If You Take Christianity Out of History

[Jassy Melson]

If you take Christianity out of history
there will not be much left of history.
As you smoke your pipe
think about it.

[hillwalker]

Given the fact that Christianity can't have started more than 2000 years ago there's a heck of a lot of history that preceded it so this is rather a preposterous statement unless you're referring to history involving oppression and conflict exercised in the name of Christianity.

H

[Alexander III]

Given the fact that Christianity can't have started more than 2000 years ago there's a heck of a lot of history that preceded it so this is rather a preposterous statement unless you're referring to history involving oppression and conflict exercised in the name of Christianity.

H

Yea Hill is right, the poem tries to be witty but fails. Sorry.

[deryk]

I can't say I'm a big fan of making direct declarations in the language arts. The history of Christianity, although quite broad, is still a minority in the entire human scope. You did spur me on to think about it though. So the poem did accomplish that much.

[Hawkman]

And are you referring to Christianity or "The Church," but perhaps I should say "Churches"?

[cafolini]

Given the fact that Christianity can't have started more than 2000 years ago there's a heck of a lot of history that preceded it so this is rather a preposterous statement unless you're referring to history involving oppression and conflict exercised in the name of Christianity.

H

If such things can be done in the name of Christianity, it must have a bad name. Maybe we ought to hire you to clean it up.

[Haunted]

I think better with some weed in my pipe...

My own sense of Christianity includes the Genesis, the beginning of the world and time, hence history. I tend to agree with this little philosophical poem.

[Charles Darnay]

I think better with some weed in my pipe...

My own sense of Christianity includes the Genesis, the beginning of the world and time, hence history. I tend to agree with this little philosophical poem.

Lay off the week and take another look. If you do start "history" at Genesis in the Bible, even the Bible recognized that Christianity came late in the game. That whole Old Testament thing - no Christians there.


If you take Christianity out of history
there will not be much left of history.
As you smoke your pipe
think about it.

A better poem would read:

If you take history out of Christianity
There will not be much left of Christianity
Only Crianit.

[Haunted]

Lay off the week and take another look. If you do start "history" at Genesis in the Bible, even the Bible recognized that Christianity came late in the game. That whole Old Testament thing - no Christians there.

I'm not here to argue religion. You are taking it way too seriously. You need some weed.

[Jassy Melson]

Mission accomplished. I caused some to think about it.

[hillwalker]

If such things can be done in the name of Christianity, it must have a bad name. Maybe we ought to hire you to clean it up.

:-)

That task is way beyond even my ingenuity.

H

[Flyonwall]

If you take Christianity out of history
there will not be much left of history.
As you smoke your pipe
think about it.

There was war and civilization before Christianity and it would have contiuned if Jesus hadn't have come along. Jesus came to save a world that didn't actually need saving!

[qimissung]

weed? Christianity? My head is about to explode. No, what we need is here is some ayahuasca and some visions. :biggrinjester:

Having said that, whatever the truth of it, it's not really a poem, Jassy.

[Varenne Rodin]

Christianity is garbage and its followers are a flock of sheep. Self proclaimed weaklings.
The present is far more important than a history of fools led by chumps. Happy Thanksgiving! Jesus sucks and other blasphemy.

I should have posted that as a personal poem because, apparently, any crap thing anyone says can be a poem now. In fact, THIS is a poem. It's not a waste of time and space at all. It's somehow provocative and will lead atheists to join my cult or shoot themselves. I am so proud of myself! Pride is a sin, so I will whip the flesh off of my back while begging sky demon for forgiveness, obviously.

"Go sell crazy some place else. We're all stocked up here." Seriously though, I needed a laugh. Great job. Thanks.

Your "poem" "made me think" so much that I'm inspired to deliver yet another post. Christiany is a rich part of history. A rich history of child molestation, ritual sacrifice, witch burnings, and book burnings. Remember that mega fun part of Christian history when the Catholics burned all of those Greek history books and records spanning back for thousands of years prior to the spackling together of Christian stories stolen from Pagans and Hebrew fables? Hahaha. It was such a good time when they erased brilliant ideas to better stuff their pyramid scheme down the throats of addled, brainwashed masses for generations! Hahaha. Oh yes. So delightful that Christian history is much preserv-ed! It would be a shame if someone came along and did Christianity like Christianity did the historians they destroyed. Oh, man. Sweet sweet Christian love. Get some!

-end poem

[qimissung]

lol, that last line sounds like the title of a book. An existential book.

[Varenne Rodin]

lol, that last line sounds like the title of a book. An existential book.

Haha. Thanks, qimissung. It's all in the spirit of fun, love, and history. Maybe I will write a book. If anyone doesn't like my new book I will burn thousands of years of history, so help me.

[BienvenuJDC]

I think better with some weed in my pipe...

My own sense of Christianity includes the Genesis, the beginning of the world and time, hence history. I tend to agree with this little philosophical poem.

You are correct. Christianity (and Christ Himself) did not originate only 2,000 years ago, but in fact back to the origin of the world at creation over 6,000 years ago.


Your "poem" "made me think" so much that I'm inspired to deliver yet another post. Christiany is a rich part of history. A rich history of child molestation, ritual sacrifice, witch burnings, and book burnings. Remember that mega fun part of Christian history when the Catholics burned all of those Greek history books and records spanning back for thousands of years prior to the spackling together of Christian stories stolen from Pagans and Hebrew fables? Hahaha. It was such a good time when they erased brilliant ideas to better stuff their pyramid scheme down the throats of addled, brainwashed masses for generations! Hahaha. Oh yes. So delightful that Christian history is much preserv-ed! It would be a shame if someone came along and did Christianity like Christianity did the historians they destroyed. Oh, man. Sweet sweet Christian love. Get some!

