|
|
ringbark (![[info]](http://www.journalfen.net/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} ringbark) wrote in ![[info]](http://www.journalfen.net/img/community.gif){kind=small} otf_wank,@ 2006-07-04 08:34:00 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
1,000 skeletons found in Rome catacombs
It started off harmlessly enough as a piece of reporting in "The Scotsman", a serious newspaper from Scotland: http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/interna
On the face of it, this sounds like a news story, but any newspaper that allows comments to stories is pretty much saying "please wank me!" and so the very first comment launches it.
#1 The skeletons were not Christian. Christianity did not spread to Rome until after the first century.
And we're off. Next off the mark we get
#2 Tell that to St. Peter and St. Paul. Apparently they didn't know they were supposed to wait until after the first centurty (sic) to spread the New Covenant.
Lots of commenters agree with #2 and seem to suggest that #1 has a very fuzzy understanding of history. But was St Paul a Christian?
#4 Paul did not consider himself a Christian, and he would have been horrified to have been considered anything BUT a Jew. Jesus and His followers were all Jews, and the debates were about Judaism itslef (sic), NOT a new religion.
#11 chooses to quote from Acts chapter 26... And Agrippa said to Paul: In a little thou persuadest me to become a Christian. And Paul said: I would to God, that both in a little and in much, not only thou, but also all that hear me, this day, should become such AS I ALSO AM, except these bands.
But #11 adds a disclaimer, which only seems to add another dimension to the wank:
but then again... that's the Catholic version, not the Davinci code version.
And we're off again, this time an argument between the Da Vinci Code version of history, sometimes called an alternate universe, and respected historians (including pagan roman ones like tacitus and ceutonis) according to #7.
By #14 it's getting silly...
#14 You are getting confused between Catholicism and Christianity which are two completely different religions,
At least the next commenter can see where we're headed...
#15 Here we go again with the "Catholics aren't Christians" argument... Yawnn...
We have intelligent discussion of the level we might expect at
#23 there is no proof that Catholism exist before Constantine became King. It's rather ridiculous that you have to slur names to prove your point. It doesn't work. If you are a true intellect you should just state your case. THE DIVCI CODE IS A GREAT BOOK. Let me guess if you had your way you'd burn it.
Of course, she's right! Catholism doesn't exist. As for Catholicism, that's a different matter. My history book doesn't mention a king called Constantine, though there was an emperor with that name. I can't comment about the DIVCI CODE, as I've never heard of it. If it's anything like the DA VINCI CODE, then it probably is a great book. Like so many in the various fandoms, Brown has been accused of plagiarism. I know I'd be a bit cross if I'd written HBHG, but still... Anyway, being a GREAT BOOK isn't the same as being TRUE. As far as I know, LOTR and HP are GREAT BOOKS but they aren't TRUE.
By the time we get to #24, we're back to talking about the original article, but by then it's too late. We're just one step away from h-l-c--st denial with
#27 This is just pure propaganda. Who says they were persecuted? where is the hard evidence that these people were persecuted? And I dont mean quotes from classical texts written by Christians.
I could carry on, but the thread continues in a tl;dr vein...the website seems to draw a line under a discussion with 50 comments, which is probably just as well. Lots of exciting wank that could have been developed further, but very little discussion about the original article. As usual.
It started off harmlessly enough as a piece of reporting in "The Scotsman", a serious newspaper from Scotland: http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/interna
On the face of it, this sounds like a news story, but any newspaper that allows comments to stories is pretty much saying "please wank me!" and so the very first comment launches it.
#1 The skeletons were not Christian. Christianity did not spread to Rome until after the first century.
And we're off. Next off the mark we get
#2 Tell that to St. Peter and St. Paul. Apparently they didn't know they were supposed to wait until after the first centurty (sic) to spread the New Covenant.
Lots of commenters agree with #2 and seem to suggest that #1 has a very fuzzy understanding of history. But was St Paul a Christian?
#4 Paul did not consider himself a Christian, and he would have been horrified to have been considered anything BUT a Jew. Jesus and His followers were all Jews, and the debates were about Judaism itslef (sic), NOT a new religion.
#11 chooses to quote from Acts chapter 26... And Agrippa said to Paul: In a little thou persuadest me to become a Christian. And Paul said: I would to God, that both in a little and in much, not only thou, but also all that hear me, this day, should become such AS I ALSO AM, except these bands.
But #11 adds a disclaimer, which only seems to add another dimension to the wank:
but then again... that's the Catholic version, not the Davinci code version.
And we're off again, this time an argument between the Da Vinci Code version of history, sometimes called an alternate universe, and respected historians (including pagan roman ones like tacitus and ceutonis) according to #7.
By #14 it's getting silly...
#14 You are getting confused between Catholicism and Christianity which are two completely different religions,
At least the next commenter can see where we're headed...
#15 Here we go again with the "Catholics aren't Christians" argument... Yawnn...
We have intelligent discussion of the level we might expect at
#23 there is no proof that Catholism exist before Constantine became King. It's rather ridiculous that you have to slur names to prove your point. It doesn't work. If you are a true intellect you should just state your case. THE DIVCI CODE IS A GREAT BOOK. Let me guess if you had your way you'd burn it.
Of course, she's right! Catholism doesn't exist. As for Catholicism, that's a different matter. My history book doesn't mention a king called Constantine, though there was an emperor with that name. I can't comment about the DIVCI CODE, as I've never heard of it. If it's anything like the DA VINCI CODE, then it probably is a great book. Like so many in the various fandoms, Brown has been accused of plagiarism. I know I'd be a bit cross if I'd written HBHG, but still... Anyway, being a GREAT BOOK isn't the same as being TRUE. As far as I know, LOTR and HP are GREAT BOOKS but they aren't TRUE.
By the time we get to #24, we're back to talking about the original article, but by then it's too late. We're just one step away from h-l-c--st denial with
#27 This is just pure propaganda. Who says they were persecuted? where is the hard evidence that these people were persecuted? And I dont mean quotes from classical texts written by Christians.
I could carry on, but the thread continues in a tl;dr vein...the website seems to draw a line under a discussion with 50 comments, which is probably just as well. Lots of exciting wank that could have been developed further, but very little discussion about the original article. As usual.
Post a comment in response:
