Did Jesus Die?

[Tom]

no, but we live in a slightly different time than the dark ages or before that. Most of us know the afterlife is most likely not true, but back then it was something real and allthough no one back then might have made a decision hmm afterlife or direct result. It most likely did help enforce the morals back then.

There isn't any real evidence to show that that is true. Going to church services was much more of a social gathering (and not nearly as prevalent as one might think) than trying to avoid eternal damnation. There was just as much crime going on back then as there is now, the difference now being that you can't get away with it as easily.

Life even 200 years ago was much less safe than it is now. Oh, and the 'dark ages' didn't really exist, thats just a historical myth. Life after the Romans left was actually quite varied and interesting in Europe. People didn't really go around whacking cats on doorframes, or collecting mud

 

[Sar]

The term "Dark Ages" refers to the lack of scientific progress made over 600 years or so because of the Church.

 

[JingleBells]

I thought it was to do with the lack of anything being properly documented. The Romans wrote everything down, but when they left very little history was recorded. Most history of this era is from monks like Bede, who liked to exaggerate/make up bits of history. When the Normans arrived history started to be recorded again (Doomsday Book, Bayeux Tapestry).

 

[Turamber]

The term "Dark Ages" refers to the lack of scientific progress made over 600 years or so because of the Church.

^^ Nope, not even close. See Jingle Bells post for full details. "Dark Ages" is a misnomer, however, because it only really applies to certain parts of Western Europe. The Church scribes of Ireland kept very good histories during this time and in Eastern Europe and the Middle East the Byzantine Empire (Pet Subject Number 1) was keeping the Roman tradition of history alive and well.

 

[Bodhi]

^^ Nope, not even close. See Jingle Bells post for full details. "Dark Ages" is a misnomer, however, because it only really applies to certain parts of Western Europe. The Church scribes of Ireland kept very good histories during this time and in Eastern Europe and the Middle East the Byzantine Empire (Pet Subject Number 1) was keeping the Roman tradition of history alive and well.

Funny then how the phrase "It was like going back to the Dark Ages" refers to a lack of technology or scientific knowledge rather than a lack of scribe documenting the conversation. You'd almost think that's becuase the Dark Ages refer to those 600 years with little scientific or technological progression.

 

[Turamber]

This is because, Bodhi, a lot of technology that the Romans had and left behind (central heating springs to mind, probably 'cos it's a bit chilly!) fell into disrepair after the 'fall' of the Western Empire. If you ever visit the city of Bath there is a fascinating recreation of how life changed for the Romano British after the Legions left the country.

So, yes, you are correct that it means more than literary records but it certainly doesn't refer to the Church holding back progress. That happened centuries later during the Medieval period ... although it's fair to point out that the Church (ie. Catholic Church) did sponsor some of the greatest thinkers of the renaissance and thus help to recover much of the techniques and technology that the Romans enjoyed centuries before.

 

[Bodhi]

Oh, great thinkers like Copernicus, Kepler and Gallileo, forced to conduct their work secretly and anonymously for fear of being branded heretics you mean? Aye, I'm sure the church looked after them alright.

 

[Trem]

The church is a motherfucker*



























*fuelled by Budweiser, may be a sweeping statement(but my opinion).

 

[Paradroid]

Oh, great thinkers like Copernicus, Kepler and Gallileo, forced to conduct their work secretly and anonymously for fear of being branded heretics you mean? Aye, I'm sure the church looked after them alright.

I thought it was more like: that the Church did want the discoveries etc - but for themselves and not for public consumption (unless it's proof that God exists and he's their mate).

 

[Durzel]

Plot holes in the bible?? Surely not!?

 

[TdC]

I thought it was more like: that the Church did want the discoveries etc - but for themselves and not for public consumption (unless it's proof that God exists and he's their mate).

tbh if someone discovered proof of god, and took it to the church in that timeframe, he would have been made to confess his obvious lies and fabrications under the red-hot iron and then burnt at the stake.

 

[Sar]

Thank you Bods.

The Church suppressed science during those 600 years, because they felt that science would draw believers away from the Church, thus weakening their power over your average schmoe back then. Trying to prevent basically what has happened over the past 200-300 years in fact. Science, and rational thinking has largely replaced religion for a lot of people. Churches are seeing their lowest attendances ever, as they obviously struggle to remain relevant in modern society.

I do know what I'm talking about Turamber, as I have done extensive work on this subject academically.

