Hilarious Racists Vs Thor kerfuffle - Page 3

First time I put her off ignore in months. Is she always like this? Japanese people = ninjas. My god. It's like Timmy got access to the internet and the first season of Rome.

One day, long after whatever apocalypse-triggering society-destroying scenario you personally prefer effectively wipes our cultures out and confuses its remaining records, somebody somewhere will be arguing the Jesus of our era had to have been white, perhaps thinking, in nostalgic worship to whatever was once worshipped by previous romanticized civilization [because whatever will be worshipped then will, by those people, be seen as a ridiculous religion (let's call that one post-Jesus)], and demand that their holographic wish fullfillment fantasies of a Jesushero battling the humanity-threatening mutated cockroaches, aided by sidekick Saints, be obviously be cgi'd white, because that's how it was for "us". And I wish a serious event extinction apocalypse just imagining that.

Or, in other words, "pagan gods looked like the people who believe in them"? Let's skip the "is she implying pagan gods actually existed (which, for somebody with such disdain for religion, happens so fucking often, like when claiming Alexander was literally descended from a god)" and go right back to, if pagan gods existed, they probably were proto-indo-european looking, whatever specific race that was, and, bit by bit, were passed down orally to hilarious effect, till people began arguing thousands of years later that its disrespectful to cast fictional adaptations of comic book versions of gods we only know about because the people that wiped their worshippers out decided centuries later to perhaps write down what those crazy people may or may not have believed, not to mention the fact the beliefs they half-saved were essentially mutations from much more forgotten and only theorized religions from entirely different parts of the world.

Seriously, for all purposes Marvel comics Thor is more authentic at this point, since at least we have first hand sources that say some Stan Lee guy came up with it, then several other writers developed him.

I'm really sorry to drop this into the mix but I do genuinely want to know, what actual evidence do we have to support Jesus Christ actually having existed? At present I don't know of a single thing I could point to if I had to demonstrate it to someone else if they asked me the same question.

YAY INTERNET!

I've seen that. This is one of those rare occasions I'm going to have to ask for more sources than wikipedia* please.

*I have used wikipedia up to and including helping me in treating patients, so it's not like I don't ever take it seriously as a source because anyone can edit it.

Actually at this point I was messing with you so sorry about that. And yeah it was actually that whole 'recorded human history' part I was hoping you'd acknowledge.

Not to be a dick, but how about all the sources, ehm, sourced in that article?

Fair enough to ask. I have been working my way through them as well as the related wikipedia articles such as:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_m...ry#cite_note-2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_Jesus

Which leads to this statement:

"The evidence for the existence of Jesus all comes from after his lifetime.[37][38][39] As a result, some critics argue that Biblical scholars have created the historical Jesus in their own image.[40][41] A small number of scholars believe the gospel accounts are so mythical in nature that nothing, including the very existence of Jesus, can be determined from them.[42]"

Which led me to this statement:

The scholarly mainstream not only rejects the myth thesis,[59] but identifies serious methodological deficiencies in the approach.[60][Need quotation to verify] As such, New Testament scholar James Dunn describes the mythical Jesus theory as a "thoroughly dead thesis".[61]

and then this statement:

The Jesus myth theory (also known as the Christ myth theory and the nonexistence hypothesis) is the idea that Jesus of Nazareth was not a historical person, but is a fictional character or mythological archetype created by the early Christian community.[1] Some proponents argue that events or sayings associated with the figure of Jesus in the New Testament may have been drawn from one or more individuals who actually existed, but that none of them were in any sense the founder of Christianity.[2] The idea remains a minority one. Most scholars who specialize in the historicity of Jesus believe his existence can be established using documentary and other evidence.[3]

and then footnote (3)

contains

"Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically."

This leads me to debates about the veracity of the gospels raging from "highly accurate" to "someone (or some people) made the whole thing up decades later".