-end poem

I'm sorry, please don't link Christianity with Catholicism. Pure Christianity is not the Catholic religion.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Christianity is garbage and its followers are a flock of sheep. Self proclaimed weaklings.
The present is far more important than a history of fools led by chumps. Happy Thanksgiving! Jesus sucks and other blasphemy.

Surely one can argue that Christianity, Judaism, Islam, &c. &c. &c. are poetic and sometimes dangerous pipe-dreams without resorting to the sort of vehemence that they themselves employ?

[Charles Darnay]

You are correct. Christianity (and Christ Himself) did not originate only 2,000 years ago, but in fact back to the origin of the world at creation over 6,000 years ago.

This baffles me to no end. To express my thoughts I will embody a "Jewish persona":

You people [Christians] went through such great lengths - from John Chrysostom's vehement denunciation of Jews, to the Medieval depictions as devils, and beyond - in order to separate yourselves from Jews - and now you're claiming that Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Moses - they are all Christians?

What?

[blank|verse]

I don't know about taking the Christianity out of history, but this certainly reads like taking the poetry out of poetry...

[cafolini]

This baffles me to no end. To express my thoughts I will embody a "Jewish persona":

You people [Christians] went through such great lengths - from John Chrysostom's vehement denunciation of Jews, to the Medieval depictions as devils, and beyond - in order to separate yourselves from Jews - and now you're claiming that Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Moses - they are all Christians?

What?

Hahaha! Charles, it's amazing, but you are correct. It amounts to that. They need Sam Harris to entertain them in unending circles.

[Jack of Hearts]

Sorry Jassy but this reader doesn't understand. Is the implication that Christians wrote history or something? Or documented it with bias?

There are sources of human history, even enlightened human history, that pre-date Christianity.






J

[Varenne Rodin]

Surely one can argue that Christianity, Judaism, Islam, &c. &c. &c. are poetic and sometimes dangerous pipe-dreams without resorting to the sort of vehemence that they themselves employ?

Well, I didn't see anything poetic about the "poem" that was posted. I wasn't going for vehemence, exactly. I was going for ridiculous and silly, to respond to something ridiculous and silly. There's no malice, though it is offensive that Christians erased a giant chunk of history that happened before their theology sprouted wings. It's comical that they now call for preservation of their revisionist history.

I have a habit of not making my comedy blatantly obvious enough. I'm a clown. I'm like a liberal Dennis Miller in the body of an extremely seductive woman. Or I'm like Ricky Gervais and Sarah Silverman, but with far fewer excrement and holocaust jokes, nicer breasts too (well, maybe not nicer than Ricky's).


I'm sorry, please don't link Christianity with Catholicism. Pure Christianity is not the Catholic religion.

Hi, Bien. How's it going, cuppiecake? I can't help linking Catholicism to Christianity since Catholics have been and are Christians. I know that you have your own brand of Christianity, however, and that you probably never burned any Greek history books or documents. Thanks for not doing that. :)

[Haunted]

I have a habit of not making my comedy blatantly obvious enough. I'm a clown. I'm like a liberal Dennis Miller in the body of an extremely seductive woman. Or I'm like Ricky Gervais and Sarah Silverman, but with far fewer excrement and holocaust jokes, nicer breasts too (well, maybe not nicer than Ricky's).

I wish you were more "seductive" in the way you write, because I found nothing seductive about the way you conducted yourself in the previous posts. Then again I'm not a guy. To be honest I was very offended by what you said as much as what you found offensive about the poem. Not quite in the spirit of Thanksgiving when I feel it's a day we should be spared of vehemence. Do I even dare to propose the same for Christmas.

If you were going for comedy, heed what Jay Leno said: it's very hard to do comedy. Much is in the delivery. And there's a fine line you don't cross.

Surprised no one commented on the pipe smoking. It's half of the poem, you know.

[deryk]

I have a habit of not making my comedy blatantly obvious enough. I'm a clown. I'm like a liberal Dennis Miller in the body of an extremely seductive woman. Or I'm like Ricky Gervais and Sarah Silverman, but with far fewer excrement and holocaust jokes, nicer breasts too (well, maybe not nicer than Ricky's).

I've met funnier cheerleaders. Perhaps you should spend more time thinking than typing.

[Varenne Rodin]

Haha. Wow. Grouchy.

[deryk]

Haha. Wow. Grouchy.
Hey, I'm just giving you the attention you so desperately seek. :biggrin5:

[Charles Darnay]

Haha. Wow. Grouchy.

It's alright, Ricky Gervais gets much the same reaction....so you're on the right track...I guess.

[Varenne Rodin]

Deryk, you can give me attention or not give me attention. There are people who enjoy talking to me. I'm not interested in excess. You might be reading too much into the things I say. No hard feelings. :)


It's alright, Ricky Gervais gets much the same reaction....so you're on the right track...I guess.

True enough, Charles. Right track, wrong track, I'm just floating along. The road is just rolling out behind me. I'm happy. I hope other people are happy too. :D

[BienvenuJDC]

Hi, Bien. How's it going, cuppiecake? I can't help linking Catholicism to Christianity since Catholics have been and are Christians. I know that you have your own brand of Christianity, however, and that you probably never burned any Greek history books or documents. Thanks for not doing that. :)

Thanks.

I don't want to offend any Catholics that are "good people", but I'd have to say that when Jesus returns that He will be quite frustrated with those who have perverted what He originated.

How are you? I hope you are having a wonderful day. PM me sometime.

[qimissung]

Well, to get back on topic I suppose Jassy is referring to the fact that many wars have been started in the name of religion. Christians did initiate the Crusades in the Middle Ages which was rather egregiously narrow-minded of them.

[deryk]

I'm not interested in excess. :D
I guess you had me duped. It's no biggie.


Well, to get back on topic I suppose Jassy is referring to the fact that many wars have been started in the name of religion. Christians did initiate the Crusades in the Middle Ages which was rather egregiously narrow-minded of them.
That's what I took it to mean as well, but it's still a relative drop in the bucket.

[BienvenuJDC]

Well, to get back on topic I suppose Jassy is referring to the fact that many wars have been started in the name of religion. Christians did initiate the Crusades in the Middle Ages which was rather egregiously narrow-minded of them.

Actually, it was kings in the name of the Catholic church that initiated the crusades. If you read about the Christianity that is in the Bible, you don't see Catholicism at all. Catholicism is more of a pagan religion than it is a Christian religion.

[Varenne Rodin]

Perhaps there is some confusion here. Catholicism (which is a Christian religion), spawned all other Christianity. Catholicism very clearly borrowed Hebrew and pagan fables, but those weren't Christianity either, not at first. Names were changed to suit purposes and, essentially, to better market a series of short stories as one whole cohesive work of literature. New Christians seem to want to forget that the old testament existed, but I digress. There weren't any non-catholic Christians until the 1500s. Based on this, I don't think modern Christians can proclaim themselves better interpreters or conveyors of Christianity than Catholics.

I do understand the feeling that Catholics "perverted" the teachings of Jesus Christ with heinous crimes, but plenty of heinous crimes have occurred, and continue to occur, within non denominational Christian congregations as well. If I were Christian I would want to separate myself from the scandals and troublesome war histories too but, instead of denying the connection, it might just be better to try to learn from the mistakes of others. It's what I mean when I say religions are not above accountability.

[Hawkman]

Varenne, you are going to have to go back to your history books. Catholicism did not even begin until Constantine. The Coptic tradition long predates it. The only reason Catholicism became so dominant in the West until the mid 16th Century, was because it became the official religion of the Roman Empire in the 4th C AD and had it's economic and military strength to back it up. Consequently, to protect their powerbase the Roman 'Popes' persecuted other versions of the faith and branded it heresy. It rapidly split, with the Orthodox version holding sway over the East.

Now I really think this discussion in a poetry thread is out of place. If you want to discuss church history find a more appropriate forum for it.

Live and be well - H

[KCurtis]

Thanks.

I don't want to offend any Catholics that are "good people", but I'd have to say that when Jesus returns that He will be quite frustrated with those who have perverted what He originated.

How are you? I hope you are having a wonderful day. PM me sometime.
This thread is utterly ridiculous. I think people start these religious threads on purpose just to fight. It's nauseating.

[cafolini]

This thread is utterly ridiculous. I think people start these religious threads on purpose just to fight. It's nauseating.

Wish that were true. It would be far less stupid.

[Varenne Rodin]

Varenne, you are going to have to go back to your history books. Catholicism did not even begin until Constantine. The Coptic tradition long predates it. The only reason Catholicism became so dominant in the West until the mid 16th Century, was because it became the official religion of the Roman Empire in the 4th C AD and had it's economic and military strength to back it up. Consequently, to protect their powerbase the Roman 'Popes' persecuted other versions of the faith and branded it heresy. It rapidly split, with the Orthodox version holding sway over the East.

Now I really think this discussion in a poetry thread is out of place. If you want to discuss church history find a more appropriate forum for it.

Live and be well - H

That doesn't contradict what I said, it only further supports it. I don't need to be chastised for responding to what was clearly not poetry. It's a bit hypocritical to weigh in on a conversation while telling someone else not to have it. Thanks for yet another outburst on these forums directed at me.

[cacian]

This is an inspiring poem, I enjoyed it

I would however say that it is partly true, that much has happened and had gone because of Christianity but I would definetely say that If other religions were not around to muddle and fight back with it, Christianity would have come, gone or maybe stayed unoticed.
This my take on your poem is this:


If you take Christianity out of history
there will not be much left of history.
As you smoke your pipe
think about it.

If you take humanity out of history
there will nothing left to talk about
as you stirr a little,
write about it.

[Hawkman]

Perhaps there is some confusion here. Catholicism (which is a Christian religion), spawned all other Christianity.

Wrong!

Christianity had been a religion for 400 years before Constatine. The Coptic Christian Tradition, which still exists, can be traced back to apostolic times. Catholicism is not the root of Christianity.

Enough said.

[Varenne Rodin]

Wrong!

Christianity had been a religion for 400 years before Constatine. The Coptic Christian Tradition, which still exists, can be traced back to apostolic times. Catholicism is not the root of Christianity.

Enough said.

No, it's not enough said, pompous. You're talking about something completely different. Roots of Christianity? Modern Christianity as we know it came from Catholicism. I'm not talking about religions from before Catholicism, though I did cite that they borrowed and stole from other branches to compile what they compiled. You said yourself that they became dominant in the west until the 16th century, branding other branches as heresy. I wouldn't at all argue your reasons for how or why they were able to do this. That, when applied to the point I made, is completely irrelevant. They put a stranglehold on religion. Before them, it wasn't Christianity as we know it today. How many times did they and have they revised the bible? It's the bible modern Christians adhere to.

Also, give me a rundown on how the name "Jesus Christ" came to be invented, since you know everything.

[KCurtis]

Wish that were true. It would be far less stupid.
These arguments are stupid. I never get into them in person. My brother-in-law is a creationist, my sister is not religious.:confused: My husband and I are not religious at all. We never have these discussions with people who are; people do not change their minds over things like this. And they won't, so what is the point? It ends up being a stupid argument over which belief is inferior or better. It is a moot point. I like that word, moot.

[Haunted]

This is an inspiring poem, I enjoyed it

[...]

This my take on your poem is this:


If you take humanity out of history
there will nothing left to talk about
write about it.


And just as I thought I was the only one who thinks that this is a poem. And there is a certain irony here as well, serious versus flippant.


My interpretation of the poem is metaphorical, Christianity not according to the human timeline but a biblical timeline starting with Genesis. It's a heavy subject, humanity as cacian so well put, the good and the bad. The kind of pipe is also open to interpretation. I prefer to think of it being a bong, because the only time one wants to confront that subject head on is when one is stoned and has their head half way in the clouds.


