The Myth of Persecution: How Early Christians Invented a Story of Martyrdom

page: 11
21
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by Malcher
 


This is a quote to that monstrosity (thread) you refer to as proof:

'Monstrosity'? Really?
Oh my. I'm a scholar and seeker. I just don't trust what Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh have to say.....nor do I trust what the extremist liberals have to say. Are you familiar with NPR? Do you ever listen to their programs?



I was referring to the forum thread you linked to, I did not agree with it at all and I just dont see the point in being biased and the thread was biased...although i only read the main post I jumped on what i believe to be a major error. In fact, i could not believe someone could make such a mistake so i just closed the tab after i saw that.

I used to listen to NPR, but not for a few years. Not really interested in Beck or Limbaugh but Beck is sometimes entertaining. I love art and anyone who cries on the radio is a real artist.

Other than that, I march to the beat of my own drummer...so to speak.




posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcher
 


Okay.
So you don't really study to educate yourself, and don't trust what's there to study. I think I got it.

Hopefully somebody will have read the book and eventually jump in here to tell us more about it, and what they think of her premise.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by Malcher
 


Okay.
So you don't really study to educate yourself, and don't trust what's there to study. I think I got it.

Hopefully somebody will have read the book and eventually jump in here to tell us more about it, and what they think of her premise.


Of course i study and am highly educated. The questions you are asking me are a little strange though. What does NPR or some radio personality have to do with anything?

My feeling is that many things we read about are invented. Every post i made dealt with proof and sources and you cannot even provide a shred of evidence that there was ever any "witch" hunt.

I cannot just take your word for it because you have shown you are not interested in the truth. You have damned the truth and those links you gave...well, if that passes as truth to you then that is why people believe everything they read. I accepted the link on Veronica, but that story did not support your position at all.
edit on 10-4-2013 by Malcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcher
 


I cannot just take your word for it because you have shown you are not interested in the truth. You have damned the truth and those links you gave...well, if that passes as truth to you then that is why people believe everything they read. I accepted the link on Veronica, but that story did not support your position at all.

What?!!!
Oh for crying out loud!! If you thought the other forum was a 'monstrosity', good for you. You haven't the faintest idea of what I have been studying relentlessly for the past 5 years, let alone the past 40 years, nor do you know what I've studied in the fields of comparative religion, theological history, and history in general.

I don't even know what to say to you. I am fundamentally interested in the truth. In fact, it's all I am interested in finding....
If you want to deny that the Inquisition and its aftermath included witch trials, that's on you. I think it's bizarre that you are somehow attacking me when you have never interacted with me before, and are unfamiliar with my opinions. If you want to learn more about me, you can read my threads and posts.

If you don't, and just want to discredit me, then whatever. What you say or think doesn't change who I am.

To be honest, you don't make sense, your posts are off-topic, and I don't know what your problem is. Perhaps you think I am some youngling who doesn't know any better than to believe whatever I read. You'd be completely wrong on that assumption.

Are you denying that witch trials occurred? Are you saying the author of this book is a liar?
And what is your problem against me??


edit on 10-4-2013 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)

Oh, and by the way, I also am 'highly educated'. In the humanities. In social systems and psychology and social constructs and narratives.
edit on 10-4-2013 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)
edit on 10-4-2013 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcher
 



What does NPR or some radio personality have to do with anything?

It has to do with broad-based assessment of the world we are dealing with. Liberal Arts. Critical thinking. With making up your mind without really investigating topics from all angles.

You are amused by Glenn Beck, but discarded NPR. That tells me that it is you who have shut your eyes and now trust no one and look at the world as some sort of amusement park.

What are you doing to improve things while you 'march to your different drummer'? Attacking people who are still engaged and paying attention on a daily basis? Who are trying to connect all the dots, regardless of what picture is found at the end? Bravo. Buzz off.

I told you I got the point of written documentation not being 'evidence'. But it's all we have in many, many cases. You don't have to like it, but it is what it is.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcher
My feeling is that many things we read about are invented.

What is your basis for believing that? Do you mean not reported with full accuracy, intentionally distorted, or flat out fabrications? Can you provide an example of a commonly held belief for which historical evidence exists, but that you believe was fabricated, along with evidence that supports your assertion?


Every post i made dealt with proof and sources and you cannot even provide a shred of evidence that there was ever any "witch" hunt.

I'm not sure that I understand what your expectation of evidence is. As an historian, I'm fairly confident in the validity of the documentary and physical evidence, but your standards may be quite a lot higher.


I cannot just take your word for it because you have shown you are not interested in the truth.

That is an uncalled for personal attack -- I disagree with Wildtimes on many issues, but have never found her to be a disingenuous or dishonest person.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by Malcher
 



What does NPR or some radio personality have to do with anything?

