Pravice žensk v Afganistanu in slovenske feministke

Unilseptij je 24. avg 2021 ob 22:47 izjavil:

arnecan1 je 24. avg 2021 ob 21:07 izjavil:

Tako, da ja, Jezus je obstajal.

V resnici vemo samo tole (iz wikipedije):

The historical Jesus scholarship is bound by the following limitations:

- There is no physical or archaeological evidence for Jesus; all existing sources are documentary.
- The sources for the historical Jesus are mainly Christian writings, such as the gospels and the purported letters of the apostles.
- All extant sources that mention Jesus were written after his death.
The New Testament represents sources that have become canonical for Christianity, and there are many apocryphal texts that are examples of the wide variety of writings in the first centuries AD that are related to Jesus. The authenticity and reliability of these sources have been questioned by many scholars, and few events mentioned in the gospels are universally accepted.

Torej, za večino dogodkov omenjenih v evengelijih ni nobenih dejanskih dokazov, tukaj ne gre samo za obstoj Jezusa. Bodimo pošteni, velika večina tistih, ki se danes resno ukvarja s tem z namenom dokazati obstoj oz. neobstoj Jezusa kot osebe, to počne iz lastnih prepričanj, bodisi pro ali kontra. Trenutno ni nobene podlage za trditev, da je res obstajal in je precej bolj verjetna razlaga podana v filmu Zeitgest - Duh časa, kjer je na lep način pojasnjeno, kako nastajajo take legende in miti.

Isto lahko rečemo za preroka Mohammeda.

Ampak po navadi stoji za takimi dogodki karizmatična oseba, katera sproži dogodke. Od kod pa je prišel prvi impulz, da se je razvilo krščanstvo? Ali islam? Okoliščine so morale biti zrele za neko nezadovoljstvo, želje za spremembami, okolica je morala biti razdeljena, dovolj revolucionarna, da je izvrgla nekoga, ki je zajahal ta val in sprožil začetek sprememb. Ali je sprožil spremembe zavedno ali nezavedno, tega ne vemo. Ali je bil samo verski reformator ali socialni revolucionist ali pa je trpel za versko blaznostjo in verjel v to, da je Božji sin? Mogoče je imel duševno bolezen? Je bil odpadli član Esenov? Vsekakor je bil dovolj karizmatičen, da so po njegovi smrti njegovi sledilci nadaljevali z delom.

Vsekakor je verjetna trditev, da je Jezus večino naukov pobral od drugih ljudi ali gibanj, npr. Eseni, da začetki krščanstva segajo dalje v preteklost. Nekatere stvari je verjetno dodal, npr. da je Božji sin, vse ostalo, kar poznamo danes, je prišlo v poznejših stoletjih.

Jaz nisem videl Jezusa, Nihče ga ni. Bom pa rekel tole, kar piše na wikipediji, pa tudi drugje: The question of the historicity of Jesus is part of the study of the historical Jesus as undertaken in the quest for the historical Jesus and the scholarly reconstructions of the life of Jesus. While the Christ myth theory proposes that Jesus never existed, virtually all historians reject the Christ myth theory and accept that a human Jesus existed, although few events mentioned in the gospels are universally accepted.[ Standard historical criteria have aided in evaluating the historicity of the gospel-narratives, and two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.

Ne bom pameten in nisem amaterski zgodovinar, ampak če praktično vsi strokovnjaki, kateri se s tem ukvarjajo celotno odraslo življenje, pravijo, da je obstajal, bom pač verjel njim.

Kako je drugače krščanstvo nastalo? Vemo, da judaizma, ampak zakaj ta zgodba o Božjem sinu? In o križanju, glede na to, da so ta način usmrtitve Rimljani uporabljali za najnižje kriminalce, za sramotno smrt? Zakaj je to vodilo krščanstva, križanega Jezusa vidimo praktično povsod? Ljudje iz porazov delamo moralne zmage, pa naj bo Kosovska bitka ali Alamo.

gus5 je 24. avg 2021 ob 23:01 izjavil:

arnecan1 je 24. avg 2021 ob 21:07 izjavil:

Hja, izgleda, da Jezus leta 33 ni bil tako pomemben za rimske pisce, da bi ne vem koliko pisali o njem.