This is a voice poem. Voice poems don't need flowery images because we don't talk that way. But there is symbolism, and that's what makes a poem a poem.

[KCurtis]

I would just like to remind everyone (or almost everyone) that documented history has been around loooooooooooooooong before Christianity. It's called science. It's actually taught in schools, so you should have learned it.
Sorry, this post was against my better judgment, but I'm leaving it. I feel angry- I have to go back to work tomorow, to help kids learn science.

[BienvenuJDC]

I would just like to remind everyone (or almost everyone) that documented history has been around loooooooooooooooong before Christianity. It's called science. It's actually taught in schools, so you should have learned it.
Sorry, this post was against my better judgment, but I'm leaving it. I feel angry- I have to go back to work tomorow, to help kids learn science.

I'm sorry, but "science" is not history. Science is merely knowledge. Most of what SOME call science isn't actually science at all. Speculation and theorists' conclusions is mistakenly called science, but it is not true science.

OK...now for the "history" of Christianity, it goes back to the writings of Moses about 1,500 BC. Let us consider recorded history only goes back at the most a few thousand years further than that.

[Jack of Hearts]

EDIT: Ignore this post. This reader just realized this is a conversation he doesn't want to have.





J

[IceM]

I'm sorry, but "science" is not history. Science is merely knowledge. Most of what SOME call science isn't actually science at all. Speculation and theorists' conclusions is mistakenly called science, but it is not true science.

OK...now for the "history" of Christianity, it goes back to the writings of Moses about 1,500 BC. Let us consider recorded history only goes back at the most a few thousand years further than that.

This sounds like a perspective that doubts the merits of carbon dating.

Taking this perspective (one I am not attempting to chastise), Jassy's poem works (in regards to the poem, I take Haunted's view--it isn't spectacular writing, but it achieves the purpose as a microcosm for a greater idea that, perhaps, goes unnoticed).

However, I'm compelled to think history (albeit, unrecorded history) extends for millions of years, so, this poem only works for recorded history. But, it can be said that all recorded history deals with Christianity, either through direct adherence or rejection of said doctrine. Buddhists are definitely not Christians; could we not say then, that, through implicit rejection of that doctrine, their history is still related to Christianity? By adding a condition on history (namely, Christian history), we either have history that is directly affected by Christianity, or unaffected. Even the religions that are non-Christian are affected by other religions.

Just an idea to play with.

[Charles Darnay]

However, I'm compelled to think history (albeit, unrecorded history) extends for millions of years, so, this poem only works for recorded history. But, it can be said that all recorded history deals with Christianity, either through direct adherence or rejection of said doctrine. Buddhists are definitely not Christians; could we not say then, that, through implicit rejection of that doctrine, their history is still related to Christianity? By adding a condition on history (namely, Christian history), we either have history that is directly affected by Christianity, or unaffected. Even the religions that are non-Christian are affected by other religions.

Just an idea to play with.

And by that logic, all recorded history deals with cheese, either through direct adherence or rejection of said product. For example, the American Revolution was not fought over cheese, thus it is a part of history not-effected by cheese.

[IceM]

And by that logic, all recorded history deals with cheese, either through direct adherence or rejection of said product. For example, the American Revolution was not fought over cheese, thus it is a part of history not-effected by cheese.

As long as it isn't ******* pepperjack cheese, we're good. I hate that ****.

It was an idea that just jumped into my head as I was typing my response, and, as such, was not one I was able to evaluate before I decided to post my response. It was, as I said, an idea to play with only.

[hillwalker]

How can all recorded history be linked to Christianity?? I'm certain that Moses was not promoting Christianity - merely God's Laws as he saw them.

The suggestion that someone allegedly predicted the arrival of Christ some 1500 years ahead of his birth - and so every historical event occurring between that alleged prediction and the later adoption of Christianity falls within the history of Cristianity is plainly absurd.

And of course, as far as unrecorded history is concerned we have widely acceptable scientific proof that the Earth is round, revolves around the sun and is at least 4.54 billion years old. In which case the <2000 years when Christianity was in vogue make no mark whatsoever on the time graph of history.

H

[Varenne Rodin]

Well said, Hillwalker. That's much better than I could have phrased it.

[BienvenuJDC]

How can all recorded history be linked to Christianity??

Who ever suggested that ALL recorded history is link to Christianity?


I'm certain that Moses was not promoting Christianity - merely God's Laws as he saw them.

There is evidence suggesting that Moses was indeed pointing to the coming of Christ, as he was a prophet of God who sent the Christ. If one chooses to reject this idea, I understand, even the Jews who sent Jesus to the cross rejected this idea. But that doesn't mean that it's not a generally accepted idea.


The suggestion that someone allegedly predicted the arrival of Christ some 1500 years ahead of his birth - and so every historical event occurring between that alleged prediction and the later adoption of Christianity falls within the history of Cristianity is plainly absurd.

The earliest prophecy of the coming of Christ was written by Moses in Genesis 3:15. And it was Moses that wrote about the coming Prophet, which many believe is the Christ in Deuteronomy 18:15. So..no it is not plainly absurd, but it is generally accepted by scholars. Just because you choose not to believe these things does not make it absurd.


And of course, as far as unrecorded history is concerned we have widely acceptable scientific proof that the Earth is round, revolves around the sun and is at least 4.54 billion years old. In which case the <2000 years when Christianity was in vogue make no mark whatsoever on the time graph of history.

I'll agree that there is proof that the Earth is round and that it revolves around the sun, but I do not agree that there is actual "proof" that it is at least 4.54 billion years old. I do not believe that the evidence that we have has been accurately interpreted. There again are many who reject the carbon dating evidence and other dating methods. Just as the theories of global warming have been in question, so is the age of the earth. Don't try to link the theories of some to the facts that we know. It's a trick that I'm not going to let you get away with. But this has nothing to do with history anyway. What is "unrecorded" history anyway? Sounds like an oxymoron.