It has to do with broad-based assessment of the world we are dealing with. Liberal Arts. Critical thinking. With making up your mind without really investigating topics from all angles.

You are amused by Glenn Beck, but discarded NPR. That tells me that it is you who have shut your eyes and now trust no one and look at the world as some sort of amusement park.

What are you doing to improve things while you 'march to your different drummer'? Attacking people who are still engaged and paying attention on a daily basis? Who are trying to connect all the dots, regardless of what picture is found at the end? Bravo. Buzz off.

I told you I got the point of written documentation not being 'evidence'. But it's all we have in many, many cases. You don't have to like it, but it is what it is.


I never said i disregarded NPR. Can you point out where i said anything like that?

I did say that I march to the beat of my own drummer. That is an idiom and was a response to your inquiry regarding Beck and Limbaugh. I have no interest in these people, I did not bring them up. I just thought those questions were bizarre. What is the connection in this thread with these people? If there is a connection I am not aware of it.

This is all i asked and you went a little hay wire and obviously you cannot answer the questions because you didnt:

Why would you question or believe that the early Christian persecutions were fabricated and not other persecutions where the type of evidence is basically the same?

What is the difference in the evidence for or against the title of this thread compared to other major events that occurred hundreds or thousands of years ago?

It seems to me that the only real difference is what you want to be true?

History is NOT supposed to work that way. If you are going to be involved with historical discussion then first thing to learn is that we leave our personal biases at the door. Otherwise we declare a dictatorship.

edit on 10-4-2013 by Malcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcher
 


You plainly said that you stopped listening to NPR a number of years ago, and that you listen to Beck because he amuses you with his on-air tears. Go back and read your own posts for evidence of that.

You also accused me of not wanting to know the truth.

This thread was made to present an idea that an educated woman has derived from her research and passionate study.

I'm finished talking to you, Malcher. It's counterproductive. Think whatever you want. I care whether you get me or not, but I'm not going to spend my time convincing you of who I am, nor be put on the defensive by you.

That is an idiom.

Duh.
edit on 10-4-2013 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Malcher
My feeling is that many things we read about are invented.

What is your basis for believing that? Do you mean not reported with full accuracy, intentionally distorted, or flat out fabrications? Can you provide an example of a commonly held belief for which historical evidence exists, but that you believe was fabricated, along with evidence that supports your assertion?


Every post i made dealt with proof and sources and you cannot even provide a shred of evidence that there was ever any "witch" hunt.

I'm not sure that I understand what your expectation of evidence is. As an historian, I'm fairly confident in the validity of the documentary and physical evidence, but your standards may be quite a lot higher.


I cannot just take your word for it because you have shown you are not interested in the truth.

That is an uncalled for personal attack -- I disagree with Wildtimes on many issues, but have never found her to be a disingenuous or dishonest person.


Of course i have my own feeling on history. I am human, after all.

As far as personal attacks: Wildtimes stated first that i was uneducated. Is that a personal attack or an opinion? Because personally, even though it was directed at me, I didnt see it as a personal attack.



I'm not sure that I understand what your expectation of evidence is. As an historian, I'm fairly confident in the validity of the documentary and physical evidence, but your standards may be quite a lot higher.


I would say the my standards may be higher, yes that appears to be true.

You can spin this anyway you want but I laid down a trump card. If you want to reveal another card then by all means do so. Focusing on me will not win this debate for you or wildtimes though.

But seriously, you agree with me on the main topic but do not agree with looking into other similar stories of events that allegedly happened centuries ago? Why?
edit on 10-4-2013 by Malcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcher
 

As far as personal attacks: Wildtimes stated first that i was uneducated.

NO. I did NOT. I said that from your posts I gather that you don't trust anything you read, and have clearly not kept up with modern journalism that is balanced....if I am mistaken, you are free to correct me. I am responding to what you posted.


You can spin this anyway you want but I laid down a trump card. If you want to reveal another card then by all means do so. Focusing on me will not win this debate for you or wildtimes though.

But YOU are focusing on ME, and attacking me.
You don't have a 'trump card.' You've missed the entire point of the thread. I DID NOT WRITE THE TITLE OR THE BOOK.

Read through the whole thread, and then come back if you want. Otherwise, don't presume that you are more 'educated' than adjensen or myself.


edit on 10-4-2013 by wildtimes because: keyboard is dying. I'm out for now.
edit on 10-4-2013 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by Malcher
 


You plainly said that you stopped listening to NPR a number of years ago, and that you listen to Beck because he amuses you with his on-air tears. Go back and read your own posts for evidence of that.

You also accused me of not wanting to know the truth.

This thread was made to present an idea that an educated woman has derived from her research and passionate study.