I work with a lot of statistical data where a collected set of data gives you a 'p' value of more than 0.05, it's said that the data is not backing your supposition, so all the historical data I'm dealing so far really doesn't fall into the realm of the extremely high levels of what I'm used to dealing with as proof (yes, I know it's really unfair to expect it from events of 2000+ years ago).

Finally and I know this really doesn't help but whenever debates about events in ancient history come up, this paragraph from 1984 always seems to pop into my head:

"Once again he glanced at his rival in the opposite cubicle. Something seemed to tell him with certainty that Tillotson was busy on the same job as himself. There was no way of knowing whose job would finally be adopted, but he felt a profound conviction that it would be his own. Comrade Ogilvy, unimagined an hour ago, was now a fact. It struck him as curious that you could create dead men but not living ones. Comrade Ogilvy, who had never existed in the present, now existed in the past, and when once the act of forgery was forgotten, he would exist just as authentically, and upon the same evidence, as Charlemagne or Julius Caesar."

You know, I misread your first statement in this thread. I hadn't gotten that when you mentioned "evidence" and "demonstrate", you meant it in the most literal statistical/scientific way possible. Don't really think you'll ever find that, nor that it would prove one way or the other.

All's I know from looking at the entire list of sources is, chances are, you or I would spend the necessary time to look over all of them, books included, and their own sources, its likely we'd both reach different conclusions and I suppose this because looking at that list tells me that's what's happened with people that have spent significant amounts of time on that very question. I think it's unfair to all of them, on both sides of the debate, to go beyond that assumption.

The comic:



The movie:



Yeah, because obviously Hollywood decided to change up the source material and turn him into a ninja.

This is the freakin' trailer. It took me less than five minutes to be able to find this information out. The plight of Asian actors in Hollywood is not helped by your willful ignorance.

Is it just me, or did this guy get way, way more irritable and unhinged during the last year? I haven't posted here on a regular basis in about six months, but he seems to drop into threads mostly to either just yell at people and hurl insults and ad hominem attacks or say something snarky followed by "this fucking place."

re: neoolong's post

That sure ain't a broad sword!

Let's start at the end and work our way back:

1) You're right! While my personal preference may be for a mythological Thor, there is probably nothing inherently wrong with the idea of a SPACE THOR, and that's why I am excited about the film (the cast, director ETC)

2) I have never directly stated that I believe Alexander III of Macedon was in fact a demigod. I'm an agnostic on the matter, as there is just no way to make such a determination with 100% accuracy given the multitude of centuries that have passed and the lack of primary source documents ETC on the matter. Let's look at the facts though:


A) Christians seem to think that just because they have a book about Jesus, he therefore existed and had magic powers. If that is the criteria we're using for sufficient proof of a demigod, Alexander has Jesus beaten right out of the gate

There exists actual physical archeological evidence of Alexander's existence, and it can be found on a trail that stretches from Greece to India. There is no historian or scientist in his right mind who could deny that an individual named Megas Alexandros lived and died three centuries before Christ

B) Alexander's divine parentage and his status as a demigod were confirmed by the highest religious authorities of his day. Unlike in the case of Jesus Christ, who was not widely accepted as a god till everyone who had ever met him was long since dead, those who had personally met Alexander (along with countless others who were alive during living memory of his exploits) unquestioningly believed Alexander was of supernatural origin. The Oracle at Siwah, the greatest, most revered oracle of it's time, confirmed him to be Alexander Isotheos, true son of the god Zeus Ammon, and Pharaoh of Egypt. Pharaoh of Egypt? That means he was also understood to be the son of Ra and nothing less than a living god

Now, how could all these supernatural beings from different cultures be responsible for fathering the same individual? Well, just like you yourself point out, they probably all trace back to the same early proto civilization from which all the peoples of the world can trace their lineage to

I won't even get into the various miracles that Alexander is said to personally have performed (because like Christ's miracles in the bible, no tangible evidence for their existence has ever been found), or the strange events that followed him everywhere he went, but let's look at merely the historical facts of his parentage:

Philip II of Macedon was descended from the Argead dynasty. As far as anyone at the time could prove, through Caranus of Macedon, the Argeads could trace their ancestors back to Heracles. No primary source documents exists on Heracles, but we know he was thought to be the half son of Zeus/Ammon/ETC. On his mother's side? He's supposedly descended from Achilles -- who was himself the born of a Nymph prophesied to give birth to a son greater than Zeus

So, those are just the facts of his family tree as far as anyone knew back in the day. Let's look at the specific events surrounding his conception:


Olympias, Alexander's mother, according to several sources, repeatedly and emphatically offered testimony throughout her life that in actuality Alexander was fathered by Zeus himself who came to her in the night. Now, this could be an apocryphal tale.. but then again the same sources state that it was widely remarked upon at the time that Alexander did not resemble his father. Food for thought, IMHO


C) Alexander's success on the battle field and ability to rebound from serious injury speak for themselves and last but not least, people continued to worship Alexander for nearly 600 years after his death. For six centuries pilgrims traveled to pay homage to his corpse, and spent great chunks of their lives in prayer and worship for the one known as Alexandros Isotheos


Just because I have suggested at times there is ambiguity on the issue does not mean that I have ever suggested that he was in fact definitely the son of a god. As you can see, the facts are incredibly murky and it's quite literally impossible to know one way or the other what the truth is. In all likelihood, unless we locate his corpse, no one will ever know. I just have at times firmly advocated for his divinity not to be dismissed outright, given the other religious stories that are currently accepted without question in this day and age (and just for 100% clarity: he was in most probability not directly fathered by a god, IMHO)

Ok, and finally ...

3) The ancient origins of religion have always fascinated me, and you're right that the being known as "Thor" underwent a specific evolution to become the thunder god of Vikings. His legend probably was transmuted over the millennia and the miles to become something much different than it started out as. By the time people were worshipping a specific being that carried a hammer and went by the name "Thor" though? That was a specific viking phenomena, so yes, the people who worshipped Thor probably looked like Vikings and not proto Europeans (whatever they looked like)

That is just my personal take on how I'd like to see Viking Gods presented on screen. If someone wanted to do a movie that instead got into the shared ancient origins of many religions? That would be the bees knees as well, as no film has ever really satisfactorily tackled the idea of what 'pre history' might have been like. I am less fond of space beings, but that is just my own preference


As stated, I have put those reservations aside and am on board with the THOR movie we are getting, rather than the one I'd liked to have gotten in a perfect world. My over all point in posting in this thread in the first place was only ever to state:

While on some level I can sympathize with the desire to see a more Viking-y THOR movie, boycotting the film over the issue suggests creepy racial resentments more than a desire for some semblance of "accuracy"*, especially given the fact that Elba is so under exposed and worthy of attention. I am for THOR and against giving the boycott too much attention


I thought my first post made that clear, as I was careful in how I worded it, but if not I hope this clears up any ambiguity as to where I stand on gods, vikings, how either one is depicted ETC ETC

* (which as you've stated can have many meanings when it comes to this stuff)

OK, in support of neoolong and others:

"The Genetic Link of the Viking – Era Norse to Central Asia:
An Assessment of the Y Chromosome DNA, Archaeological,
Historical and Linguistic Evidence" by David K. Faux

http://www.davidkfaux.org/CentralAsi...NAEvidence.pdf

Asians travelled a lot for a very long time and they've been just about everywhere for thousands of years. So it's not inconceivable some people from Scandinavia looked a bit asiatic even back then.

Can we all bow down to Science now in relation to Gods, space aliens and big hammers and move on now?

I basically went and created a parody of the community. I don't know where I'm going with it, but it is my pipe dream to eclipse these guys.

