What era would you choose to live in.

[Poodler]

1 hour ago, daytripping said:

40's for me so I could have went to war.

You did in the 80’s and Aberdeen is safer because of it 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Poodler said:

You did in the 80’s and Aberdeen is safer because of it 

Unreal bit of arselicking there 

 

Fair on

[Guest]

Dayts does strike me as a man who's taken many a blow to the head 

[Guest milne_afc]

Just now, ConsiCanBoogie1903 said:

Fair on

 

Just now, ConsiCanBoogie1903 said:

a man who's taken many a blow to the head 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, milne_afc said:

 

Stop following me

[Guest milne_afc]

ok bye

(my notifications tell a different story though)

[Guest]

Just now, milne_afc said:

ok bye

(my notifications tell a different story though)

Why would you react to that 

such an esteemed member of this community and you're riding to the bait of a silly wee idiot like me? 
 

As someone who respects you, delete that post 

[Guest milne_afc]

riding to the bait, indeed. You're flailing tonight. Up the meds.

 

[bait]

[Poodler]

12 minutes ago, ConsiCanBoogie1903 said:

Unreal bit of arselicking there 

 

Fair on

Dayts is a ledge 

 

credit where it’s due. Some people fall silent on armistice day 

I’ll tell Dayts and Misers that their services were appreciated anytime 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, milne_afc said:

riding to the bait, indeed. You're flailing tonight. Up the meds.

 

[bait]

This you white knighting Poodler again? 
 

Min

[Guest]

Just now, Poodler said:

Dayts is a ledge 

 

credit where it’s due. Some people fall silent on armistice day 

I’ll tell Dayts and Misers that their services were appreciated anytime 

How many times you smoked Misers pole on the infamous sofa over a tin of Polish lager?

[Poodler]

Settle 

he treats me with complete contempt (Milne I mean, misers is always a gent)

 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Poodler said:

Settle 

he treats me with complete contempt (Milne I mean, misers is always a gent)

 

Step on your nuts? Milninatrix?

[Ke1t]

1 hour ago, Ramandu said:

This asterisk thing is why it's rubbish arguing on forums. But since we're unlikely to be in the same pub any time soon...

* Not really the same. We're talking about a timescale of 20 years between whatever happened and the first surviving writings. In historical terms (even in modern terms) that's contemporary. There are no Hindu writings which claim to be from the time of Ganesh.

** Geography and politics places it in a particular place and time. The source material came from 1st century Jews in Judea. The myths and legends you're talking about take time to grow, and there wasn't the time for that here. Myths are generally light on specific places/dates/events.

*** Obviously I'd say that we do have records, written by eyewitnesses, but (unsurprisingly) they're believers. As for official records we have a tiny fraction of what was written at that time. There are revolts and wars from then we know next to nothing about. Even with the miracles, why would you expect much about a peasant from a backwater at the edge of the empire?

**** Agree

***** It's been a few years since I last read about the Mithraic stuff, and I wasn't convinced then. Seem to recall that it doesn't actually predate christianity. Happy to give it another go though. The new testament is so tied up with Judaism (i.e. the old testament) that other sources seem unlikely.

* & ** & the first half of *** You're likely referencing the writings of St Paul. A christian who would have been, shall we say invested in supporting his religion. You can see why questions as to their validity might be raised. It's certainly not anything approaching evidence. And there's the problem, you enter a tautological argument where you have a specific cadre all backing each other's story, and yet outside said cadre is more or less nothing in terms of corroborating said anecdotal evidence. 

second half of *** There's a difference between a routine war and the son of god manifest, though. Revolts and wars are a dime a dozen... the son of GOD would be noteworthy in any written history. A militarised society like the Romans could have used a slave that can feed an entire legion with a few loaves and fishes.. 5000 men who can march on an enemy with virtually no logistical support would be like God Mode, pardon the pun. And the military applications of a guy who can heal battlefield wounds or sickness, at a time where the majority of military attrition cam via non-combat events,  are enormous... Every army in the known world would have been after him like a living Lance of Longinus. 