Potem ni bil pomemben za nobene pisce, ne judovske, ne rimske, ne grške. Če bi obstajal in bil verski reformator, bi ga moral vsaj nekdo omeniti. Npr. Flavijev opis samooklicanega preroka Jezusa, sina Ananusa, je avtentičen. O Jezusu Nazareškemu pa ni pisal, besedilo v njegovem magistralnem delu iz 90ih o JN je interpolacija.

Takrat že ni bil dovolj pomemben, da bi o njem pisali. Ali pa so se kakšni viri tudi izgubili.

Zakaj pa so kristjani naenkrat postali problem par desetletij po njegovem križanju?

Kako to, da prej nismo slišali o njih, potem pa so se razselili iz Judeje in širili svojo religijo?

Kaj je bil tisti dramatični razlog, da so začeli širiti vero od tega obdobja dalje, prej pa ni bilo slišati za njih?

arnecan1 je 25. avg 2021 ob 00:11 izjavil:

Unilseptij je 24. avg 2021 ob 22:47 izjavil:

arnecan1 je 24. avg 2021 ob 21:07 izjavil:

Tako, da ja, Jezus je obstajal.

V resnici vemo samo tole (iz wikipedije):

The historical Jesus scholarship is bound by the following limitations:

- There is no physical or archaeological evidence for Jesus; all existing sources are documentary.
- The sources for the historical Jesus are mainly Christian writings, such as the gospels and the purported letters of the apostles.
- All extant sources that mention Jesus were written after his death.
The New Testament represents sources that have become canonical for Christianity, and there are many apocryphal texts that are examples of the wide variety of writings in the first centuries AD that are related to Jesus. The authenticity and reliability of these sources have been questioned by many scholars, and few events mentioned in the gospels are universally accepted.

Torej, za večino dogodkov omenjenih v evengelijih ni nobenih dejanskih dokazov, tukaj ne gre samo za obstoj Jezusa. Bodimo pošteni, velika večina tistih, ki se danes resno ukvarja s tem z namenom dokazati obstoj oz. neobstoj Jezusa kot osebe, to počne iz lastnih prepričanj, bodisi pro ali kontra. Trenutno ni nobene podlage za trditev, da je res obstajal in je precej bolj verjetna razlaga podana v filmu Zeitgest - Duh časa, kjer je na lep način pojasnjeno, kako nastajajo take legende in miti.

Isto lahko rečemo za preroka Mohammeda.

Ampak po navadi stoji za takimi dogodki karizmatična oseba, katera sproži dogodke. Od kod pa je prišel prvi impulz, da se je razvilo krščanstvo? Ali islam? Okoliščine so morale biti zrele za neko nezadovoljstvo, želje za spremembami, okolica je morala biti razdeljena, dovolj revolucionarna, da je izvrgla nekoga, ki je zajahal ta val in sprožil začetek sprememb. Ali je sprožil spremembe zavedno ali nezavedno, tega ne vemo. Ali je bil samo verski reformator ali socialni revolucionist ali pa je trpel za versko blaznostjo in verjel v to, da je Božji sin? Mogoče je imel duševno bolezen? Je bil odpadli član Esenov? Vsekakor je bil dovolj karizmatičen, da so po njegovi smrti njegovi sledilci nadaljevali z delom.

Vsekakor je verjetna trditev, da je Jezus večino naukov pobral od drugih ljudi ali gibanj, npr. Eseni, da začetki krščanstva segajo dalje v preteklost. Nekatere stvari je verjetno dodal, npr. da je Božji sin, vse ostalo, kar poznamo danes, je prišlo v poznejših stoletjih.

Jaz nisem videl Jezusa, Nihče ga ni. Bom pa rekel tole, kar piše na wikipediji, pa tudi drugje: The question of the historicity of Jesus is part of the study of the historical Jesus as undertaken in the quest for the historical Jesus and the scholarly reconstructions of the life of Jesus. While the Christ myth theory proposes that Jesus never existed, virtually all historians reject the Christ myth theory and accept that a human Jesus existed, although few events mentioned in the gospels are universally accepted.[ Standard historical criteria have aided in evaluating the historicity of the gospel-narratives, and two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.

Ne bom pameten in nisem amaterski zgodovinar, ampak če praktično vsi strokovnjaki, kateri se s tem ukvarjajo celotno odraslo življenje, pravijo, da je obstajal, bom pač verjel njim.

