As to other ancient writings, I know of not one author concerned with them who has come back
from the dead to either deny or affirm your statement.
Good, you have cynicism. That should help to jog your logic. :o)
But, let's tend to your actual comment:
Taken from Book One of The Landmark Thucydides, the original speech from Thucydides and the translation being by Robert Strassler:
"With references to the speeches in this history, some were delivered before the war began, others while it was going on; some I heard myself, others I got from various quarters; it was in all cases difficult to carry them word for word in one's memory, so my habit has been to make the speakers say what was in my opinion demanded of them by the various occasions, of course adhering as closely as possible to the general sense of what they really said. And with reference to the narrative of events, far from permitting myself to derive it from the first source that came to hand, I did not even trust my own impressions, but it rests partly on what I saw myself, partly on what others saw for me, the accuracy of the report being always tried by the most severe and detaled tests possible. My conclusions have cost me some labor from the want of coincidence between accounts of the same occurrences by different eyewitnesses, arising sometimes from imperfect memory, sometimes from undue partiality for one side or the other. The absence of romance in my history will, I fear, detact somewhat from its interest; but if it be judged useful by those inquirers who desire an exact knowledge of the past as an aid to the understanding of the future, which in the course of human things must resemble if it does not reflect it, I shall be content. In fine, I have written my work, not as an essay which is to win the applause of the moment, but as a possession for all time."
Sound like something else that was written long after Jesus Christ died...?
1)I allege that you are confused, sir.
You have a right to your opinion.
But you didn't address why I said you were confused. Why not, sir? I'm not into drawing conclusions, but if I were to draw one, I would naturally state this was an attempt to exploit my commentary.
6)But I am suggesting
to you, shalom, that Christianity clogs the mind and stops it from proving things to
be true/false.
You are not the first, nor shall you be the last to make such a worthless suggestion.
For God hath not given us (Christians) the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound
mind.
That is a righteous statement with no proof, which delegitimizes my opinion and doesn't allow for debate. Sorry, but if you want to pit theology vs. history, then theology will lose out in front of impartial reason. In order for your argument to be plausible, you must assume that the person takes the word of the New Testament to be the absolute truth. I say that it's not. Prove me wrong, and in doing so, please tell me what practical purpose Christianity serves.
How about if I were to state that I take the Landmark Thucydides to be the absolute truth? What gives me any more or less legitimacy than your argument? And don't cite Bible passages, or I'll cite passages from Thucydides, Aristotle, Plato, Machievelli, Hobbes, and whomever in return. |