**** ....

***** Predating christianity isn't a prerequisite to adding to the mythos at a later date, though.  JRR Tolkien famously said about the Lord of the Rings, that "The tale grew in the telling".  

Here's the bottom line, though. 

Even IF it's accepted that a guy called Jesus did live, conclusively proved that Jesus of Nazareth was an actual individual... there would still be no evidence of his divinity. And that's a huge problem for every single follower of the 20,000 or so cults and subcults that worship jesus as the son of god, and/or god himself.  He existed. But so did Lemmy. Neither have their divine nature proven. 

And is 'some guy like Lemmy 'a good enough reason for forming an entire religion, alleged ethical system, and belief in the creation of the universe, the soul, and the afterlife?

I mean, Lemmy wrote some banging tunes, but I'm not forming a a church of Lemmianity and claiming he's the son of the guy... and the guy... who created the Universe. 

Ace of Spades, sure... the universe, not so much. 

 

[Poodler]

 

 

a moment of literary genius for the religious debate 

[Guest milne_afc]

5 minutes ago, Poodler said:

he treats me with complete contempt

Haha - this is reciprocal tomfoolery. 

The Piddler falls within the circle  ?

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Poodler said:

 

 

a moment of literary genius for the religious debate 

Not a patch on Father John Misty, I'm afraid 

 

 

[Redforever86]

9 minutes ago, Poodler said:

 

 

a moment of literary genius for the religious debate 

Thought you never liked his sort. 

[Poodler]

He saw the error of his ways and changed 

[Ohjimmyjimmy]

Musos boring the tits off folk on another thread I see.

 

I’d go back to the war era, to see if Dayts grandad was as big a blouse as we all suspect he is.

[Ramandu]

6 minutes ago, Ke1t said:

* & ** & the first half of *** You're likely referencing the writings of St Paul. A christian who would have been, shall we say invested in supporting his religion. You can see why questions as to their validity might be raised. It's certainly not anything approaching evidence. And there's the problem, you enter a tautological argument where you have a specific cadre all backing each other's story, and yet outside said cadre is more or less nothing in terms of corroborating said anecdotal evidence. 

second half of *** There's a difference between a routine war and the son of god manifest, though. Revolts and wars are a dime a dozen... the son of GOD would be noteworthy in any written history. A militarised society like the Romans could have used a slave that can feed an entire legion with a few loaves and fishes.. 5000 men who can march on an enemy with virtually no logistical support would be like God Mode, pardon the pun. And the military applications of a guy who can heal battlefield wounds or sickness, at a time where the majority of military attrition cam via non-combat events,  are enormous... Every army in the known world would have been after him like a living Lance of Longinus. 

**** ....

***** Predating christianity isn't a prerequisite to adding to the mythos at a later date, though.  JRR Tolkien famously said about the Lord of the Rings, that "The tale grew in the telling".  

Here's the bottom line, though. 

Even IF it's accepted that a guy called Jesus did live, conclusively proved that Jesus of Nazareth was an actual individual... there would still be no evidence of his divinity. And that's a huge problem for every single follower of the 20,000 or so cults and subcults that worship jesus as the son of god, and/or god himself.  He existed. But so did Lemmy. Neither have their divine nature proven. 

And is 'some guy like Lemmy 'a good enough reason for forming an entire religion, alleged ethical system, and belief in the creation of the universe, the soul, and the afterlife?

I mean, Lemmy wrote some banging tunes, but I'm not forming a a church of Lemmianity and claiming he's the son of the guy... and the guy... who created the Universe. 

Ace of Spades, sure... the universe, not so much. 

