Paul, Not Jesus Spead Chrisitianity

[lizzie]

Most of them don't understand that the word "virgin" meant a woman who had not given birth, not a woman who had not had sex.

Of course, back in the days before birth control, the distinction was pretty much academic.

Damn- I'm impressed. I figured I was the only one here who knew that. :lol:

 

[Knowledge=power]

Most of them don't understand that the word "virgin" meant a woman who had not given birth, not a woman who had not had sex.

Of course, back in the days before birth control, the distinction was pretty much academic.

Didn't know that. Thanks ditto.

 

[Harshaw]

Most of them don't understand that the word "virgin" meant a woman who had not given birth, not a woman who had not had sex.

Of course, back in the days before birth control, the distinction was pretty much academic.

There's a lot of conflicting information on that, centering around the words "almah," "betulah," (Hebrew) and "parthenos" (Greek). I would say the jury is out at best.

 

[Dittohead not!]

There's a lot of conflicting information on that, centering around the words "almah," "betulah," (Hebrew) and "parthenos" (Greek). I would say the jury is out at best.

Yes, it does depend on whose translation you believe.
However, being the first born son was a big deal back then, even though not "miraculous." Anyway,the ancient prophecies said that the Messiah would be the first born son.

 

[Tucker Case]

They (the "native" Americans) did.

And while they were the dominant peoples, Native American religions dominated North America (and South America)

 

[Harshaw]

And while they were the dominant peoples, Native American religions dominated North America (and South America)

Indeed they did.

 

[Tucker Case]

Indeed they did.

I totally misread what you said. Sorry. Stupid mistake on my part.

 

[Knowledge=power]

So, whoever gets to a place first claims the land there forever.

let's see... are there any other examples of newcomers coming and taking over by force? Is that something unique to America, or is it a part of human history everywhere?

Let's say the first people to sail to NA (not walk via landbridge) were of a peaceful religion, like the Jains. They would not have slaughtered the indigenous people for not converting. Christianity was spread with violence and intolerance. It is not unique to America, but it is regularly part of the spread of Christianity.

 

[Knowledge=power]

Here's what you said:



They (the "native" Americans) did.

Apparently, you think they don't count for some reason. Very nice.

Let me clarify. By 'arrived' here, I am referring to sailing over from Europe, and spreading religion forcifully. Any other people from any other country or continent practicing a number of different religions could have beaten the Europeans to the punch, but did not. For an interesting read and a lot of valuable information on why the Europeans were the first to arrive, bringing horses, steel weapons and armor, and guns, which easily defeated the native North Americans and Central Americans, read "Guns, Germs, and Steel" - by Jared Diamond. He won the Pullitzer for it.

 

[Harshaw]

Let's say the first people to sail to NA (not walk via landbridge) were of a peaceful religion, like the Jains. They would not have slaughtered the indigenous people for not converting. Christianity was spread with violence and intolerance. It is not unique to America, but it is regularly part of the spread of Christianity.

There are no "indigenous" people to the Americas. All of them came from somewhere else.

That you have very, VERY little regard for those who did it first becomes more and more apparent with your every post on the matter. Apparently you think any schmoes with boats could have come over and conquered them.

 

[Knowledge=power]

There are no "indigenous" people to the Americas. All of them came from somewhere else.

That you have very, VERY little regard for those who did it first becomes more and more apparent with your every post on the matter. Apparently you think any schmoes with boats could have come over and conquered them.

I'll wait for you to reply to the post of yours to which I replied. There are reasons the Europeans arrived first, but as I have said, it is possible they could have been second, or third.

 

[Harshaw]

I'll wait for you to reply to the post of yours to which I replied. There are reasons the Europeans arrived first, but as I have said, it is possible they could have been second, or third.

What you just quoted speaks to both. Actually, to every post you've made on the matter.

You don't think much of the people who were here first. That much is very clear.

 

[Knowledge=power]

What you just quoted speaks to both. Actually, to every post you've made on the matter.

