Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Bollocks.
When do I get to vote on what is a sin?
Sin is a religious invention. And it's based (losely) upon the rules that occur naturally in growing societies and is corrupted by those who were able to dictate it.
Was Jesus gay?
- Thread starter Aroddo
- Start date
When do I get to vote on what is a sin?
Sin is a religious invention. And it's based (losely) upon the rules that occur naturally in growing societies and is corrupted by those who were able to dictate it.
Not that very loosely. I mean cannibalism is not that natural. Neither is killing people cause you are angry/whatever 
While the concept of "sin" is very dubious (and in English most terms have no clear etymology, which makes things far worse and suspicious), it is pretty logical to claim that some actions are a lot less 'natural', 'human' or other epithets, than other actions.
Re homosexuality as being one of them? I don't care if one is a homosexual, i just don't care for parading that they are either. It's not like i have to bother with anyone's issues. Most heterosexuals have little to nothing in common with me or the rest anyway.
While the concept of "sin" is very dubious (and in English most terms have no clear etymology, which makes things far worse and suspicious), it is pretty logical to claim that some actions are a lot less 'natural', 'human' or other epithets, than other actions.
Re homosexuality as being one of them? I don't care if one is a homosexual, i just don't care for parading that they are either. It's not like i have to bother with anyone's issues. Most heterosexuals have little to nothing in common with me or the rest anyway.
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
Manfred Belheim said:
What do you mean by "long" after his death ??? Between 50 and 100 years is "long" for you ???
By comparison first biography of Alexander the Great was written almost 300 years after his death by Diodorus Siculus.
Uh, bios of Alexander were being written already a few years after his death... He was kind of important for the Hellenistic kingdoms and empires
(trivia: an interesting bio of Alexander from that era is a good source of Amon-worship and that nice stove-idol eating children with its flame. Oh You Dea
).
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
You believe in the existence of Christianity but you are doubting the existence of its supposed founder.
BTW - I am also not doubting the existence of the Hellenistic World.
But Alexander - supposed founder of the Hellenistic World - was described 300 years after his death.
By whom ??? No such bios of Alexander exist. The oldest one which exists is that written by Diodorus Siculus.
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
So is government, what is your point?
The point is you can narrow down why Jesus and the early Christians held to what was currently the Law of the day and how Jesus changed that law. If there is no delineation of law and keeping that law, you do not need a sacrifice to satisfy that law, nor do you really need people to live any differently with or without a law.
Modern theologians keep pointing out that the pagans kept accusing Christians of atrocious acts that do not follow with what was trying to be avoided in the writings of Paul and even the law of Moses. Even today it seems that highly public people who "preach" against certain sin, seem to be culpable in that sin any way.
So either Christianity is a religion that protects people from the laws of human government and preaches one thing while doing another. Or there is a life changing aspect to Christianity that actually allows a person to live free from natural tendencies that would be called sin, but have no power over that person. But to keep what we call Christianity into a governmental and lawful setting will never work. You cannot legislate grace. Neither can you tell people they are sinners while breaking the law yourself.
The whole point of being free of "sin" is not doing it. Not that it is wrong to do it. Sin could be considered either as a punishment, or as the inability to keep a law. In the current human condition, no one can say they are a perfect being who can keep everything that God would call sin.
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
BTW:
This thread should be moved to "World History". There is a shortage of threads there, and people stil post history-related threads in "Off Topic".
This thread should be moved to "World History". There is a shortage of threads there, and people stil post history-related threads in "Off Topic".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleitarchus
3rd century BC is older than 1rst century BC
wiki said:Cleitarchus or Clitarchus (Greek: Κλείταρχος
Quintilian (Instit. x. I. 74) credits him with more ability than trustworthiness, and Cicero (Brutus, II) accuses him of giving a fictitious account of the death of Themistocles. But there is no doubt that his history was very popular, and much used by Diodorus Siculus, Quintus Curtius, Justin and Plutarch, and the authors of the Alexander romances. His unnatural and exaggerated style became proverbial.
His work, completely lost, has survived only in some thirty fragments preserved by ancient authors, especially by Aelian and Strabo.
And Diodorus seems to have liked reading him too
*
Although i am sure the best bio of Alexander was that Yper Thule one.
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
Works of Cleitarchus do not exist - they did not survive to our times and we don't know what they contained.
I was writing about existing biographies of Alexander.
Cleitarchus was quoted by Aelian and Strabo (i.e. they claimed that they were quoting Cleitarchus), but there is no tangible proof of his existence.
Those who wrote about Jesus 50 - 100 years after his death, were also using older sources, which also did not survive to our times.
Uh, what?
Kleitarchos was quoted by all the famous people of those eras who wrote about Alexander. Your argument is a bit strange, even after you thought of trying to use it as a counter-argument against other people speaking of Jesus. That Alexander, and Kleitarchos, did exist, is not disputed at all.
(we need an Alexander smiley too) 
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
They claimed that they quoted some guy called Kleitarchos.
But there is no tangible evidence that they did not invent those excerpts on their own.
No it was rather like: "X quoted Y, who quoted Z, who had quoted B, who had quoted A, who had claimed that he had quoted Kleitarchos".
Indeed. And this is why I am wondering why are some people disputing the existence of Yeshua Ben Yosef "Christos".
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Sin is a religious invention.
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
My point is that it is exactly as absurd to claim that Jesus didn't exist as it is to claim that Alexander the Great or Kleitarchos didn't exist.
Harv
Emperor
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2008
- Messages
- 1,987
We do not have to prove to you whether or not Jesus exists because you already know it. You know it because he keeps knocking on your door.
Revelation 3:20
Sin, ignorance, evil, lesser truth are all inventions to counter-ballance another invention: an ego.
To be aware of ourselves in the act of sin opens for us possibility of conscious improvement.
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
What is sin though? And what is religion? If you say that it is different than any other form of human government, how much different? The only difference is that they are both of human origin? If sin is the natural human condition, it may have a religious entymology, but a condition is not an invention.
Depends on what you consider to be essentially 'Jesus'. If a man called Jesus existed but was not the son of God, would he still be Jesus? It's clear enough that there was a person who founded Christianity, if only because it seems extremely unlikely that the sort of people who make up religions would give the credit to somebody else, but whether he qualifies as 'Jesus' is debatable.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Me having sex before marriage.
In context of what we're talking about, it's a concept that claims to know that God gets quite irate when I have sex before marriage.
In reality it's the Church who wanted people to marry and used sex as leverage. (notice the past tense)
I can vote for one, I can't vote for the other. One has rules set in stone, the other has rules which are flexible and go along with the changing society it has to work in.
There's lots of differences.
I didn't say sin is a natural human condition. I said that rules in a society arise from the needs of that society. You seemed to claim that if one states that sin is a religious invention you might as well get rid of governments and it would become a free-for-all. This is the statement I am contesting. Sin is not a tool for guiding morality. Never has, never will be.
Sin is a religious invention, and should have bugger all to do with governments.
I really have to ask: what is the tool for guiding morality?