 

[Wij]

Science, and rational thinking has largely replaced religion for a lot of people

I wouldn't go so far as to say that. It's more that mass media has exposed people to a whole new array of mumbo-jumbo to believe and progressive attitudes have taught people that their ill-educated brain-spew is just as valid an opinion as that of someone with a PhD in Physics.

Churches are in decline. Superstition and belief in drivel is as high as ever.

 

[Turamber]

The Church suppressed science during those 600 years, because they felt that science would draw believers away from the Church

The Catholic Church were indeed responsible for persecuting some of the scientific minds of the Medieval period - for varied reasons, they took a dislike to Galileo because he suggested that the Earth revolved around the Sun rather than the Universe revolving around the Earth.

However it is only fair to point out that their conception of the Earth being the centre of the Universe is not in the Bible, but was the generally accepted thinking of the day ... often religion's become the defenders of the status quo, and so act outside of their scriptural remit.

But, trying to be fair, it's only correct to point out the funding they gave to various renaissance thinkers including Michelangelo and the aforementioned Galileo.

In many ways science has become a new religion where nobody should doubt the scientists ability to define what is right and wrong, where what is possible necessarily becomes right. Just because science can terminate pregnancies at x weeks means it's acceptable, just because science can clone sheeps means we should do it, just because scientists can manipulate our food and our unborn children genetically then it should be done.

Just as a closing thought a lot of people look at Darwin for the start of this 'modern age', but it's interesting that in his original introduction to the Origin of the Species Darwin confessed to believing in God as the first cause of life.

EDIT: Just doing a bit of reading I see that it was Copernicus who originally hit on the Earth circling the Sun idea ... and that he was a Canon in the Catholic Church, i.e. a member of the Clergy.

 

[dysfunction]

The fact that Darwin believes in God or not has absolutely no relevance to anything.
Nor does the fact that Copernicus was a Canon in the Catholic Church.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by saying that.

 

[Wij]

The Catholic Church were indeed responsible for persecuting some of the scientific minds of the Medieval period - for varied reasons, they took a dislike to Galileo because he suggested that the Earth revolved around the Sun rather than the Universe revolving around the Earth.

However it is only fair to point out that their conception of the Earth being the centre of the Universe is not in the Bible, but was the generally accepted thinking of the day ... often religion's become the defenders of the status quo, and so act outside of their scriptural remit.

But, trying to be fair, it's only correct to point out the funding they gave to various renaissance thinkers including Michelangelo and the aforementioned Galileo.

In many ways science has become a new religion where nobody should doubt the scientists ability to define what is right and wrong, where what is possible necessarily becomes right. Just because science can terminate pregnancies at x weeks means it's acceptable, just because science can clone sheeps means we should do it, just because scientists can manipulate our food and our unborn children genetically then it should be done.

Just as a closing thought a lot of people look at Darwin for the start of this 'modern age', but it's interesting that in his original introduction to the Origin of the Species Darwin confessed to believing in God as the first cause of life.

EDIT: Just doing a bit of reading I see that it was Copernicus who originally hit on the Earth circling the Sun idea ... and that he was a Canon in the Catholic Church, i.e. a member of the Clergy.

I think you're confusing several points. First off Aristarchus proposed that the Earth reveolved around the Sun before Jesus was even a twinkle in God's eye.

Secondly, science is precisely NOT a religion. The whole point about scientific theories is that they must be able to be challenged. Otherwise they are just dogma like religion.

Thirdly, these theories are simple statements of proposed fact. There IS no moral content to them. It's not claimed and it certainly isn't given by the only body capable of passing moral judgements, public opinion. The public view of science is very low at the moment, heading back to the dark ages almost. Fortunately we all like our heart transplants and microwave ovens too much to become Luddites so we just content ourselves with whinging about scientists 'playing god' (they think they're soooo clever) instead.

 

[Turamber]

The fact that Darwin believes in God or not has absolutely no relevance to anything.
Nor does the fact that Copernicus was a Canon in the Catholic Church.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by saying that.

It has relevance to previous posts on the thread, sorry you can't understand that but there you go.

 

[Joe_Soap]

havent read the whole 8 pages cuz im tired but was talking about this with a mate of mine tonight ( apologies if this has been said already)


imo jesus did exist. the bible is a historic document, abused by institutions for their own gain (eg catholic church, they have SO much to answer for)

jesus was a purely political figure (king of the jews, desended from daivd etc) he challenged the romans with his heritage. he was geared to upset the roman rule. he was the true leader. the romans were shitting themsevles cuz he got a follwing to upset the status quo


so much stuff in the bible has been interpreted for folks gain. good example. the whole 'turn the other cheek' most of us has been taught this statement as a kind of 'forigive' type thing or 'self sacrifice' action (blagh). another interpretation is that by turning the other cheek you are forcing the romans to hit you with their other hand which they use for...erm....loo paper, thereby making them insult you. i.e. its a fight back type of action.i was brought up a catholic, been thought everything the catholic faith tells you. its brainwashing. the bible is a fantasic historical document. and thats exactly what it is. jesus was a political figure (granted with pretty cool social ideas) but was simply that. institutions have made that cool guy into a figure head purely for their own power benefits.

 

[Uncle Sick]

It takes faith to accept Jesus as the Son of God, but it only takes science and a little bit of historic truth to show you know zero, nothing, zilch, nada about this subject.

But Turamber knows! Thank you, Turamber!! Thank you for sharing your wisdom in the usual friendly, non-arrogant manner!!!

 

[maxi]

The thing is if you're going to spead a lie to control the masses you had better remember yourself it's a lie, hence why he wasn't a Christian himself until the end. Because really that's all religion is, bollocks made up by people a long time ago to control the masses, to give people incapable of independent thought something to cling on to.

The irony of that post combined with your sig, is astounding.

 

[dysfunction]

It has relevance to previous posts on the thread, sorry you can't understand that but there you go.

Um...no it doesnt.

Darwin could have been an athiest and it wouldnt have made the slightest bit of difference as a lot of his work is not based upon religion but observations and scientific facts.

 

[Bodhi]

It has relevance to previous posts on the thread, sorry you can't understand that but there you go.

It doesn't tho. Copernicus had to circulate his work anonymously for fear of being branded a heretic as his work directly contradicted the word of the Catholic Church. It wasn't until his theories gained more support that he could come clean and say "OI YOU! POPEY! NAAAAAAAAW!".

Oh and maxi you're stupider than I thought if you believe what you've just said. So so stupid :/

 

[Turamber]

But Turamber knows! Thank you, Turamber!! Thank you for sharing your wisdom in the usual friendly, non-arrogant manner!!!

And, as normal, you want to flame in a discussion you have barely read and have zero interest in. Grow up already.

 

[maxi]

Oh and maxi you're stupider than I thought if you believe what you've just said. So so stupid :/

I played with the idea of you just doing your normal deliberate irony shebang, but I left that thought...when i believed for a second you might of meant it. Better safe than sorry.

 

[Bodhi]

Well evidently not, cos the safe approach just made you look like a prat. Well done!

 

[Uncle Sick]

And, as normal, you want to flame in a discussion you have barely read and have zero interest in. Grow up already.

Glad that camera you have installed at my place is still working.
Stop being an arrogant tosser already. kthx

 

[Turamber]

*same old crap he's been regurgitating for two years now

Zzzz. Go find somebody else to flame and somebody else's thread to troll.

 

[Freddygotfingered]

i dont really care about jesus tbh i mean after all th shite that happens in this world u really think he still loves everyone i think maybe at the time if there was one he must have been smoking something or taken a few pills while calling to his friends i love u all! and u will learn to love one another.....
i sometimes say shite like that after 8 pints of guinness but hey i dont knock anyone who belives in it thats nothing to do with me :touch:

 

[maxi]

In many ways science has become a new religion where nobody should doubt the scientists ability to define what is right and wrong, where what is possible necessarily becomes right. Just because science can terminate pregnancies at x weeks means it's acceptable, just because science can clone sheeps means we should do it, just because scientists can manipulate our food and our unborn children genetically then it should be done.

Hmm. I'd like to see you adress Wij's statements, I'd also like to add that there is plenty of moral objection to GM Food and th e idea of cloning from people who aren't religious at all. It has been done, people have objected, presentd arguments as to why and a lot of food manufacturers make a point of saying "NO GM Products". As far as I am aware, Religion doesn't operate that way, you're not supposed to question it, or uncover it's flaws.

As for the termination of pregancies, he you've simplified the subject too much because we CAN do it is not the reason we DO do it.

 

[~Yuckfou~]

Yet again religion plays a major part in dividing a community.