The reason we say Thursday is because a hammer-wielding wasn't a "specific viking phenomena", but spread further. Also, I'm sorry, but I gotta point it out a million times if necessary, what you call viking (or what is stereotyped as such) was, depending on how you want to phrase it, either a noble savage-type invention of the 18th century or a truly minor subset of the old norse population.

Now, the rest of your post seems to have taken some effort, so I won't dismiss it outright, but do consider that making your point on whether a long dead historical figure was in fact a demigod by appealing to the fact that people today (which you, yourself, would probably easily dismiss) believe a different potentially historical figure to be the son of a different god is all kinds of illogical. As in, it lacks logic. That said, I personally have a cognitive freedom preference not to tell anybody what madness they choose to believe, so if you want to remain agnostic that a long dead historical figure may have descedent from the beings that inspired the gods of many religions, by all means knock yourself out. Hell, that'd probably make an interesting story. Do keep in mind though that basing your arguments on whether other people believe things you don't believe in or what ancient, poorly recorded and probably (really really probably) easily manipulated authorities said at the time is, to many of us, doesn't exactly come across as reasonable.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'll go eat dinner while reminding myself that I'm eating Xipe Totec's flayed skin.

It's really not hard to figure out why ancient royalty would be considered and "widely" accepted as descended from gods, even from the highest religous authorities from that time.

Well, just as long as there's no helmets with horns on them, right?

As far as I know, as far as the historical Jesus thing goes, you have the word of jewish historians like Josephus and brief mentions of a Jesus in Roman annals. That's pretty much it. Which is pretty good, considering the history we've lost from the last few decades.

I know, right?

Yes but when his competitors for the title of "son of god" have such a wealth of proof for their existence that we've found archeological primary source weather reports for the day they died*, Jesus' existance is far less certain in comparison

*re: Alexander, we found a tablet in Babylon in the 1970s detailing financial accounts, and the fact of the kings death ("The King died") along with the weather (rain) for 6/23/323BCE

EDIT: Hey, a fair point.. but it's also not hard to see why oppressed Jews looking to over throw Roman rule would want to claim the Messiah came back either, or for that matter, why a tribal leader might claim that he was not only god's only prophet, but that he was the last prophet and had the last word

If you believe in any religion, I feel like you should not dismiss Alexander's claims of divinity (this is mostly directed at Rath, who is a Catholic as far as I'm aware). I don't believe in religion, but if someone else does? I think they should give him his due respect and not laugh off the idea he could be the son of Zeus which is what 99% of Christians in this country would no doubt do

To Rath: Relax buddy.

To Kate: Stop making every discussion a soapbox you can jump on to shout your semi-informed opinions about things not related to the thread. You have been warned.

1) It's proof that he, like Alexander, existed. Not that they had magic superpowers.

2) How strongly do you believe in Alexander's divinity? Does this mean you will start a religion about him?

3) If you do start a religion, you might want to investigate the connections between the source of his power, the sun, and other heavenly bodies. Comets are historically quite supernaturally powerful.

4) Perhaps you and other people you can gather might want to take advantage of the passage of these mythic and powerful astral objects. Metaphysically "ride" them, if you will. Actualize yourselves by leaving all the dreary things that are everywhere on this earth. Maybe find some comfy shoeware to help you on your travels. Hey, Nikes might be a good idea!

Good luck!

Because Stelios feels I am posting off topic when I discuss my (unpopular) opinions on who should portray viking gods on film (which doesn't seem off topic to me) and when I respond to these questions (I didn't bring up Alexander, someone else did, and I discussed it in depth only after someone else discussed Jesus in depth -- that poster was not warned, BTW) I will have to refuse to answer. I did my best to explain my thoughts in a 100% on topic way in my posts, and that will have to suffice. I thought the discussion about the historical evidence for various gods was on topic in it's way too since everyone else was talking about it and it tied into the question if there can even be a definitive portrayal for these beings on screen, but I guess for me it works differently! Good night

EDIT: Stelios, FYI, Jesus continues to be discussed in depth in the posts below this one and he was not a viking. Warnings are in order for those involved if the NEW RULES are suddenly important again. Also the posters who posted only to call me retarded? That's an automatic time out according to the NEW RULES. It's not fair to single me out for supposed violations, IMHO

If you actually read Kate's posts (which I realize can be a chore to do) she said she was agnostic about the whole thing. I think her point is, if you can believe in one thing, don't discount this other thing. Of course that's religous tolerence, however Kate has been pretty across the board in her disdain for all religions.

