actually from what is today southern Turkey, as people here like to remind you), who made trips to Western Europe bearing gifts. Various European nations still celebrate Xmas and St Nicholas separately, but the Americans did confuse the two and create a single character for marketing purposes (apparently Coca Cola was the catalyst).

rowan wrote:Agreed. Both the Old Testament and Torah clearly state their God told the Jews to rise up and slaughter the peaceful inhabitants of Canaan (ancient Palestine).

However, they do offer an invaluable chronicle of ancient Middle Eastern history, with a great deal of the mythology/religion involved being lifted directly from Zoroastrianism and pagan Egyptian religions, unsurprisingly. Basic concepts such as Heaven and Hell, the Devil and angels, are all taken from the former, while tales such as the Great Flood and Moses being sent down the river mirror those in the Legend of Gilgamesh, which takes us right back to the dawn of civilization in Iraq.

The Zeitgeist series covers this particularly well...

Bit in bold, where'd you find that?

There's no mythology in the OT. It's a technical point, but something that is critical in emphasizing the difference between the deity of the Torah, and polytheism

rowan wrote:What's interesting is that the Jews reject Jesus as surely as the Christians reject Muhammad, but the Muslims actually accept Jesus as having been one of the prophets, although no reference was made to Jesus until the Council of Nicea in 325AD. Seems like it took a long time for news of a man who performed miracles to seep out, although the people who were actually on the scene at the time deny it all. & did Muhammad actually exist? If Moses was the Judaist and Christian version of the pagan Egyptian prophet Musa, who also went up the mountain and received instruction from the Big Guy, then would the Islamic prophet sort of fit right in there? I have to confess I could not read the Quran right through, just as I could finish Buddha's teachings, because it all just read like simple philosophy to me, where the Christian Bibles had a little more action and history in them which kept me going despite a lot of inane ramblings in between. But I read a book about the life of Muhammad, and was somewhat alarmed to discover he actually got by through banditry prior to his enlightenment at the age of 40, even killing some folks. & it would seem he attempted to spread the gospel, so to to speak, through similar tactics. As for Jesus, his life reflects the cycle of the sun, as did the lives of many solar deities in pagan religions, being born at the winter solstice, growing up, multiplying the crops and healing the sick, then being struck down in the prime of life, or at his zenith, with his "thorny crown."

& as an aside, Father Christmas also represents the sun in Nordic mythology, a fat guy in a red suit flying across the sky and disappearing down the chimneys at dusk. He is not to be confused with Santa, who is based upon the 4th century Greek priest Nicholas (actually from what is today southern Turkey, as people here like to remind you), who made trips to Western Europe bearing gifts. Various European nations still celebrate Xmas and St Nicholas separately, but the Americans did confuse the two and create a single character for marketing purposes (apparently Coca Cola was the catalyst).

Where are you pulling this info from? Any citations?

The earliest gospel, Mark was probably written before the fall of Jerusalem (70AD), so yes you could argue that that it took a long time for it to be written down. Mark itself may be based on an earlier source called Quelle, or "Q".

Critical scholarly argument about the historicity of the Gospels usually revolves around the different interpretations of JC's ministry. For example, John has Jesus crucified on the eve of the passover when the lambs are slaughtered. In the synoptic gospels he's crucified on passover. There's all sorts of arguments about this discrepancy, but the one that's generally accepted is that John viewed JC as a lamb whose sacrifice would redeem mankind.

Bart Ehrman wrote some excellent introductory books to NT criticism. Worth reading.

Digby wrote:

BBD wrote:Was hubris one of the elves?

I think perhaps Hubris was the dog in the Famous Five series, lashings of ginger beer and all that. Which gets us back I suppose to the Bible and the Quran and their long standing admiration for ginger beer lovers

Friday afternoons in 1981....



I'm welling up here.

There were a couple of major schisms long before the protesters of northern Europe broke with the Catholics of southern Europe and became the Protest-ants.

The first was between the Sunnis and the Shias following the death of Muhammad. The former, who can be regarded as Orthodox Muslims, believed the successor to the prophet ought to be chosen by the clerisy, beginning with Abu Bakr. Shia believes the succession was hereditary, beginning with the prophets cousin and son-in-law Ali. Iran, Iraq and Lebanon are the only Shia majority nations, I believe. Syria is Sunni majority but has an Alawite leader. The Alawites, like the Alevi of Turkey, also follow the succession of Ali, though they do not regard themselves as Shia.

The second was between Rome and Constantinople a little over a thousand years ago, and was basically over a lot of fairly minor theological details like iconoclasm and whether you could reproduce the image of God or not. The Byzantines of Constantinople thought not (like the Muslims in their religion), and the Orthodox church of Greece and Eastern Europe is based on their teachings. The Cyrillic alphabet also came out of Byzantium, btw.

Bit in bold, where'd you find that?

There's no mythology in the OT. It's a technical point, but something that is critical in emphasizing the difference between the deity of the Torah, and polytheism

Bit in bold is the way I recall it, aside from attempting to defend their city, at least.

The OT is in fact little more than a collection of myths and legends from the ancient world, but which is which is another question. As stated, the Legend of Gilgamesh seems to have been the source for many.

The earliest gospel, Mark was probably written before the fall of Jerusalem (70AD),

But you're referencing religious sources here; not factual historical evidence as presented by the recognized historians of the time. There is not a single reference of any Jewish miracle-worker named Jesus prior to the Council of Nicea in 325AD. There are only religious references, likely slipped in at a later time. Btw, I think it was Queen Elizabeth the 1st who had a clause added to the Bible stating anti-monarchism equated to 'blasphemy.'

Strabo, Livy. Marcus Velleius Paterculus, Memnon of Heraclea, Quintus Curtius Rufus, Pamphile of Epidaurus, Thallus, Plutarch,
Gaius Cornelius Tacitus, Suetonius, Appian, Arrian, Lucius Ampelius, Dio Cassius, Herodian, Sextus Julius Africanus & Diogenes Laërtiusree were the foremost Greek and Roman historians, politicians, philosophers and writers of the first few centuries AD, and none of them mention Jesus.

Who cares?

All religion is fraud.

Probably, though I'm fairly sure this guy actually existed:

rowan wrote:There were a couple of major schisms long before the protesters of northern Europe broke with the Catholics of southern Europe and became the Protest-ants.

Couple?

http://the40.org/world-religions-tree.html

Which Tyler wrote:

rowan wrote:There were a couple of major schisms long before the protesters of northern Europe broke with the Catholics of southern Europe and became the Protest-ants.

Couple?

http://the40.org/world-religions-tree.html

Never seen that before. Incredible.

rowan wrote:Probably, though I'm fairly sure this guy actually existed:

I saw his face in my toast this morning. It's a sign.

Personally I'm a follower of the Cult of Lomu: