Finally salvation for ....Judas

Originally posted by orfeo
Okay, I find that downright offensive.

My comment? Apologies, but it's in the news. Wouldn't you rather have the uninformed feeding off a story about an ancient text?

Anyway, I agree with this quote from ConrauK's link:

"The translation of the document will produce ``a short-term sensation,'' said the Rev. Donald Senior, president of the Catholic Theological Union in Chicago, but its ``impact on the lives of ordinary believers is going to be somewhat minimal.''"

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
My comment? Apologies, but it's in the news. Wouldn't you rather have the uninformed feeding off a story about an ancient text?

No, I wouldn't. Where did you get the idea that I'm some kind of apologist for the institutionalised (Catholic?) church?

In fact, every single thing I've posted in THIS thread has absolutely nothing to do with whether I'm a Christian or not. I get exasperated by the media's approach to any number of topics, especially when things are presented as exciting 'news' that I've known about for a long time.

This particular manuscript is, as far as I know, new, but the way it's been trumpeted, you'd think it was 1,960 years old not 1,700.

Originally posted by orfeo
No, I wouldn't. Where did you get the idea that I'm some kind of apologist for the institutionalised (Catholic?) church?In fact, every single thing I've posted in THIS thread has absolutely nothing to do with whether I'm a Christian or not. I get exasperated by the media's approach to any number of topics, especially when things are presented as exciting 'ne ...[text shortened]... w, new, but the way it's been trumpeted, you'd think it was 1,960 years old not 1,700.

I misunderstood you completely. OK.

I take your point about the age of the manuscript. The article completely fails to convey how Gnostic literature functioned.

Originally posted by orfeo
The only 'problem' I had in mind was that the general public has the attention span of a gnat, and all that most people will retain is 'hey, look, they found a different gospel!'

I see what you mean now. I have the same problem with blind followers of a religion. They don't listen to, or talk about, anything that doesn't fit with what they've been taught. In a way, the public's belief in media, and their inability to follow up on news (or tell the whole story) is much like that.

Edit: Although, it is more interesting news than had they found a gospel that actually supported the biblical account. For instance, if everyone tells me that grass is always green and I believe that. And then we find a document that states that grass is green, that document is of little interest to me. Had the document claimed that grass can also be brown however...

Originally posted by Conrau K
The bible is probably the most influential literature. What is important about this "re-discovery" is that is contradicts it and church dogma. And consider Pope John Pauls pronouncement on the same subject- this was apparently news worthy too (and guess what, this was before the Da vinci Code. .

What his pronouncement on the subject?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I misunderstood you completely. OK.

Wait a minute. Are you saying that, if orfeo had indeed been a Catholic apologist, that would change the validity of his argument?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Maybe raw material for The Picasso Code?

LOL!

Originally posted by stocken
Although, it is more interesting news than had they found a gospel that actually supported the biblical account.

Virtually every apocryphal Gospel agrees with the canonical Gospels on the main Christological points - Christ as Son of God/God/Logos etc. I don't remember, but I think even the Resurrection account may be in a few of them. I distinctly remember that the Infancy Gospel mentions miracles going back to Christ's childhood.

The major differences always appear to be ecclesiological and soteriological in nature.

Originally posted by stocken
I suppose it's only newsworthy if it fits in well with your bible, eh?

Oh the irony. Something is only newsworthy when it douses Christianity with a liberal amount of black paint. Figures.

Originally posted by Halitose
Something is only newsworthy when it douses Christianity with a liberal amount of black paint.

I said no such thing, so I take it you're expressing your own opinion on the matter.

Originally posted by stocken
I said no such thing, so I take it you're expressing your own opinion on the matter.

I take it you're expressing your own opinion on the matter.

Absolutely; how many times to you see a humanitarian Christian make the headlines for doing something good compared to one (and I'm thinking in particular of the ones who have been paraded time and again in these forums) who's done something wrong? It's the nature of the mass-media engine; it thrives on irony, violence and dirt.

Originally posted by Halitose
Absolutely; how many times to [sic] you see a humanitarian Christian make the headlines for doing something good compared to one [...] who's done something wrong?

Tell me. If a priest who's outspoken christian, dedicated to help others and strive to increase the spiritual prosperity among his fellow human beings does just that, would you consider that news? Is that so strange and out of the ordinary?

Now, if the same priest who's supposedly good (as defined by dualistic values) does something completely unacceptable (to the majority of people, that is), don't you think that's something people will want to know about?

I agree that mass-media often focus too much on the negative, without giving the whole picture or following up on stories. But it has been proven again and again that it's what people want. People in general don't buy a paper with a cute green baby on the frontcover with the headline: "He's arrived! Here to bring peace and harmony to the world!". People want to read about violence and conflicts. Even the most popular book in the history of mankind contain loads of violence, deceit (although a particular deception is now being questioned) and evil acts. Do you think the majority of people who takes the time reading that book is looking for the passage that says: "Love your neighbor as yourself."?

Originally posted by stocken
Tell me. If a priest who's outspoken christian, dedicated to help others and strive to increase the spiritual prosperity among his fellow human beings does just that, would you consider that news? Is that so strange and out of the ordinary?

Now, if the same priest who's supposedly good (as defined by dualistic values) does something completely unacceptabl ...[text shortened]... ng that book is looking for the passage that says: "Love your neighbor as yourself."?

You have proved my point. Thanks.

Originally posted by Halitose
You have proved my point. Thanks.

😀

I guess I did. But I'd like to point out that I don't think massmedia is to blame (any more than the Da Vinci code Orfeo spoke about). It's the general public. You want to change massmedia, you have to change humanity.

Good luck. Live long and prosper.

Originally posted by stocken
😀

I guess I did. But I'd like to point out that I don't think massmedia is to blame (any more than the Da Vinci code Orfeo spoke about). It's the general public. You want to change massmedia, you have to change humanity.

Good luck. Live long and prosper.

True. The average human has a greater obsession with darkness, violence, smut and dirt than with anything resembling decency -- which is why I can't understand how someone can keep a straight face and claim that “humans are essentially good and virtuous, we are only perverted by our societies”*.

* The circularity of the argument notwithstanding.