[Varenne Rodin]

Haha. Global warming is in question? Seriously? Where have the icecaps gone?

[cafolini]

Who ever suggested that ALL recorded history is link to Christianity?



There is evidence suggesting that Moses was indeed pointing to the coming of Christ, as he was a prophet of God who sent the Christ. If one chooses to reject this idea, I understand, even the Jews who sent Jesus to the cross rejected this idea. But that doesn't mean that it's not a generally accepted idea.



The earliest prophecy of the coming of Christ was written by Moses in Genesis 3:15. And it was Moses that wrote about the coming Prophet, which many believe is the Christ in Deuteronomy 18:15. So..no it is not plainly absurd, but it is generally accepted by scholars. Just because you choose not to believe these things does not make it absurd.



I'll agree that there is proof that the Earth is round and that it revolves around the sun, but I do not agree that there is actual "proof" that it is at least 4.54 billion years old. I do not believe that the evidence that we have has been accurately interpreted. There again are many who reject the carbon dating evidence and other dating methods. Just as the theories of global warming have been in question, so is the age of the earth. Don't try to link the theories of some to the facts that we know. It's a trick that I'm not going to let you get away with. But this has nothing to do with history anyway. What is "unrecorded" history anyway? Sounds like an oxymoron.

Lots of ignorance in this post as I see it. One very important one is that the Jews sent Jesus to the cross. That's one of the tenets of antisemitism. Those were days of Roman occupation and the whole event was supervised by Rome. The soldiers were Roman. But that doesn't even show that it actually happened empirically. It only shows the Romans fabricating a lot of the legend.

[hillwalker]

Recorded history is history written in many cases by those who were able to report on events they actually witnessed, or to record those events soon after they occurred. But +99.9% of the Earth's history went 'unrecorded' because man wasn't around, or didn't have the intellect to keep records. That doesn't mean that this 'unrecorded' history never happened.

As for all recorded history being linked to Christianity - that was implied in the original poem (take Christianity out of history and there is no history).
On that basis I felt it absurd that the history of civilisation between 1200 BC and the birth of Christ qualified also as the history of Christianity - whether the prophecy was correct or not.

Scientific belief versus Known fact - I'm not even going to go there. There is enough evidence to suggest that we know more about the universe and it's history now than we did even 100 years ago. But some choose to question or negate the evidence because it doesn't fit in with the 'facts' presented in a book that had parts written more than 3500 years ago. That's their decision and it's not my place to change their minds.

H

[Jassy Melson]

And we'll never know.

[BienvenuJDC]

Recorded history is history written in many cases by those who were able to report on events they actually witnessed, or to record those events soon after they occurred. But +99.9% of the Earth's history went 'unrecorded' because man wasn't around, or didn't have the intellect to keep records. That doesn't mean that this 'unrecorded' history never happened.

Please give me an example of something that is a historical account by someone who was not able to witness it. If you are talking about "historical" events based on what someone "thinks" happened, I think that is absurd.


As for all recorded history being linked to Christianity - that was implied in the original poem (take Christianity out of history and there is no history).

I'd say that MOST recorded history is influenced by Christianity, but not ALL.


On that basis I felt it absurd that the history of civilisation between 1200 BC and the birth of Christ qualified also as the history of Christianity - whether the prophecy was correct or not.

Believe as you will, but the writings of Moses and the Prophets are as much a part of Christianity as any of the New Testament writings.


Scientific belief versus Known fact - I'm not even going to go there. There is enough evidence to suggest that we know more about the universe and it's history now than we did even 100 years ago. But some choose to question or negate the evidence because it doesn't fit in with the 'facts' presented in a book that had parts written more than 3500 years ago. That's their decision and it's not my place to change their minds.

You chose to put your faith in "scientific belief" and I choose to put my faith in Biblical prophecy. Each is based on one's personal belief.


Lots of ignorance in this post as I see it. One very important one is that the Jews sent Jesus to the cross. That's one of the tenets of antisemitism. Those were days of Roman occupation and the whole event was supervised by Rome. The soldiers were Roman. But that doesn't even show that it actually happened empirically. It only shows the Romans fabricating a lot of the legend.

I'm sorry, but when the Roman governor, Pilate, tried to get Jesus pardoned, the Jewish sects, the Pharisees and the Sadducees, as well as the mobs of people, refused to let Him be pardoned. They chose to have the murderer, Barabbas, to be freed. It is true that the Roman government is guilty of actually putting Jesus to death, but it is STILL the Sanhedrin council who had a midnight trial who brought Jesus with the false accusations. Don't give me the line of anti-semitism. Historic fact is fact, there is no opinion base here.

[KCurtis]

I'm sorry, but "science" is not history. Science is merely knowledge. Most of what SOME call science isn't actually science at all. Speculation and theorists' conclusions is mistakenly called science, but it is not true science.

???????????????????? Evolution is not history?????????????????????
Fossilized evidence is not history??????????????????????????
I am glad that you know the Earth is round, however. Not a member of the flat earth society-that's good.
Okay, I'm done!!!!!

[Charles Darnay]

I'm sorry, but when the Roman governor, Pilate, tried to get Jesus pardoned, the Jewish sects, the Pharisees and the Sadducees, as well as the mobs of people, refused to let Him be pardoned. They chose to have the murderer, Barabbas, to be freed. It is true that the Roman government is guilty of actually putting Jesus to death, but it is STILL the Sanhedrin council who had a midnight trial who brought Jesus with the false accusations. Don't give me the line of anti-semitism. Historic fact is fact, there is no opinion base here.


The fun thing about "historical fact" is that it's a paradox. There are no facts of history, only eye-witness accounts, in this case, Christian accounts in order to convince Jews (primarily) to convert to Christianity.

