Before starting the topic I like to mention that I have been absent from the forum for a few weeks. as I was on holiday in America.

Having said so here is the topic:



Is there hard evidence that Jesus Christ was married to Mary Magdalene and that he fathered children?

What is your thoughts on:


http://www.benhammott.com/was_jesus_married_news.html

In my opinion, and in a word .... no, nothing at all.

Let's face it, there's precious little evidence that Christ himself - as in an actual bloke, rather than the mythical 'Christ' that the author of that acticle seems to be talking about - actually existed. So evidence of marriage and children? .... Hmm. Before trying to establish a family he'd be better proving the actual existence of the man. IMHO.

Meles meles.

 I can accept the fact that some 2000 years there was a man ( marries or not) calling himself Jesus Christ, who walked around and talked about things to come to whoever was interested.
And yes he may have been a carpenter by trade.

But there as far as I am concerned ends my belief in a Jesus Christ. 

Remember even now there are people ( Jehova Witnesses, Mormons, Salvation Army selling the War Cryand some other groups)   walking around the streets , ringing door bells and proclaiming the Gospel and talk about things to come.
As a matter of fact a few years ago I did meet a weirdo dressed in a long robe , barefoot in sandals , a stick with some kind of bag on it, calling himself Peter and claiming he actually lived on an island in Greece. And he was preaching to people on the streets and giving out bits of printed  paper.

Thus as I mentioned I accept that there was someone walking around 2000 years ago doing the same.

Dirk Marinus wrote:

 I can accept the fact that some 2000 years there was a man ( marries or not) calling himself Jesus Christ, who walked around and talked about things to come to whoever was interested.
And yes he may have been a carpenter by trade.

Well that's quite a leap of faith .... I'm not prepared to accept that much. You're asking for solid evidence (about the wife and kids) but I have yet to see much solid evidence for the actual existence of the man himself. Though I'm not sure why the possibility of a wife and children should be considered so revolutionary.

Jesus of Nazareth never called himself the Christ, Dirk. His "titles" came later.

Who knows whether he was married or not? "Hard evidence", in modern historical terms, is thin on the ground, although, contrary to what MM says, most scholars now accept that the man from Galilee, known as  the son of Joseph or - rather more insultingly - as "the son of Mary", did exist. He was born and he died. That's about all we know for sure.

What is interesting is that there were lots of "Messiah*" figures wandering about at the time - much to the bemusement and annoyance of the Roman authorities.But this man's ideas sort of took hold, one way or another. How that came about is the very interesting history of early Christianity. But no one really wants to discuss that, do they? It's boring.

Dirk Marinus wrote:

And he was preaching to people on the streets and giving out bits of printed paper.

Oh dear - I now have an unfortunate image of the 12 disciples as complete "weirdos", pestering people on the streets of Sepphoris or somewhere, thrusting unwanted flyers into their hands, leaflets advertising a really good sermon up some mountain or other (bring your own food). Stuff of Monty Python.


PS "Messiah" and "Christ" both mean "anointed one", but what that actually implied was very different according to whether one was a Jew or a Greek: Jewish Messiah and Greek Christ were not the same. Again, no one wants to look at that.

I think you're asking the wrong question, Dirk. Instead of asking for "evidence" ask for "theological justification" - after all, that is all that has ever been required to change the story in the past. In that light I don't see why not. Mary Magdalene, no stranger to embellishment already, is at least the only actually proactive female in the narrative as things stand, so if Jesus is going to shack up with a mott (as they say in Dublin), why not Mary? She epitomises one of the two female models put forward in the story (besides the bit-players who are there just to ask the right questions so our lad can say all the right things), what with her being the archetypal slut with a heart of gold and by default therefore much more interesting than those bland virginal types otherwise held up as paragons and who, though they might make great mothers (in this story anything is possible), would be rather dull spouses, I imagine. Poor bugger's been through enough by the end of the tale that a happy retirement with a reformed whore on the Riviera is probably no more than he's due.