Kako je drugače krščanstvo nastalo? Vemo, da judaizma, ampak zakaj ta zgodba o Božjem sinu? In o križanju, glede na to, da so ta način usmrtitve Rimljani uporabljali za najnižje kriminalce, za sramotno smrt? Zakaj je to vodilo krščanstva, križanega Jezusa vidimo praktično povsod? Ljudje iz porazov delamo moralne zmage, pa naj bo Kosovska bitka ali Alamo.

Mohamed je bil dejanska zgodovinska oseba in o tem priča precej neizpodbitnih virov. Človek je bil vojskovodja, osvajalec mest, združitelj arabskih plemen, itd. in dokazov o njegovem obstoju je veliko... in to takih, ki so nastali takrat, ko je živel, ne 100+ let kasneje.

Glede Jezusa si prosim poglej Zeitgeist ( ), od 4:40 dalje (The Greatest Story Ever Told). Vsi ključni mitološki elementi krščanstva (brezmadežno spočetje, križanje, vstajenje, itd.) so precej starejši in niso nič originalnega.

Trditev, da se vsi strokovnjaki strinjajo, da je res živel, pa ne drži. Človek, ki bi počel to, kar pravijo evangeliji, zagotovo ni obstajal. Če so morda kdaj križali koga z imenom Jezus pa nihče ne more vedeti. Tukaj še en vir https://www.worldhistory.org/Horus/ :

There is no doubt the worship of Isis influenced early Christianity through the concepts of the Dying and Reviving God who returns from the dead to bring life to the people, eternal life through dedication to that god, the image of the virgin mother and child, and even the red-hue and characteristics of the Christian devil. This is not to say, however, that Christianity is simply the Isis Cult re-packaged nor that Horus was the prototype for the risen Christ.

Unilseptij je 25. avg 2021 ob 10:02 izjavil:

Trditev, da se vsi strokovnjaki strinjajo, da je res živel, pa ne drži. Človek, ki bi počel to, kar pravijo evangeliji, zagotovo ni obstajal. Če so morda kdaj križali koga z imenom Jezus pa nihče ne more vedeti.

Jaz ti lahko samo povem, kaj pravijo strokovnjaki. Drugo je, kar se pogovarjamo mi laiki.

Seveda, če nisi tudi ti strokovnjak za to področje?
The question of the historicity of Jesus is part of the study of the historical Jesus as undertaken in the quest for the historical Jesus and the scholarly reconstructions of the life of Jesus. While the Christ myth theory proposes that Jesus never existed, virtually all historians reject the Christ myth theory and accept that a human Jesus existed, although few events mentioned in the gospels are universally accepted. Standard historical criteria have aided in evaluating the historicity of the gospel-narratives, and two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.

Eddy and Boyd say the best history can assert is probability, yet the probability of Jesus having existed is so high, Ehrman says "virtually all historians and scholars have concluded Jesus did exist as a historical figure.

Contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and biblical scholars and classical historians view the theories of his nonexistence as effectively refuted. Historian James Dunn writes: "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed". In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman, a secular agnostic, wrote: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees.":Robert M. Price, an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus, agrees that his perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars. Michael Grant (a classicist and historian) states that "In recent years, no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus, or at any rate very few have, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." Richard A. Burridge states, "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that anymore."

P.S.: Med drugim, večina strokovnjakov trdi, da je Mohamed obstajal. Manjšina trdi, da ni obstajal. Historicity of Muhammad @ Wikipedia
Podobno kakor za Jezusa.

A minority of historians however, believe Muhammad may be an entirely mythical figure. As early as 1930, the question for the existence of Muhammad was raised by Soviet orientalist Klimovich. In their 2003 book Crossroads to Islam, Yehuda D. Nevo and Judith Koren advanced a thesis, based on an extensive examination of archaeological evidence from the early Islamic period, that Muhammad may never have existed, with monotheistic Islam only coming into existence some time after he is supposed to have lived.