I return again to my earlier comment and remain baffled by the fact that you are claiming Moses is part of Christian tradition and accepting this horribly spun (and yes, Anti-Semitic) story of Jesus' death.

[BienvenuJDC]

???????????????????? Evolution is not history?????????????????????
Fossilized evidence is not history??????????????????????????
I am glad that you know the Earth is round, however. Not a member of the flat earth society-that's good.
Okay, I'm done!!!!!

Fossils are not history. Just because one group says that the fossils are from millions of years ago doesn't mean that it's historical evidence. Especially since there is so-called evidence of coal veins supposedly millions of years old that contain US Army uniform buttons. But no one ever hears about that. There are also many other pieces of evidence that y'all have NEVER seen. That is because the evidence contradicts "scientific belief". Okay...I'm done...


The fun thing about "historical fact" is that it's a paradox. There are no facts of history, only eye-witness accounts, in this case, Christian accounts in order to convince Jews (primarily) to convert to Christianity.

I return again to my earlier comment and remain baffled by the fact that you are claiming Moses is part of Christian tradition and accepting this horribly spun (and yes, Anti-Semitic) story of Jesus' death.

Of course, it's easy to deny any historical accounts with which you don't agree. You seem to reject any of the Biblical accounts that are widely accepted. Do you have any substantial reasoning for rejecting these historical accounts? Especially since there are four different authors who have complimentary accounts? Or are you just biased? Oh...and just because there are things written that are condemning of a small group of Jews, while praising other Jews, it doesn't make it Anti-Semetic. That is a VERY prejudicial attitude.

[Charles Darnay]

Of course, it's easy to deny any historical accounts with which you don't agree. You seem to reject any of the Biblical accounts that are widely accepted. Do you have any substantial reasoning for rejecting these historical accounts? Especially since there are four different authors who have complimentary accounts? Or are you just biased? Oh...and just because there are things written that are condemning of a small group of Jews, while praising other Jews, it doesn't make it Anti-Semetic. That is a VERY prejudicial attitude.

(I am aware of the following irony in trying to use paradoxical historic facts to explain paradoxical historic facts)

First off, I don't reject everything in the Bible - never said I did. The reason I reject the specific accounts surrounding Jesus' death is due to the vast scholarship that exists surrounding the idea that:

Christianity in its early stages - before being acknowledged by Rome as a religion, while still a cult - was faced with the problem of not enough people converting. Jews didn't see any reason why they should be Christian because it's pretty much just Judaism (minus the circumcision at some point) and the majority of Roman population didn't care about them. So there was a tradition born, staring from the earliest days of Christianity (the reign of Tiberius) in which Christians created stories to separate themselves from Jews: these stories included the story of the Jews refusing Pilate's offer, and so forth.

Is everything that happened completely fabricated - who knows - but the slant is certainly there.

[Varenne Rodin]

After the death of Christ, Peter went around trying to get people to go with Jewish law, right? Because at the time, that's the way it was supposed to be, based on certain events that were said to have happened. Then Paul, recognizing that a lot of people at the time didn't want to convert to Judaism, changed things up. People who weren't already Jews weren't thrilled with the circumcision idea and days of worship and general rules and regulations of being Jews. Paul wanted to convert mass amounts of people, so he altered Judaism, made his own thing. Moses was a Jew.

The timelines aren't adding up either. Back when the old testament supposedly started, the Egyptians already had a gigantic established empire. They had been fighting and conquering for thousands and thousands of years. This isn't just based on fossils. The Chinese are an ancient civilization and were around long before Christianity began too.

[BienvenuJDC]

(I am aware of the following irony in trying to use paradoxical historic facts to explain paradoxical historic facts)

First off, I don't reject everything in the Bible - never said I did. The reason I reject the specific accounts surrounding Jesus' death is due to the vast scholarship that exists surrounding the idea that:

Christianity in its early stages - before being acknowledged by Rome as a religion, while still a cult - was faced with the problem of not enough people converting. Jews didn't see any reason why they should be Christian because it's pretty much just Judaism (minus the circumcision at some point) and the majority of Roman population didn't care about them. So there was a tradition born, staring from the earliest days of Christianity (the reign of Tiberius) in which Christians created stories to separate themselves from Jews: these stories included the story of the Jews refusing Pilate's offer, and so forth.

Is everything that happened completely fabricated - who knows - but the slant is certainly there.

Wow...your perspective...does it have any REAL supporting documentation? Or did you just make it up?

[Darcy88]

Wow...your perspective...does it have any REAL supporting documentation? Or did you just make it up?

It would kind of make sense if it happened the way Charles says. I mean Jesus was presented as the Jewish messiah, and there was intense debate amongst the early founders of the church whether gentiles should be allowed in.

But I really am no expert, nor am I versed in what the experts have to say on the matter.

[BienvenuJDC]

After the death of Christ, Peter went around trying to get people to go with Jewish law, right? Because at the time, that's the way it was supposed to be, based on certain events that were said to have happened. Then Paul, recognizing that a lot of people at the time didn't want to convert to Judaism, changed things up. People who weren't already Jews weren't thrilled with the circumcision idea and days of worship and general rules and regulations of being Jews. Paul wanted to convert mass amounts of people, so he altered Judaism, made his own thing. Moses was a Jew.

The timelines aren't adding up either. Back when the old testament supposedly started, the Egyptians already had a gigantic established empire. They had been fighting and conquering for thousands and thousands of years. This isn't just based on fossils. The Chinese are an ancient civilization and were around long before Christianity began too.

Moses was a Jew, but the Lord had established the Law through Judaism in order to bring forth Christianity. Yes, there were many Jews who wanted to reject Christianity, just like they rejected Christ (and that's not an anti-semetic comment). That doesn't mean that Judaism wasn't a forerunner for Christianity. None of the apostles taught the law of Moses after the establishment of the church.