It's a story, Dirk, and one with many authors. I see no reason why you shouldn't also add a chapter yourself and come up with a whole new non-Greek, non-Jewish, non-anything-before version of what it is to be anointed. And anyway, I quite like the idea of a Dirk the Baptist as member of the site. It adds a touch of je-ne-sais-quois to the abundant quoi already ne-sais in the whole myth, not to mention the potential for an earner.

Count me in.

Oh dear - I shouldn't be laughing at that, but I am.

Can I add a chapter, too?

But it is a brill story - even all you godless pagans have to admit that.

PS MM (the Biblical one, not ours) wasn't really a "whore", you know. They muddled her up with the Woman Taken In Adultery - who wasn't a "whore" either, and the Weeping Woman who did the anointing of Christ's feet, who also was not a "whore". No whores or not-whores in Christ's world - just people suffering. Whether real or just dramatis personae, doesn't really matter to the point being made. Well, not to me it doesn't.

Watching Angelina Jolie-Pitt, looking so gorgeously thin and anguished this week as she pontificated about the refugee crisis - followed by archive footage of her recent visitation, suitably and stylishly dressed in black headscarf and great black jeans, to some God-forsaken camp in Syria (before she hopped back on her private jet) - made me think what a good Mary Magdalene Angelina would make in the next Jesus movie. Can't you just imagine her in the crucial scene, delivering that powerful exclamation "Rabboni!"? She'd be great. Tragic, but redeemed. Definitely do not want Brad as Jesus though - not after seeing him as Achilles.





Getting the look just right. What to wear when you visit a refugee camp. Love the jeans and the little black boots. Where can I buy them?

Temp wrote:

But it is a brill story - even all you godless pagans have to admit that.

I'm not a godless pagan, I live in a city. You religious types should really learn the meaning of what you're going on about, you know.

And it's not a brill story. Like all recent Hollywood efforts so obviously scripted by a committee it manages to produce abysmally less on the principle that the more there to satisfy the audience the better it should really have been. Always a stupid idea. I liked the earthquake and the zombie bit near the end, as well as the miraculous escape and freedom with with one ascending bound, but all the morality-on-a-ladle crap before it rather spoiled the rest of it. As for that bit with the spoilt little brat having a cheeky go at his poor mother after she'd frantically searched for him for days when the little bastard had done a runner, well in my screenplay that would have been more or less the final scene (for him anyway).

No, I can't help but think that "Jesus - the Riviera Years" (whether with Mary or any other reformed whore doesn't really matter - just make it up as you go along) has much more potential.

"Son of Jesus" (with English subtitles for those who can't speak French) will be out next summer, I imagine, once the royalties with Dan are sorted out.

There's probably "evidence" for that too.

Oh heck, so I've been a pagan for the last twenty-five years and I never knew! How very disconcerting, and not a little embarrassing.

I knew moving to Devon was a mistake.

nordmann wrote:

Temp wrote:

But it is a brill story - even all you godless pagans have to admit that.

I'm not a godless pagan, I live in a city. You religious types should really learn the meaning of what you're going on about, you know.

And it's not a brill story.

Yes, it is.

And if you godless urbanites don't like being called pagans, I don't like being called a "religious type", thank you. I am not a "type". I am me.

Temp wrote:

Yes, it is.

Omni wrote:

Oh no it isn't!

Temp wrote:

(Oh) Yes, it is.

Omni wrote:

Oooh no it isn't!

Temp wrote:

I don't like being called a "religious type", thank you. I am not a "type". I am me.

Couldn't resist it.

But perhaps sometimes it's better to be a type than a person...



.... sorry, wandrin' orf topic again.

Come on then and let us make the topic a bit more controversial by reading:

http://www.thenazareneway.com/jesus_bloodline.htm

It hardly makes the topic more controversial. It makes it simply even less grounded in rational analysis than it already was.

When anyone finds themselves supporting a hypothesis related to factual claims by relying even more to that end on plucking out particular elements of myth to support their assertion, then they simply reveal a complete lack of understanding of how reality is determined at all, and of course a perfect understanding of how theology operates.

I have a stuffed bear in the house that came with an affidavit-type document asserting its direct lineage from Christopher Robin's original Edward "Pooh" Bear. A very Gnostic claim, it must be admitted, though I am as yet awaiting the discovery of ancillary mythical documentation that will definitively demonstrate that it is not actually a misinterpreted Rupert or Paddington (it bears - pardon the pun - a distinct similarity to the latter, though is missing a hat, which would of course clinch the deal). But even agnostically it's easier to go along with the bloodline theory in this particular case, and since we are not aware of the Inquisition having targeted the elimination of that line's descendants (though Disney did a rather thorough job on the Pooh messiah at its core), then in fact the Pooh bloodline theory actually has the advantage over the Jesus one at the moment regarding potential provability.

As soon as Dan Brown figures out how to pilfer A.A. Milne's intellectual property without being caught we'll probably find out the true answer.

Dirk Marinus wrote:

Come on then and let us make the topic a bit more controversial by reading:

http://www.thenazareneway.com/jesus_bloodline.htm

Dirk,

as usual I sought to the "about us" from the site and didn't found it.
Usually wiki gives some explantions about such odd sites, but not here...because it is not very well known...?
At least I found on the site the link:
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/communions/info
But if you click on "Follow P.J. Gott and Logan Licht on facebook" you seem not allowed to view it.
And they seems to be based on Mount Carmel Missouri.
Of course Missouri...I say it without any malicious pleasure...
Further research:

Can it have something to do with this:
http://goo.gl/wJ9y6V

Or this:
http://www.mtcarmellakeozark.org/

Kind regards, Paul.

There is  ( Gnostic ) Gospel of Mary;

Gospel of Mary

Re religious types - I suppose they originated from fonts?

Oh very good indeed. 

Priscilla wrote:

Re religious types - I suppose they originated from fonts?

 Priscilla,


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Font

Do you mean different sets of brainwashed people?

Kind regards from your friend Paul.

No, Paul. Those are of Fontainbleau types - called Tories here.

I really ought stop this I am supposed to be doing some home nursing

nordmann wrote:

Temp wrote:

I don't like being called a "religious type", thank you. I am not a "type". I am me.

Couldn't resist it.

Brian's wise words simply echo what Jesus was trying to say. Brian did hear Jesus speak after all.

I've been reading again the book ferval recommended to me a while ago: Richard Holloway's "Leaving Alexandria". Holloway is the ex-Bishop of Edinburgh and former Primus of the Scottish Episcopal Church. One reviewer (David Robson in the Sunday Telegraph) said of his superb book: "Holloway certainly throws down the gauntlet - with gentle, elegiac passion - to Christians who arm themselves in certainty...They should read this wide (sic) erudite book as a matter of urgency."

We are not all unthinking sheep, nordmann.

Holloway, a wise and honest man, is, since his resignation from Church office, regarded as an infamous apostate by those who are so comfortably certain of everything. Which made me think a thread on historical apostates could be interesting. Or has everyone had enough of religion - even though it is such a huge part of the history of the last 15,000 years or so?

PS Holloway now describes himself as an "after-religionist with a strong faith in humanity". I like that - maybe even Jesus of Nazareth*, devout Jewish teacher (married or not) that he was, would as well.


* And Brian. Not so sure about Brian's mum, though: old Mandy was something of a cynical nihilist - bit like you, nordmann.

Sorry this is not related to Dirk's original topic, but it's a good article about the Holloway book:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/feb/19/richard-holloway-leaving-alexandria-review


Richard Holloway's developing thoughts about the nature and purpose of religion, and especially about the status of the Christian narrative, slot seamlessly into the story of his own life; in fact, they form its principal drama. There were two things wrong with the work of the Christian fathers who shaped the Bible and established the church. The first was their ignorance of the origins of the universe. We cannot blame them for this, but we should not pretend to share it when we know better.

The second was culpable, even then. They did not understand the nature of myth. This failure has had a profound effect on religion, producing the finally intolerable tension between pretending to believe a narrative to be factually true and understanding the meaning of that narrative, the truth that it contains, without denying that it is the product of imagination. It is Holloway's insistence that Christianity is a great work of the human imagination that makes his memoir so compelling and so intense. What he loves about the narrative is its central figure, who possesses endless pity for human beings and is endlessly subversive, in preferring compassion to rules. What he came to hate about the church is its insistence on rules, which turns it to cruelty, not pity. The attitude of the church towards women and homosexuals, which Holloway in the end could stand no more, illustrates the way the supposed rules drive out love.

Temp wrote:

We are not all unthinking sheep, nordmann

Life of Brian Script

Scene 1: The Relationship of Men and Sheep

The sketch:

(holy music)

MORRIS: I love sheep.

SHEPHERD #2: So do I. Terrific animals. Terrific.

MORRIS: No trouble.

SHEPHERD #2: No, no trouble.

SHEPHERD #1: Except at shearing. They can play up a bit, then; can't they?

MORRIS: Oh, yeah, but I like that sort of little burst of frenzy they have then, you know. I like it when they get a little bit angry. Shows they're human.

SHEPHERD #1: Oh, yeah. I-- I-- I'm not saying I dislike them at shearing, you know, but they can be a bit of a handful; can't they?

MORRIS: Well, so would you be if you had a great pair of scissors snippin' away while someone held your back legs apart.

SHEPHERD #1: Hm.

MORRIS: You'd wiggle a bit. You'd kick up a bit of a fuss. Heh.

SHEPHERD #1: Yeah, I-- I'm not saying I just expect them to stand around in the fields and nibble the grass and look a bit pretty. I-- I'm not saying that.

SHEPHERD #2: Oh, but they are pretty; aren't they?

MORRIS: Yeah.

SHEPHERD #1: Oh, yeah.

SHEPHERD #2: I mean, look at that one over there against the sky. The white of the coat, the little black face against the twinkling stars beyond.

MORRIS: Yes. Aww. Terrific.

SHEPHERD #1: Mhm.

MORRIS: Terrific animals.

SHEPHERD #1: Mm.

SHEPHERD #2: The little lambs in springtime.

MORRIS: Oh.

SHEPHERD #1: Ahh.

MORRIS: The lambs, eh? Now you're talking. They're lovely, eh? I love them.

SHEPHERD #2: Oh, so do I, Morris. I love them more than anything. Little white furry bundles.

SHEPHERD #1: Mhmm.

MORRIS: I think, of all God's creatures, sheep have the best offspring.

SHEPHERD #2: Oh, yes. Terrific animals.

MORRIS: Mm.

SHEPHERD #2: Terrific.

SHEPHERD #1: Yeah. They're so sure-footed.

SHEPHERD #2: Hm.

MORRIS: And quick-witted.

SHEPHERD #1: Are they quick-witted?

MORRIS: Yeah. Yeah. Oh, yeah, they're quite, uh, quick-witted.

SHEPHERD #1: Mhm.

SHEPHERD #2: Always cheerful. Hmm.

SHEPHERD #1: Well, except at shearing. Hehhehheh.

MORRIS: Why are you always on about shearing?

SHEPHERD #1: I'm not always on about it, Morris.

MORRIS: You are a great deflator, you are.

SHEPHERD #1: He was--

MORRIS: Of all the moments in their little lives, you unerringly put your finger on the one moment where they lose a little bit of dignity. Well, I regard that as cheap, quite honestly.

SHEPHERD #2: Oh, look! Look. One of them's looking up at us. Heh. He knows we're talkin' about him. sniff

SHEPHERD #1: Morris, don't get me wrong. I actually like their behavior at shearing. I actually like them when they get a little bit cross. I find that endearing.

MORRIS: That's the fantastic thing. They're beautiful to look at, well-disposed, quite quick-witted, and yet, tough as nails.

SHEPHERD #2: sniff

MORRIS: sniff

SHEPHERD #2: You know, I can't think of anything I'd rather do than watch sheep.

MORRIS: Mmm.

SHEPHERD #1: The only other animals that I would be remotely interested in watching would be cats.

MORRIS: They don't have flocks of cats.

SHEPHERD #1: No, I-- I'm not saying they do, Morris.

MORRIS: Can you imagine a herds of cats waiting to be sheared? Meow! Meow! Woo hoo hoo.

SHEPHERD #2: Shh! Shh. I heard something over there.

MORRIS: Wolves?

SHEPHERD #2: Could be.

MORRIS: Where?

SHEPHERD #2: Over there.

MORRIS: Right.

thump thump

Take that, you buggers!

SHEPHERD #4: Oowhh.

SHEPHERD #2: That's not a wolf.

SHEPHERD #4: S-- Gordon Bennett!

SHEPHERD #3: ungh What did you do that for!?

MORRIS: I thought he was a wolf.

SHEPHERD #3: You hit him right in the face!

MORRIS: Well, he shouldn't come snooping 'round like that.

SHEPHERD #3: You wait till you hear what we've just seen! The most incredible things just happened!

SHEPHERD #4: Don't tell 'em. Owhh.

SHEPHERD #3: We were on the hillside over there when this amazing-

SHEPHERD #4: Don't tell them! They broke my bloody nose!

SHEPHERD #3: Can't I tell them about the amazing th--

SHEPHERD #4: No! Oohh.

SHEPHERD #3: Well, they said we were to tell everybody!

SHEPHERD #4: Not people who break your bloody nose! Come on.

SHEPHERD #1: Where are you going?

SHEPHERD #3: Bethlehem.

SHEPHERD #4: Nowhere! Good night. Uhh.

MORRIS: That's right! Leave your sheep! Leave them to the wolves! Call yourselves shepherds?! You're a disgrace to the profession!

SHEPHERD #2: Huh. What a rotten thing to do,...

MORRIS: Yeah.

SHEPHERD #2: ...to go and leave those little helpless furry bundles alone on the hillside.

holy music fades in

MORRIS: So they can go down to Bethlehem and get drunk.

pause

SHEPHERD #1: Is it A.D. yet?

MORRIS: Quarter past.

Et tu, meles meles?  

nordmann, having a massive huff recently, wrote:

What an insulting remark...What about getting back to the thread subject and cutting out the personal jibes? They're not humorous, not very intelligent and all rather tiresome, not to mention disrespectful to those wishing to address the topic in polite and meaningful discussion.

I'm trying to see the funny side of the Monty Python script because it is very funny - or rather it would be if it had not been posted after I was tryng so hard to be serious and thoughtful and stuff.

Oh well, serves me right for trying to be serious etc. etc. about a topic that nordmann can only laugh about.

Won't happen again.

This is a thread that started with a theory linked to the proposition that Jesus and Mrs Jesus washed up on the Riviera, Temp. Forgive me if I continued the humorous theme when you were trying to address the theological implications.

On a serious note then; there is a flaw in the assessment of Holloway's view as cited above when the author states "[The early Christian "fathers"] did not understand the nature of myth." I would maintain that not only did they understand its nature but that they understood it in fact in a much more profound manner than we tend to be capable of today, not least because they operated almost completely without a compunction or necessity to distinguish between myth and reality when there was a theological point to be prosecuted and people to be convinced of its validity.

If this cited opinion however is indeed also Holloway's view then Holloway himself is actually displaying a rather opportune naivete and ignorance of the nature of myth himself - naive because it presupposes the "fathers" were spectators to and consumers of a received myth which they then manipulated to an extent and not in fact originators who were also intelligently willing contributors to its actual formation, and opportune because such a claim conveniently allows Holloway the rhetorical freedom to imply on that basis that he, at this juncture removed in time from their activities (and his own earlier beliefs), has now developed a view more intelligent than theirs (and than his earlier one). That is actually just a rhetorical subterfuge - and an all too common one also in particular regarding people who tend to interpret changes of mind as conversions - so obviously Holloway hasn't dropped all his sloppy thinking habits in his journey from thinking to thinking again. I wish him well in his "after-religionist" sojourn though, he certainly seems at least to appreciate the sense of liberation from stupidity that such a journey can engender in the individual concerned.

What any of this has to do with Mary Magdalen washing Jesus Jr's socks in the marina in La Londe-les-Maures is an extremely moot point however.

Temp wrote:

... old Mandy was something of a cynical nihilist - bit like you, nordmann.

Where I come from philosophically a cynical nihilist is a person who embraces the death cult, not one who sees it for all its flaws, the prime one being the elevation of a natural and eminently straightforward phenomenon like shuffling off one's mortal coil to a status of completely bogus importance asserted primarily through superstitious claims based on nothing more profound when analysed than glorified (often literally) wishful thinking. As the Good Book (of the film) says in its final chapter, and in the immortal words of the blessed Mr Frisbee - "Life's a piece of shit when you look at it. Life's a laugh and death's a joke, it's true." (Brian 35:1)

nordmann, quoting from his Good Book, wrote:

Life's a piece of shit when you look at it. Life's a laugh and death's a joke, it's true.  

Was that quotation really from Mr Frisbee III? I thought it was on a mug I bought from Mugs Galore circa 1981. They must have pinched it. Whatever the source, I do admit it is the distillation of the wisdom of the ages. All those books we read, and really all you need to know about life and death is on a mug. That's enough to make anyone feel slightly sheepish.

Actually the question in the original post is not risible, although the idea of Madame Jesus doing sock duty at the marina in La Londe-les-Mauresic is. The topic of the human nature of Christ - his loving a woman - or a man - is an interesting one that people are not prepared to address, although Martin Scorsese did have a serious bash at it. There is, of course, some "evidence" for Jesus of Nazareth loving another man in the Gospels - real criterion of dissimilarity stuff that from Saint John. Far too uncomfortable for many people to even contemplate, which is nonsense. That, like apostasy, could be an interesting topic, but perhaps The History of Boxing is a better one today.



PS "Sloppy thinking" - oh dear, another cruel taunt, if not a positive jibe. I will keep reading stuff churned out by these sloppy and naive thinkers like Richard Holloway, Diarmaid MacCulloch and Rowan Williams in the hope of finding some kind of salvation. I never learn, although I do keep trying. Once more I shall have to adjust my thoughts. Tim criticised my reading, too. Perhaps you both could send me an approved reading list.

PPS I've just been refreshing my memory of the cast of Brian. I see Terry Jones was given the role of "Saintly Passer-By". I don't remember that character at all, but what a wonderfully demanding part - much more scope being the Saintly Passer-By than playing the ex-Leper. Imagine having to take on both roles in the same film, though. Exhausting.





Sent from my I-Pen.