You don't think much of the people who were here first. That much is very clear.

I DO think of much of them, I am saying I do not like the fact that the Europeans slaughtered the people who were already here in the name of Christianity when their ships made land. I am simply explaining how Christianity came to North America and Central America, and how if the Europeans had not been the first, the majority population could be Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, etc.

 

[Harshaw]

I DO think of much of them, I am saying I do not like the fact that the Europeans slaughtered the people who were already here in the name of Christianity when their ships made land. I am simply explaining how Christianity came to North America and Central America, and how if the Europeans had not been the first, the majority population could be Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, etc.

Well, you keep denying that they were the first to come here, insisting on giving someone else that credit, and you keep saying that anyone could have done what the Europeans did to them. That doesn't sound like you think much of them to me. At best, you think of them as hapless, docile sheep consigned to whatever fate others may have decided to bring on them.

And that you don't like what the Europeans did doesn't have anything to do, really, with the point you were trying to make which started all this. What you "like" doesn't have much to do with "destiny" or anything of the kind.

 

[Knowledge=power]

Well, you keep denying that they were the first to come here, insisting on giving someone else that credit, and you keep saying that anyone could have done what the Europeans did to them. That doesn't sound like you think much of them to me. At best, you think of them as hapless, docile sheep consigned to whatever fate others may have decided to bring on them.

And that you don't like what the Europeans did doesn't have anything to do, really, with the point you were trying to make which started all this. What you "like" doesn't have much to do with "destiny" or anything of the kind.

The Europeans had a massive advantage in steel weaponry, horses, steel armor, and firearms. They steam-rolled millions of Native American and Central American people even when they were severely outnumbered. Spreading Christianity was on the agenda, among other motives.

How have I denied that they were first? (the Europeans)... Please quote me. Had an Asian culture developed the aforementioned advantages and sailed to NA before the Europeans did, we could all be Buddhists. I encourage you to read the book I referenced. I'll do so again. "Guns, Germs, and Steel" - Jared Diamond. It explains all of this in rich detail.

Using the word 'destiny' here really muddles and discredits you. Destiny is a fallacy.

 

[Harshaw]

The Europeans had a massive advantage in steel weaponry, horses, steel armor, and firearms. They steam-rolled millions of Native American and Central American people even when they were severely outnumbered. Spreading Christianity was on the agenda, among other motives.

How have I denied that they were first? (the Europeans)... Please quote me. Had an Asian culture developed the aforementioned advantages and sailed to NA before the Europeans did, we could all be Buddhists. I encourage you to read the book I referenced. I'll do so again. "Guns, Germs, and Steel" - Jared Diamond. It explains all of this in rich detail.

Using the word 'destiny' here really muddles and discredits you. Destiny is a fallacy.

Not only do you apparently not understand what I posted, you don't even seem to be keeping very good tabs on what you yourself are saying from post to post.

You have denied numerous times that the "native" Americans were the first to come here, instead saying that it was the Europeans who were "first." You don't think the "native" Americans count, for some reason.

And whatever the Europeans' massive advantages were, you've also said repeatedly it could have been anyone but them who could have done the same to the (apparently docile and impotent) "native" Americans if they had gotten here before the Europeans. So, indeed, you think very little of the "native" Americans.

As for "destiny," you used the word first.

You may have spun yourself around so many times that you're utterly confused, but I haven't.

 

[Knowledge=power]

Not only do you apparently not understand what I posted, you don't even seem to be keeping very good tabs on what you yourself are saying from post to post.

You have denied numerous times that the "native" Americans were the first to come here, instead saying that it was the Europeans who were "first." You don't think the "native" Americans count, for some reason.

Go back and read post #75, my first post quoting you. I clearly explain myself and even used the word 'indigenous' which you didn't like, but which I used to explain that the Native Americans were here FIRST... I then go on to clarify by saying when I used the phrase 'arrived here first,' I was implying the first to sail here to greet the Native Americans on the shore with a bible and a sword. There should be no confusion here...