[Charles Darnay]

Wow...your perspective...does it have any REAL supporting documentation? Or did you just make it up?

All you have to do is read some of the stuff written by Paul, John of Crysostom, or Philo (I think, I haven't read any of his works).

While some accuse these three of outright Antisemitism - that is not the case - just as the points you brought up are not Antisemitism (nor was I accusing you of it.) However, what followed because of these three - and because of this desire to promote Christianity by rejecting Judaism - IS antisemitism (most easily seen in the Medieval depiction and teatment of Jews).

[Varenne Rodin]

Yeah, the Jews didn't need to reject Christianity. Judaism happened first. As far as I know, there was never anything in Judaism that said Judaism should change and that Jewish law should be altered. Paul took it upon himself, and perhaps he thought his intentions were good, to make a religion that would be palatable to non-Jews.

I'm not going to say what is fair and not fair in this situation, because I'm an atheist, so I don't side with one religion over another. Do I think it makes sense for Christians to claim ownership of stories not written by them? It makes me suspicious of motives.

[BienvenuJDC]

Yeah, the Jews didn't need to reject Christianity. Judaism happened first. As far as I know, there was never anything in Judaism that said Judaism should change and that Jewish law should be altered. Paul took it upon himself, and perhaps he thought his intentions were good, to make a religion that would be palatable to non-Jews.

I'm not going to say what is fair and not fair in this situation, because I'm an atheist, so I don't side with one religion over another. Do I think it makes sense for Christians to claim ownership of stories not written by them? It makes me suspicious of motives.

Paul was a Jew, even a Pharisee, but if one believes that he was lead by God, and if they believe that Moses was lead by the same God, both being lead toward the same purpose, then Judaism was just a step to get to Christianity. It's not two opposing religions.

[tailor STATELY]

Not to confuse, but to add to the flavour of conversation:
From Moses 2:26 -
And I, God, said unto mine Only Begotten, which was with me from the beginning: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and it was so.

As for pipes, I prefer the bubble variety.

Ta ! (short for tarradiddle),
tailor STATELY

[Haunted]

???????????????????? Evolution is not history?????????????????????
Fossilized evidence is not history??????????????????????????
I am glad that you know the Earth is round, however. Not a member of the flat earth society-that's good.
Okay, I'm done!!!!!

Evolution...fossils...those things are fascinating. I can sure write a poem about fossilized prehistoric insects. And as far as history goes, we have all kinds of history, such as the history of stamp collecting. But in poetry — lets pretend that we are in the Poetry section, shall we? — history always has a human component. Bear in mind, literary writing is all about the human condition (human suffering). And to be honest, I doubt very much that the writer's own idea of history extends to fossils or petrified forests.

That said, I still think that all these arguments over what is history and how old Christianity is, while interesting, only point to an approach that is taken way too literally and narrowly.

If we look at the big picture, Christianity is known for its bible which is filled with key literary themes: love, betrayal, revenge, death and renewal. I think that's what it's about. Things that make our hearts cry.




As for pipes, I prefer the bubble variety.


How about cutting out the middleman and go straight to chewing tobacco?

My gripe about this poem is it can be edgier. The pipe came from the common (American) expression, "put that in your pipe and smoke it". I think as a poem it can go one or two steps beyond a common term:


If you take Christianity out of history
there will not be much left of history.
As you smoke your bong
think about it.


If you take Christianity out of history
there will not be much left of history.
As you spit out your tobbacco
think about it.

[JuniperWoolf]

Bien, aren't you tired of having the same debate over and over and over? It always ends up the same anyway, everyone thinks you're crazy and you re-iterate your "dinosaurs existed at the same time as people" schtick until the thread either gets closed or everyone gives up. Even just skimming it gives me a headache.

[MarkBastable]

Judaism was just a step to get to Christianity

..the Jews will be pleased to hear that....

[hillwalker]

Fossils are not history. Just because one group says that the fossils are from millions of years ago doesn't mean that it's historical evidence. Especially since there is so-called evidence of coal veins supposedly millions of years old that contain US Army uniform buttons. But no one ever hears about that. There are also many other pieces of evidence that y'all have NEVER seen. That is because the evidence contradicts "scientific belief". Okay...I'm done...

On that basis nothing is history - the Bible is hearsay and since we all know how unreliable witness reports are when used in court we're basing everything we believe to be history on various individuals' perspective. Dodgy indeed.

If, however, we are curious enough to explore the way the world was formed we can look at existing landscape forms (the canyons and dried river beds of Colorado to give one example) and compare them with similar, fossilised landforms elsewhere that have undergone major climatic changes (such as the North West Highlands of the UK) and conclude the latter were formed by similar natural forces long in the past. Or you can dismiss all the evidence before your eyes and say the Earth was somehow 'made' that way from scratch and all geological evidence is purely circumstantial.

It's a cosy little world you live in Bien, and perhaps it's as well you don't have to question anything that doesn't fit your personal template. As for American Army buttons being found inside coal seams millions of years old - are you saying God put them there to disprove geological theory? It seems quite feasible he would play such a trick - but why do you say the scientific world dismisses such material? I'm certain it would be headline news if it were actually true...

H

[BienvenuJDC]

..the Jews will be pleased to hear that....

They have never been pleased to hear it, but that doesn't make it untrue.



If, however, we are curious enough to explore the way the world was formed we can look at existing landscape forms (the canyons and dried river beds of Colorado to give one example)

The problem is that those who follow the "scientific belief" reject any evidence that doesn't agree with their theories. There are many others who have studied the the same evidence (including the evidence that is rejected by the evolutionists) who have different conclusions. I'm sure that you have never heard of this evidence.