The thing is you can't have it both ways Kate. Your disdain of religion is known with the Violent Underpinings of Religion thread. If Alexander was believed to be descended from a god, and that's why his people followed him, including his army, you have to have some disdain for his actions. How do you think he conquered what he conquered? Through sugar and spice and everything nice? No, through violence.

Textual attestation issues actually suggest the very specific and explicit mentions of Jesus in Josephus are probably forgeries produced by Christian scholars in the Middle Ages.

However, there are--rather uncharitable--mentions of a figure that is obviously Jesus in the post-Second Temple rabbinical commentaries, which suggest he actually existed. It makes more sense that they'd focus criticism of the Jesus movement on James, Paul, or Petter if nobody had ever seen or heard of a preacher from Nazareth by that name.

There is also the question of how a large liberal Jewish reform movement in Judea could even arise if he never existed, especially when they were willing to die at the hands of Jewish religious officials like Saul of Tarsus/St. Paul.

Ultimately, the idea that a Jesus of Nazareth never existed requires more mental gymnastics than the idea that he did exist.

Also, to Reasor, no need for the apology. Hopefully, I came across as reasonably putting forth counterpoints than being incensed.

I think I went too mean.

See, out of everything we've gotten so far THIS is what pisses me off. Not that they chose an Asian actor, hell, I don't think there's any other way to cast Hogun. But make him FORBIDDING, goddamnit! Look at that guy! Where's the goddamned pissed-off-bastard mustache?!

Well, the more evidence the better of course but realistically; something as simple as census information documenting him or a record of some purchase he made, an incidental mention in a historical event where he wasn't the central protagonist, anything like that.

In fact something relating to a day to day event from an independent source and totally unrelated to any religious angle would be great because it would be less likely to be a forgery and/or produced by someone with an agenda to promote.

I like the guy. He kind of reminds me of the late, great Toshiro Mifune. Though you're right. With the 'stache he'd look a lot more bad ass. Sort of like Kikuchiyo from Seven Samurai.

I fucking hate being put in this position but fuck it. This post is not a suggestion.

I'm tired of watching so many threads devolve into off-topic pseudo-intellectual circular arguments, where everyone gets to trot out his agenda. If anyone wants to talk about the historical veracity of any person religious or not, feel free to make a thread about it in any of the many appropriate sections of the forums and have fun.

And as for the various members of Kate's own little lynch mob, here is a hint. There is a thing called the ignore function. Use it. I did before I became a mod. It will make everyone's life much better. This is a warning too.

Jesus Christ / Alexander, this fucking thread.

I had opinions on this subject, but after reading the thread, they've shrunken back like testicles in a cold swimming pool. I may need a long, hot bath to coax them out again.

And where are his goddamn horns jutting out from his hat's oh-so-elegant snowy white ermine liner? Continuity, damnit!

You're not the only one. I will say that I don't care what skin color the Asgardians are, as long as we get a kickass Thor movie that's somewhere close to the character that Stan and Jack created. 'Nuff said.

And they didn't even make HIM a blonde. WTF?
But... wizards battled barbarians!


Once again, that character isn't a God. Demi or otherwise.
And good ol' L Frank Baum approved genocide!

I think the lesson we can all take from this is that the only black people who should be allowed to play gods is Morgan Freeman (he qualifies as "people" because he's one of the good ones, and a credit to his race) but even then, only in comedies, and only if a white person (who he will be required to defer his powers to) is in the lead.