Resurrection Contradictions (No, not the # of women/angels!)

[Nathan Poe]

Different era, different culture, different cultural perceptions.

Right -- execution was humiliating in one culture, and... what? in the other?

Wallace’s followers didn’t have prior expectations of political independence that were engrained into their Catholic beliefs.

Pretty sure the notion of political independence was never too far from the Scottish mindset... oppressed people usually don't like it very much.

And from what I also understand, they never deified Wallace, created a religious creed around him and substituted this creed for Catholicism; and they especially didn’t highlight the tragic way he died and made it the impetus of this theological creed.

No, he was a mere hero before he died, and remained a hero (arguably an even greater one) in spite of the shameful circumstances of his execution.

Jesus, on the "other hand," was the Son of God before, and remained the Son of God afterwards.

Even when you put different eras, religions and cultures aside, the two comparisons themselves are as different as night and day.

Agreed -- William Wallace was from a politically insignificant, occupied and oppressed backwater province of a major world power, who was a threat to the status quo, so he was betrayed by his own people and handed over to the oppressive regime, where they made a point of publicly executing him in the most brutal and humiliating way possible so as to discourage his followers from continuing their misguided mission. However, this completely backfired, and Wallace became more of a hero after his death than he was in life.

Jesus, of course, was a completely different story! He was...

oh, wait.

[Nathan Poe]

Right, because what does a Scot know about honor? Collectivist? Do you even know what a Scottish clan is?

[seanD]

Right -- execution was humiliating in one culture, and... what? in the other?



Pretty sure the notion of political independence was never too far from the Scottish mindset... oppressed people usually don't like it very much.



No, he was a mere hero before he died, and remained a hero (arguably an even greater one) in spite of the shameful circumstances of his execution.

Jesus, on the "other hand," was the Son of God before, and remained the Son of God afterwards.



Agreed -- William Wallace was from a politically insignificant, occupied and oppressed backwater province of a major world power, who was a threat to the status quo, so he was betrayed by his own people and handed over to the oppressive regime, where they made a point of publicly executing him in the most brutal and humiliating way possible so as to discourage his followers from continuing their misguided mission. However, this completely backfired, and Wallace became more of a hero after his death than he was in life.

Jesus, of course, was a completely different story! He was...

oh, wait.

Exactly. Wallace’s rise was as a result of political oppression and was merely spur of the moment. Where did the Scots believe that Wallace was a fulfillment of previous divine prophecies – not to mention, prophecies that were contingent on his success? Simply put, you’re a complete retard (I can’t think of any other way to describe it) if you think someone who is made a political icon is in the same ballpark as someone who drives his followers to reshape an entire religious belief and is placed in the center of a religious creed and theology that serves as a substitute of that belief.

Keep my posts in context when you present your argument or I'll just consider your debate a defeat.

[Mountain Man]

Right, because what does a Scot know about honor? Collectivist? Do you even know what a Scottish clan is?

Are you trying to be stupid? You really have no idea what you're talking about.

The concept you refer to as "honor" -- that is pride in oneself and one's country -- is nothing like the honor/shame dynamic that existed in the ancient world and in many Middle Eastern countries today, and Scottish clans have nothing to do with collectivism as a social construct, where one's personal value and identity is defined by the group (this is where honor/shame comes into play). While clans did operate as a group, the members maintained individualistic identities.

For instance, someone could work hard and rise through the ranks of a clan without upsetting the social balance; however, the social positions in collectivist honor/shame cultures are largely static because honor is considered a limited good. So if someone in the group succeeds at some task, he is duly praised for a time, but if he's seen as getting too uppity, or accruing too much honor, then the group will chide and mock him until the balance of honor has been restored. There's a story of a missionary who was working with a small tribe and thought it would be nice to purchase a cow as a gift for the village. When he presented the cow to the villagers, they laughed and mocked him and told him how scrawny the cow was and that he paid too high a price for such a puny animal. It wasn't that they weren't grateful for the cow, but his gift was seen as an attempt to accrue undue honor to himself, and so the mocking was necessary to restore social balance.

You also have yet to prove that there was any kind of social stigma attached to the manner of William Wallace's death such that people would be repulsed by the very idea of venerating a man so executed without some sort of dramatic post-death vindication.

[Nathan Poe]

Exactly. Wallace’s rise was as a result of political oppression and was merely spur of the moment.

Political oppression -- hello, Romans at the front door.

Spur of the moment -- you really think that makes it less remarkable?

Where did the Scots believe that Wallace was a fulfillment of previous divine prophecies – not to mention, prophecies that were contingent on his success?

A success which Jesus failed to achieve -- and would've still failed regardless of the circumstances of his death.

Death, in any form, would've been a bad sign for Jesus -- at least the circumstances of his crucifixion fulfilled a prophecy or two.

Simply put, you’re a complete retard (I can’t think of any other way to describe it) if you think someone who is made a political icon is in the same ballpark as someone who drives his followers to reshape an entire religious belief and is placed in the center of a religious creed and theology that serves as a substitute of that belief.