The sloppy thinking criticism is not of you (why do you keep doing that?). It is of theologians - period. Read theology by all means and don't for a moment suspect that this renders you sloppy by implication. I do so myself, especially when I encounter what theologians (mostly incorrectly) assume is a knotty intractable dilemma in their "ology" and start debating same. This can actually be a very entertaining diversion, and indeed instructive to anyone who has studied philosophy and has been tutored aggressively to tackle the intangibles first, showing as it does that certain humans prefer leaving them to the last thing (if ever even arriving there) and see no problem therefore vis-a-vis fallacious thought and the consequent deduction of a whole load of stuff while the intangibles sit lurking in the corner. When an intangible eventually pounces the effect can be dramatic, exciting and most often very funny indeed (Was Jesus gay? Did Mary Magdalen use Omo? Does God exist?). On a more elevated scale I imagine Nobel Prize winning astrophysicists and the like probably experience much the same level of not unwelcome diversion when they come home from a hard day's quantumming and turn on a bit of Star Trek or Doctor Who to help them unwind - especially when the actors make assumptions about temporal and spatial relationships which are so beautifully obtuse and refutable that they can almost be interpreted as a deeply existentialist satire on the whole value of knowledge, per se.

All practitioners of theology should be forcibly excommunicated from whatever church they adhere to or faith they think they profess and only readmitted (if still up for it) after a lengthy period studying philosophy - or indeed any truly systematic approach to the nature of mental constructs, much like all practitioners of astrology should try to get their grasp of astronomy up to at least junior secondary school standard before being allowed near an "astral chart". Without this enforced discipline both Ologies mentioned above tend to scramble rather than facilitate logic, and though absence of logic might sound like a truly exhilarating and liberating alternative to actually learning stuff, its track record in terms of getting us anywhere is in fact rather abysmal.

How reassuring to know that have I permission to read theology because nordmann does!!!

Ah - "mental constructs" - such a useful put-down.

But so many things - not just my God (i.e. Temp's Figment) - are "mental constucts", are they not? Truth, beauty, intelligence?

All imaginary and so quite worthless?

Philosophical assessments of truth, beauty and intelligence begin with attempting to define the intangibles each concept introduces, otherwise there is no point. These are all indeed mental constructs too, so I am not sure how on earth you interpreted my use of the term as a "put down". Eliminate the concept of mental construct and there is precious little left for philosophy to address.

Theology places the intangibles on as long a finger as possible and therefore almost always addresses them when it's too late or when it is forced to, neither conducive to intelligent assessment. It is reverse logic but to no discernible purpose except to prolong the illusion of value in its pursuit.

Nordmann says you have permission to read philosophy too.

nordmann wrote:

Eliminate the concept of mental construct and there is precious little left for philosophy to address.

Ah, honesty at last. Not much to choose between us, is there?

Wise man or fool - religieuse or philosopher? Handy-dandy* - take your choice.



*Expression used in the Shakespearian sense (see Lear Act IV sc vi)

Temperance wrote:

Ah, honesty at last. Not much to choose between us, is there?

Wise man or fool - religieuse or philosopher? Handy-dandy* - take your choice.

I've been honest throughout, and yes, whatever about how much there is to choose between us, all that really distinguishes philosophy from theology is that the former ultimately addresses the nature of that which is, while the latter simply pretends to address the same, though ultimately merely through an assertion of an existence for that which patently isn't. Wisdom and folly, as you said. Not handy dandy in the slightest, unless of course you have got thee glass eyes, and like a scurvy politician seem to see the things thou dost not.

Now, now, now, now. I'm off to get me boots removed. Like that.

nordmann wrote:

Temperance wrote:

Ah, honesty at last. Not much to choose between us, is there?

Wise man or fool - religieuse or philosopher? Handy-dandy* - take your choice.

... all that really distinguishes philosophy from theology is that the former ultimately addresses the nature of that which is, while the latter simply pretends to address the same, though ultimately merely through an assertion of an existence for that which patently isn't. Wisdom and folly, as you said. Not handy dandy in the slightest...

But it is handy dandy. You may have got it the wrong way round. Why can't you see that? It does rather depend on what you mean by "existence". Just saying.

But this is a bootless argument, as ever.

Must just mention the parrot over on my Rant post, then try to get some sleep.

Temp wrote:

It does rather depend on what you mean by "existence". Just saying.

There speaks a budding philosopher (and unfortunately all too many theologians who will readily pretend to resolve the issue).