November 1930 Klimovich came up with what he probably believed to be a fatal blow to Islam and at the same time a revolution within Islamic studies. That month he gave a lecture in the Communist Academy (probably in Kazan), asking the provocative question, “Did Muhammad Exist?” This lecture amounted to a wholesale refutation of Islamic historiography on the early Muslim community. According to Klimovich, no contemporary sources on Muhammad's life have come down to us; the earliest known reports and biographies of the prophet, like that of Ibn Isḥāq/Ibn Hishām, were written by Muslim authors of the mid-8th and 9th centuries. By that time, however, the Muslim scholars themselves had no reliable information on Muhammad's life at their disposal; all they had was the Koran, and therefore their biographies and the ḥadīth material is nothing but a late illustration and commentary on the Koran.[50] In fact, by that time the language of the Koran itself was so incomprehensible even to Arabs that the new additional sources were necessary to make sense of it at all. In result, the time gap between Muhammad's alleged lifetime and the first written sources was so huge that we cannot suppose that any of the information given in these sources is authentic. According to Klimovich, also references to Muhammad in Christian sources were anything but convincing. Klimovich concluded that nothing is known for sure about the historical Muhammad, and that it is even likely that he never existed. Quite consequently, Klimovich assumed that the Koran was not Muhammad's work but the product of a whole group of authors. Muhammad was created by later historians as a myth, designed to explain the emergence of the Islamic community out of the Hanif movement. The prophet was an invention to cover up early Islam's character as a social protest movement.

Vse je iz wikipedieje in preverljivo, vključno z imeni.

Veš kaj je fascinantno, da so vladarji v Siriji, Perziji, Egiptu, Iranu, Jordaniji itd. pred tisočletji znali zedinit ljudstvo in s pomočjo trgovine ohranjat mir, in tudi med različnimi plemeni (etičnimi skupinami) ustvarit raj na bližnjem vzhodu, kar pričajo številne zgradbe, vrtovi, trgi, zapisi, mnogi na Unescovem seznamu... Danes po zaslugi religije pa ...

kgtjera je 26. avg 2021 ob 03:25 izjavil:

Veš kaj je fascinantno, da so vladarji v Siriji, Perziji, Egiptu, Iranu, Jordaniji itd. pred tisočletji znali zedinit ljudstvo in s pomočjo trgovine ohranjat mir, in tudi med različnimi plemeni (etičnimi skupinami) ustvarit raj na bližnjem vzhodu, kar pričajo številne zgradbe, vrtovi, trgi, zapisi, mnogi na Unescovem seznamu... Danes po zaslugi religije pa ...

Libija je bil oaza pod Gadafijem, danes je totalna greznica. Tunizija pod ben alijem je bila oaza, domačini danes to sami priznavajo. Sej je kradel, ampak konkretno manj kot danes, korupcija je bila, ampak ne tako huda. Bilo je dovolj služb, vsak je lahko zaslužil za pošteno in mirno življenje. Danes se tunizija utaplja v brezposelnosti, kraje vsepovsod, naraščajo težnje po "strožjem" islamu. Tunizija je bila ena prvih držav na bližnjem vzhodu, ki je uveljavila volilno pravico za ženske (neuvrščeni - 1963), hodile naokoli so lahko v mini kiklcah, niso bile pokrite, .... Danes je vedno več zahtev, da se vse to ukine.
Take države na žalost rabijo samodržca, ki pač pobije dovolj verskih in vaških voditeljev, da so potem ljudje tiho in živijo normalno. In edino pod takim samodržzcem živijo normalno.
In afganistan tega nima že vsaj zadnjih 40 let. Ko bo nekdo spet združil vsa tista plemena, bo tudi tam mir. Prej ga pa ne bo.

Vanich je 26. avg 2021 ob 05:42 izjavil:

...medtem v sosednjem Pakistanu - Taharuša 400:1

Trenirajo za prihod v Evropo

gus5 je 26. avg 2021 ob 18:02 izjavil:

Okapi je 25. avg 2021 ob 23:31 izjavil:

Vsem nevernikom in mnogim vernikom je jasno, da nikoli ni obstajal človek, ki je hodil po vodi, delal vino iz vode in obujal mrtve.

Bistvo krščanske vere je prav vera v čudeže.

Premaklnil v novo temo.
https://slo-tech.com/forum/t789548/zace...

What what?

Owwww it's just Matthai.

Če se jaz prav spomnim, si ti glasno pozival da naj bo Jože P. Damijan mandatar. Pa tvoj sosed te je celo videl, kako si lepil neke plakate s programom Levice po bloku.

Ženske v a Afganistanu see vedno trpijo, med tem pa naše sklepajo zavezništva z Damirjem Črnčecom. Še dobro, da imamo Jajota. Se lahko naši dohtarju vsaj s čem ukvarjajo.

Pa helikopterji pa furryji pa vsi - chani.