And you are too blind to see that the only difference between these two figures is the scale of their eventual success.

I will make no comment on your own mental capacity -- I suspect it's self-evident.

Keep my posts in context when you present your argument or I'll just consider your debate a defeat.

Oh, get over yourself -- everyone knows your context, and your incessant whining about it doesn't make your arguments any less empty.

[Nathan Poe]

Are you trying to be stupid?

If I want lessons, I'll be sure to ask.

The concept you refer to as "honor" -- that is pride in oneself and one's country --

Too bad for you that's not the concept I was referring to.

Really, Mountain, would it kill you to ask for clarification rather than embarrass yourself with a failed mindreading act?

and Scottish clans have nothing to do with collectivism as a social construct, where one's personal value and identity is defined by the group (this is where honor/shame comes into play). While clans did operate as a group, the members maintained individualistic identities.

And yet, an individual's pride/shame would reflect on the clan itself -- and vice versa.

<rabbit trail snipped>

None of which has anything to do with the Crucifixion.

There's a story of a missionary who was working with a small tribe and thought it would be nice to purchase a cow as a gift for the village. When he presented the cow to the villagers, they laughed and mocked him and told him how scrawny the cow was and that he paid too high a price for such a puny animal. It wasn't that they weren't grateful for the cow, but his gift was seen as an attempt to accrue undue honor to himself, and so the mocking was necessary to restore social balance.

The moral of the story is, respect cannot be bought. There aren't many cultures who consider such blatant brown-nosing to be a virtue.

You also have yet to prove that there was any kind of social stigma attached to the manner of William Wallace's death such that people would be repulsed by the very idea of venerating a man so executed without some sort of dramatic post-death vindication.

So, you're saying that there's no kind of social stigma to being publicly hanged (but released just before death), castrated, disembowleled (and having your entrails burned in front of you), drawn, quartered, and beheaded? Just another typical day in the life of a Scotsman?

You actually need proof that this is a shameful way to go?

[Mountain Man]

O.K., so you're not trying to be stupid, you really are stupid. The fact that you dismissed a large portion of my argument as a "rabbit trail" tells me that you really don't have a clear grasp of my point, and the fact that you had to slice and dice my post just to respond to it one out-of-context section at a time tells me you're just haphazardly making up your rebuttal as you go. I'd just love for you to find me a reputable sociologist who agrees with you that Scottish clans were collectivist honor/shame cultural groups that viewed public executions as utterly offensive. Best of luck to you, dummy.

[seanD]

The fact that you dismissed a large portion of my argument as a "rabbit trail" tells me that you really don't have a clear grasp of my point, and the fact that you had to slice and dice my post just to respond to it one out-of-context section at a time tells me you're just haphazardly making up your rebuttal as you go.

He's the worst one on this board when it comes to that, and it's real slimy and dishonest tactic.

[Nathan Poe]

O.K., so you're not trying to be stupid, you really are stupid.

I told you I'd ask for a lesson if I needed one.

The fact that you dismissed a large portion of my argument as a "rabbit trail" tells me that you really don't have a clear grasp of my point,

It tells everyone else that I recognized that you didn't have one.

and the fact that you had to slice and dice my post just to respond to it one out-of-context section at a time tells me you're just haphazardly making up your rebuttal as you go.

This would be the part where you're supposed to explain just how I took your post out of context -- and fail.

I'd just love for you to find me a reputable sociologist who agrees with you that Scottish clans were collectivist honor/shame cultural groups that viewed public executions as utterly offensive. Best of luck to you, dummy.

I'd just love for you to find me any sociologist (heck, I won't even demand he be reputable) who says that the purpose of public executions wasn't to be utterly offensive. Nice try, guy.

[Nathan Poe]

He's the worst one on this board when it comes to that, and it's real slimy and dishonest tactic.

And you couldn't explain how I did it if your life depended on it.

[Mountain Man]

It's the "I'm right until you prove me wrong!" defense, favored by dumbasses everywhere.

Sorry, kiddo, but the burden is on you to prove that Scottish clans were equivalent to the collectivist honor/shame culture of the ANE. You're so in over your head on this one that you can't even name a source off the top of your head that agrees with your moronic assertions.

[Nathan Poe]

It's the "I'm right until you prove me wrong!" defense, favored by dumbasses everywhere.

I told you, if I wanted lessons...

Sorry, kiddo, but the burden is on you to prove that Scottish clans were equivalent to the collectivist honor/shame culture of the ANE.

Actually, the burden is on you to prove that it makes a difference. I won't be suckered into chasing one of your red herrings.

[Mountain Man]

You can't even respond to a simple three-sentence post without having to chop it up.

[Nathan Poe]

You can't even respond to a simple three-sentence post without having to chop it up.

Give yourself some credit -- You pack a lot of drivel in three sentences.

[Mountain Man]

Let me guess, you move your lips when reading, don't you?