 

Think you're misunderstanding me on the first bit. I'm not saying you have to believe what Paul writes. I'm saying the very fact he is writing to a church is evidence there were churches in turkey around 50AD. We know this religion came from judea. If Jesus wasn't historical, 15-20 years is far too short for myth to develop and spread like that. I'm not arguing for his divinity here, just the likelihood of his existence.

Second point- I think the sources we have are older though. It's hard to say that Christianity borrowed heavily from Mithraism when the key Christian texts were written first. Again, I've not looked at this in a while.

Your bottom line is fine of course, the argument was about whether there was a historical Jesus, not whether he was the son of God.

[Ke1t]

4 minutes ago, Ramandu said:

Think you're misunderstanding me on the first bit. I'm not saying you have to believe what Paul writes. I'm saying the very fact he is writing to a church is evidence there were churches in turkey around 50AD. We know this religion came from judea. If Jesus wasn't historical, 15-20 years is far too short for myth to develop and spread like that. I'm not arguing for his divinity here, just the likelihood of his existence.

Second point- I think the sources we have are older though. It's hard to say that Christianity borrowed heavily from Mithraism when the key Christian texts were written first. Again, I've not looked at this in a while.

Your bottom line is fine of course, the argument was about whether there was a historical Jesus, not whether he was the son of God.

Based upon what criteria? 

[Ramandu]

29 minutes ago, Poodler said:

 

 

a moment of literary genius for the religious debate 

Good but not great.

Greatness:

 

[Poodler]

My man!!! What a song 

 

ever watched this? Peak Dylan IMO

 

jimmyjimmy get on that!

 

 

[maryhilldon]

You used to be fun Kelt.  What happened?  You come across as a long winded arrogant know it all these days. Preferred it when you stuck to hypothetical bear wrestling scenarios. Hanging around with torn faced democrat canvassers has taken it's toll.

[Ke1t]

1 hour ago, maryhilldon said:

* You used to be fun Kelt.  What happened? 

** You come across as a long winded arrogant know it all these days.

*** Preferred it when you stuck to hypothetical bear wrestling scenarios.

**** Hanging around with torn faced democrat canvassers has taken it's toll.

 * Are we in some kind of a relationship that I'm unaware of? 

** Debating is about presenting your side of an argument as clearly and as compellingly as you can. That's not 'know[ing] it all. That's how adults talk. Religion is one of my things, and you're not going to find my posts on the subject to be particularly exciting or hilarious. You may want to avoid them. No need for anyone to get upset, just move on. 

*** I prefer it when people post pictures of Carol Vorderman, but I don't expect or demand everyone do that. Because what other people post isn't up to me. If you see a post you feel might be long winded or know it all... just don't bother with it. Read someone else's post. Moobs, for example, is PotY... he posts some CRACKING stuff. You don't have to focus on my shit... I make no claims of being interesting. 

**** On the contrary, I was paired with a charming young African American lady because there was the very real danger that angry Republicans would assault her, but they'd think twice about it if I' was standing next to her.... though I've spoken very little on the subject of my mini hiatus to perform my civic duty... I'm surprised anyone even remembers that, since I only mentioned it in passing ( do you take notes, or something?) there were indeed unpleasant encounters. 

[maryhilldon]

30 minutes ago, Ke1t said:

Will revisit this. 

?

[YorkDon]

60’s Britain is an obvious one with bands like the Beatles and the Stones and Cream, The Doors and Hendrix playing in London.

Seemed much simpler and carefree times-watch/listen to some great bands, take recreational drugs and pull some mini skirted wee tart.

That or 50’s America, like in Happy Days.I’d be the Fonz.

[BrianFaePerth]

50s America would be a good call. It’s always portrayed as a carefree fun time with plenty of seats at the front of the bus.

 

[Matt Armstrong's Dog]

22 hours ago, Bad_Mobby said:

Ride a horse 

Loved T-Rex.

I would have liked to live through the late 60s/early 70s, attending the Woodstock (great tune by Matthew's Southern Comfort) Festival, as well as the 1970 Scottish Cup Final?.