It's a cosy little world you live in Bien, and perhaps it's as well you don't have to question anything that doesn't fit your personal template. As for American Army buttons being found inside coal seams millions of years old - are you saying God put them there to disprove geological theory? It seems quite feasible he would play such a trick - but why do you say the scientific world dismisses such material? I'm certain it would be headline news if it were actually true...

No...I'm not saying that God put them there...I'm saying that this evidence is rejected. You've got a cosy little world yourself. These "scientists" cover up the evidence because of their pride.

[Bar22do]

Try this - ultimate remedy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYLMTvxOaeE&feature=email

cheers to all.

[MarkBastable]

They have never been pleased to hear it, but that doesn't make it untrue.

I think their problem might be that God lied to them.

"Hey - you guys are the Chosen People! And to prove it, I'm gonna smite all the other unchosen guys! Though, to be clear, when I say 'chosen' I mean it in the sense of a girlfriend who looks good at parties though you have no intention of marrying her. So - you know - 'chosen' as in 'used'. But - hey - we had fun for a while there, yeah?"

I suppose the real question is, Did God mean it when he said that he was specifically on their side, but then he later decided to relegate them to the level of the rest of the humanity? Or did he know he was going to do that, and just deliberately led them on? Given that he's omniscient and timeless, you'd have to conclude that it's the latter. He just straight-up misled an entire race of people - through homelessness, slavery, genocide, exile - for a couple of thousand years leading up to the birth of Christ.

Then again - Jericho. Come on. That was a great day. Let's concentrate on the good times.

[BienvenuJDC]

I think their problem might be that God lied to them.

"Hey - you guys are the Chosen People! And to prove it, I'm gonna smite all the other unchosen guys! Though, to be clear, when I say 'chosen' I mean it in the sense of a girlfriend who looks good at parties though you have no intention of marrying her. So - you know - 'chosen' as in 'used'. But - hey - we had fun for a while there, yeah?"

I suppose the real question is, Did God mean it when he said that he was specifically on their side, and then later decided to relegate them to the level of the rest of the humanity? Or did he know he was going to do that, and just deliberately led them on. Given that he's omniscient and timeless, you'd have to conclude that it's the latter. He just straight-up misled them.

Such foolish talk...you need to study more before commenting. Israel was chosen for a particular purpose. That purpose was to bring for the Christ, which this was fulfilled. Furthermore, the relation between God and Israel was similar to how you describe, but it was show as a marriage relationship. However, it was not God who was unfaithful, but it was Israel who was unfaithful. Read through the book of Hosea then see Isaiah 50:1-2.

[Bar22do]

Try this - ultimate remedy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYLMTvxOaeE&feature=email

cheers to all.

just have a look... not a big deal...

[hillwalker]

The problem is that those who follow the "scientific belief" reject any evidence that doesn't agree with their theories.

Erm, no, actually I don't. And it's not a 'belief' any more than knowing where I live and how many fingers and toes I have is a 'belief'. I have no beliefs... except one, but I'm far too polite to share it on here.

H :rolleyes:

[MarkBastable]

I know the Bible as well as any Christian I know. I was brought up on it. And even if you were right about the eventual breakdown of the relationship, God would remain responsible for his mendacious treatment of all the individual Jews who lived and died before that schism, whoever may have been at fault.

You haven't answered the question, though. Did God know, when he was orchestrating their suffering, that they'd be cast aside - unchosen - a few hundred years down the line? Did he put them through slavery in Egypt, promising Zion, while fully aware that they were 'just a step to Christianity'?

I'd like a Christian's answer to that.

Me, I think, given how God behaves according to his own authorised biography, it's kinder of mankind to dismiss his existence than to believe that any supreme being could be as capricious, inconsistent and uncaring as we are required to accept he is.

[BienvenuJDC]

Erm, no, actually I don't. And it's not a 'belief' any more than knowing where I live and how many fingers and toes I have is a 'belief'. I have no beliefs... except one, but I'm far too polite to share it on here.

H :rolleyes:

So we are to the personal attacks part of the discussion? Or at least leaving the impression of such? If you can't agree that it's a belief system, then you are living in your cozy little world. It was not witnessed by anyone, and the evidence is inconclusive. You can believe whatever you wish, but don't make opinions into facts.


I know the Bible as well as any Christian I know. I was brought up on it. And even if you were right about the eventual breakdown of the relationship, God would remain responsible for his mendacious treatment of all the individual Jews who lived and died before that schism, whoever may have been at fault.

You haven't answered the question, though. Did God know, when he was orchestrating their suffering, that they'd be cast aside - unchosen - a few hundred years down the line? Did he put them through slavery in Egypt, promising Zion, while fully aware that they were 'just a step to Christianity'?

I'd like a Christian's answer to that.

Me, I think, given how God behaves according to his own authorised biography, it's kinder of mankind to dismiss his existence than to believe that any supreme being could be as capricious, inconsistent and uncaring as we are required to accept he is.

God had delivered the Israelites from the Egyptian slavery, not put them through it. He brought them to a promised land in Canaan. He NEVER cast them aside, although there were times when THEY turned their backs on Him. Once Christianity was established, it was taken to THEM first.

[MarkBastable]

God had delivered the Israelites from the Egyptian slavery, not put them through it. He brought them to a promised land in Canaan. He NEVER cast them aside, although there were times when THEY turned their backs on Him. Once Christianity was established, it was taken to THEM first.

But had they not gone into slavery, they couldn't have come out of it. Was slavery part of God's plan? Or was it a glitch he hadn't foreseen?

It can't have been the latter. Slavery in Egypt was a necessary precursor to the cultural aspiration to Zion and absolutely a required vehicle for the prophesies that lead to Christ.

You can't have this both ways. Either everything is part of God's plan, and he's omnisciently in charge of it. Or he's dealing with stuff as it comes up, which means there is no real plan, though there might have been an objective that God was working towards, circumstances permitting.

I tend towards the latter view. God was making it up as he went along. Which make him no brighter than you or me, though admittedly more powerful.