I'm finished talking to you, Malcher. It's counterproductive. Think whatever you want. I care whether you get me or not, but I'm not going to spend my time convincing you of who I am, nor be put on the defensive by you.


Well to be honest, I didnt know this was your thread. I did come on a little strong in those first few posts. I thought it was an old thread and that the person who made the OP was no longer responding. That is beside the point now. It was 2am, and i was reading a lot of different threads so i got them mixed up.

Also, I never inferred that the book in question (OP) was not worth looking into. As a matter of fact I think I agree with the premise as far as what we accept as proof and too often it is very flimsy only it seems to me that there was early persecution of Christians. I base that on simple bias though.
edit on 10-4-2013 by Malcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcher
 


Well to be honest, I didnt know this was your thread. I did come on a little strong in those first few posts. I thought it was an old thread and that the person who made the OP was no longer responding. That is beside the point now.

No, it's not 'beside the point'!

It indicates that you make arrogant, knee-jerk assumptions and don't read the threads.

Be more careful and vigilant next time if you choose to respond to a thread.

My keyboard is dying now, so I'm done for the evening.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


let me guess: the loser who wrote sh** like that, is a member of the false Synagogue.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcher
You can spin this anyway you want but I laid down a trump card.

I still don't understand what your "trump card" is -- maybe I missed something, but all I've been able to garner is that you dismiss the preponderance of evidence regarding the persecution of witches simply because you don't think it to be true.


But seriously, you agree with me on the main topic but do not agree with looking into other similar stories of events that allegedly happened centuries ago? Why?

I don't know that I agree with you on the main topic, because all I've said is that this book sensationalizes something that any student of the early church already knew. Christians were persecuted, but not ceaselessly and not in all areas of the empire. Thus, "The Myth of Persecution" is a dishonest title for this book, and having not read it, that remains my real complaint.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Malcher
You can spin this anyway you want but I laid down a trump card.

I still don't understand what your "trump card" is -- maybe I missed something, but all I've been able to garner is that you dismiss the preponderance of evidence regarding the persecution of witches simply because you don't think it to be true.


My point was, and this may not apply to you, how does the evidence that these events occurred in the U.S differ from the evidence one would present to show that this threads title is valid?

Is it just a matter of what you are willing to accept as fact?

One thing that i do find interesting about the "witch trials" is that using what we know today the term "witch" is a misnomer due to lack of knowledge regarding mental health. Also, what if some or even many were not wrongfully accused and did actually commit crimes only the court concentrated on the term witch.

Do you think the sentence below sums up what a reasonable person at the time would say?

"how can someone commit such a crime? this has to be witchcraft (work of the devil)"

Over time the actual crimes are forgotten and all that we or mainly what we are left with are the charges, only the charges are not accurate or do not tell the whole story.

Here is one instance:


In Salem Village in the winter months of 1692, Betty Parris, age 9, and her cousin Abigail Williams, age 11, the daughter and niece, respectively, of Reverend Parris, began to have fits described as "beyond the power of Epileptic Fits or natural disease to effect" by John Hale, minister in nearby Beverly.[26] The girls screamed, threw things about the room, uttered strange sounds, crawled under furniture, and contorted themselves into peculiar positions, according to the eyewitness account of Rev. Deodat Lawson, a former minister in the town. The girls complained of being pinched and pricked with pins. A doctor, historically assumed to be William Griggs, could find no physical evidence of any ailment. Other young women in the village began to exhibit similar behaviors. When Lawson preached in the Salem Village meetinghouse, he was interrupted several times by outbursts of the afflicted


Source

In keeping with the premise of the op and what we accept as proof in that example -

how do we know the event occurred when all we have is a written record? Why would we not at least consider terms like "fabrication" and "exaggeration" etc.?

Also, with no knowledge of medical conditions that are extremely rare or mental diseases etc. should we stop using the term "Witch hunt" when we refer to these cases?

In relation to absolute fabrication, can it also be possible that someone wrote a book and was passing off questionable events as fact?

Believe me, i have seen far too many people pass off books written in 1960 as fact for events that occurred hundreds of years ago. I find this unacceptable.
edit on 10-4-2013 by Malcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcher
 


Once again, you're really confusing me. Sorry, I may just be thick as a whale omelet, but I don't understand your point. However:
  1. The title of this thread is the title of the book that Wildtimes posted about - it isn't her title
  2. Do I believe that witch hunts occurred? Yes. Do I believe that those killed were really "witches"? No, not really.
  3. Is it reasonable to assume that people were accused of being witches, simply because their behaviour was off? Sure. Look at the people who say that the Connecticut school shooter was "possessed by Satan" -- they're still doing the same thing now.

Beleive me, i have seen too many people pass off books written in 1960 as fact for events that occured hundreds of years ago. I find this unacceptable.