And whatever the Europeans' massive advantages were, you've also said repeatedly it could have been anyone but them who could have done the same to the (apparently docile and impotent) "native" Americans if they had gotten here before the Europeans. So, indeed, you think very little of the "native" Americans.

I said anyone with those advantages (steel weapons, horses, guns, armor, etc) could have been the first to sail here and present their religion to the Native Americans. How is that confusing? I also gave you an excellent, Pullizter Prize winning reference in support of this. Which you seem to not even have acknowledged...

As for "destiny," you used the word first.

Not once have I used the word 'destiny' except to tell you it was a fallacy after you used it. Go back and read through all of my posts.

You may have spun yourself around so many times that you're utterly confused, but I haven't.

The irony of this statement is bewildering.

 

[Harshaw]

Go back and read post #75, my first post quoting you. I clearly explain myself and even used the word 'indigenous' which you didn't like, but which I used to explain that the Native Americans were here FIRST... I then go on to clarify by saying when I used the phrase 'arrived here first,' I was implying the first to sail here to greet the Native Americans on the shore with a bible and a sword. There should be no confusion here...



I said anyone with those advantages (steel weapons, horses, guns, armor, etc) could have been the first to sail here and present their religion to the Native Americans. How is that confusing? I also gave you an excellent, Pullizter Prize winning reference in support of this. Which you seem to not even have acknowledged...



Not once have I used the word 'destiny' except to tell you it was a fallacy after you used it. Go back and read through all of my posts.



The irony of this statement is bewildering.

I've already spoken to ALL of this. Repeating it doesn't change anything. Not sure exactly where the disconnect is, but I do know it's on your side.

 

[Knowledge=power]

I've already spoken to ALL of this. Repeating it doesn't change anything. Not sure exactly where the disconnect is, but I do know it's on your side.

Lol nice rebuttal

 

[Harshaw]

Lol nice rebuttal

Nothing else was necessary, because all you did was repeat yourself. If you didn't get me the first 4-5 times I responded, I have no reason to think you'll follow it on the 6th. This is your problem, not mine.

 

[Knowledge=power]

Nothing else was necessary, because all you did was repeat yourself. If you didn't get me the first 4-5 times I responded, I have no reason to think you'll follow it on the 6th. This is your problem, not mine.

Ok Harshaw lol

 

[Peter Grimm]

Did he ever claim that Jesus spoke to him? I tend to suspect that his own conscience was speaking to him, and had nothing to do with Jesus himself. He may have been influenced by the teachings of Jesus, but when a person undergoes inner change, it comes from within him.

Kind of like how your version of the events that happened come from within your head, and have no connection with the story as written, with church tradition, or with Christianity as it's been understood for the past two thousand years?

 

[Peter Grimm]

Most of them don't understand that the word "virgin" meant a woman who had not given birth, not a woman who had not had sex.

Of course, back in the days before birth control, the distinction was pretty much academic.

Doubtful.

 

[lizzie]

Kind of like how your version of the events that happened come from within your head, and have no connection with the story as written, with church tradition, or with Christianity as it's been understood for the past two thousand years?

Frankly, neither you, nor I, know for certain what happened. Since much of the NT was written well after the years Jesus is believed to have lived, and we don't even know if Paul knew Jesus personally. That being said, change comes from within. Regardless of what is "understood for the past two thousand years", it still doesn't mean that it's true verbatim, and as stated, and there's little doubt that it has undergone change via the early Catholic church.

 

[Paralogic]

And we all know that is true? To whom are you referring? All of mankind?

Yes. All of mankind.

...is no skin off my ... Though I ... the only thing I ...

We already know religious beliefs are expressions of individual, group or mass declarations of superiority against foreign or perceived hostile groups, or non-believers.

Refusal to acknowledge the self-centered nature of religion is a sign of ignorance.