Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Koran bashers @the Oaks | |
Posted by: | John Theodore Clark | |
Date/Time: | 20/11/09 21:28:00 |
You are not answering any of my points. As to the blooper, no mistake. C14 is the common shorthand for the 14th century. You must know that, so it is odd that you accuse me of sarcasm. At that time, there was a strong feeling that Christianity had been hijacked by the Church (RC) and by the ruling classes. The fact that you don't recognise the verse, and take it literally as referring to Adam and Eve, really surprises me. Your comparison of the violent nasty Mahommed with the peace-loving Jesus is unfair, and is a smear that the Catholic church advanced centuries ago to discredit a rival, much like the blood libel with which it smeared the Jews. Mahommed is a historical figure about much is known from sources outside Islam. We know that he was a warrior (like the Biblical David), who united many rival tribes. We know that he married what would now be considered an underage girl (although we have no idea as to when that marriage was consummated). In contrast, there is no contemporaneous writing describing Jesus. None at all. Not one jot or tittle. The first descriptions are in the first of the Gospels, written 70 years after Jesus' death. We have no description, either independent or contemporaneous as to his character, his sex life, or his views on important subjects. So it is pretty easy to make him out as a good guy. Censoring out the martyrs? What has this got to do with anything? Do you think that Christians were the only ones to be killed for their beliefs? Do you think that Christianity was the only repressed religion at the time? Of course there were martyrs. But why do you suppose that the Church would want to emphasise this in later centuries? Couldn't be, could it, that it wanted to justify mass murder, much as the Nazis used smears against the Poles and Jews to justify similar atrocities? |