Why is a book written in 1960 (or today, for that matter) on the Civil War or Crusades invalid? You're acting like someone just sat down at their desk in 1960, said "I think I'll write a book on the Civil War" and wrote the thing off the top of their head.

When I was in graduate school, one of my history classes had just one "assignment". For the whole semester, every single day I went to the library and read, cover to cover, newspapers from a certain geographic region for a decade of the 1800s, looking for certain data. When I was done, I wrote a paper (which was later published) on the facts that I gleaned from those afternoons of research. Though my paper was written and researched in the 1980s, its source material was entirely historical documents (newspapers) written in the 1800s.

Was my paper invalid, simply because I was the first person to approach the subject, and I didn't do so until a hundred years after the events in question?



posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by Malcher
 


Once again, you're really confusing me. Sorry, I may just be thick as a whale omelet, but I don't understand your point. However:
  1. The title of this thread is the title of the book that Wildtimes posted about - it isn't her title
  2. Do I believe that witch hunts occurred? Yes. Do I believe that those killed were really "witches"? No, not really.
  3. Is it reasonable to assume that people were accused of being witches, simply because their behaviour was off? Sure. Look at the people who say that the Connecticut school shooter was "possessed by Satan" -- they're still doing the same thing now.

Beleive me, i have seen too many people pass off books written in 1960 as fact for events that occured hundreds of years ago. I find this unacceptable.

Why is a book written in 1960 (or today, for that matter) on the Civil War or Crusades invalid? You're acting like someone just sat down at their desk in 1960, said "I think I'll write a book on the Civil War" and wrote the thing off the top of their head.

When I was in graduate school, one of my history classes had just one "assignment". For the whole semester, every single day I went to the library and read, cover to cover, newspapers from a certain geographic region for a decade of the 1800s, looking for certain data. When I was done, I wrote a paper (which was later published) on the facts that I gleaned from those afternoons of research. Though my paper was written and researched in the 1980s, its source material was entirely historical documents (newspapers) written in the 1800s.

Was my paper invalid, simply because I was the first person to approach the subject, and I didn't do so until a hundred years after the events in question?


Thank You for your time and sharing your knowledge. Is there a name for books that can be deemed as fiction but the author does not view their work as fiction? Not entirely non-fiction as it would contain some true facts only interspersed with the authors opinions that relies on letters or previous writings, accounts that were entirely made up etc.

Note: I am not referring to the book in the OP just a general question.


edit on 11-4-2013 by Malcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcher
 

You mean something like historical fiction?

Or more along the lines of The Da Vinci Code, which presented fiction as fact (with a disclaimer in the small print somewhere that the book was fiction)? Or something akin to Kersey Graves' The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors (which was used in Da Vinci Code), which is claimed to be a scholarly work, but, in reality, Kersey just made the whole thing up?

The term I'd use for the last two is "fraud".



posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcher
 


I still do not get your point. Yes, people with mental illness, or who were outcasts, or were eccentric, or simply disliked, were accused of being witches! And they were arrested and tried under that premise. ESPECIALLY if they were 'cunning-women' or 'herbalists' who had ways of dealing with illness. There are STILL witch-doctors and 'brujas' working in 3rd world countries who are consulted as 'alternative medicine practitioiners'. Are you really that unaware?

We know now that it was often innocents who were accused, and that manufactured, superstitious suspicion (or vengeance or jealousy or whatever) brought down the charges. No one is questioning that (except you?).

I'm sorry, but I truly don't get what your point is. Or your problem.
edit on 11-4-2013 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 03:57 PM
link   
AdJensen and wildtimes,


Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by Malcher
 

You mean something like historical fiction?

Or more along the lines of The Da Vinci Code, which presented fiction as fact (with a disclaimer in the small print somewhere that the book was fiction)? Or something akin to Kersey Graves' The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors (which was used in Da Vinci Code), which is claimed to be a scholarly work, but, in reality, Kersey just made the whole thing up?

The term I'd use for the last two is "fraud".


I am well aware of blatantly made up stories like the one in your link and so many others.

The thing is they do get people who believe them, which was one point I made. Although, perhaps deep down inside they just want to or choose to believe like being told what you want to hear aka delusion.

The Da Vinci Code was entertaining and I did like the movie. Hopefully people understand that..."it's only a movie."

Another is that with each successive new theory are we, in reality, getting further from the truth?

I was surprised to see links form credible sites, BBC being one, that shows that in my example of Caligula is that a lot of the bad stuff we take as fact is actually completely fabricated.

You may find these links interesting:

historic_figures/caligula

history-lists/7-things-you-may-not-know-about-caligula
I mainly trust mainstream sources when it comes to history.
edit on 12-4-2013 by Malcher because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
21
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join