Ah, using Mirror Universe characters to advance your own positions? Might want to rethink that.
Opinions on Michael Eddington
- Thread starter Emperor Norton
- Start date
Ah, using Mirror Universe characters to advance your own positions? Might want to rethink that.
Christ: "I have not to bring peace but a sword." Also see the whole book of Revelation.
How bout a few more non-Europeans? Sultan Mehmed, Huangdi, Chandragupta Maurya, Attila the Hun(technically). Huayna Capac, Geronimo, Tlacaelel. Tokagawa leyasu.
It had to be the finest piece of overacting I'd ever seen though.Ah, using Mirror Universe characters to advance your own positions? Might want to rethink that.
I'm not justifying the actions, ideaologies, words, and plans of many of these individuals but simply stating there influence was more more palpable, long reaching, and stable than that of any philanthropist or peace writer.
Christ didn't set out to cause war. He just said what He came to say, and knew that people were going to fight over His message - and that it would be their problem, not His. Because that's what humans do.
And yet if you insist on comparing Eddington to Jesus
you might want to consider Luke 22:42:"Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but YOURS be done."
Note the bolded part - which does not, in any way, apply to Eddington. He was all about his own personal glory, and everything in the universe filtered through his own ego. Christ, on the other hand, willingly took on the sins of humanity so as to sacrifice Himself on their behalf - without any consideration of His own personal feelings in the matter. That is entirely the opposite of everything Eddington did, said, and thought.
Last edited:
Let's list some other belligerent behavior from Jesus; driving money lenders out of the temple(rather violently in fact, calling the Pharisees "a den of vipers", "Get behind me Satan" snapping at Peter, and more than a few other instances of "unhippy behavior." Oh and I forgot Revelation 1 and 2 and Revelation 19 in which Jesus is portrayed as being rather violent, unforgiving, and (to his enemies) omnicidal.Christ didn't set out to cause war. He just said what He came to say, and knew that people were going to fight over His message - and that it would be their problem, not His. Because that's what humans do.
And yet if you insist on comparing Eddington to Jesus
"Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but YOURS be done."
Note the bolded part - which does not, in any way, apply to Eddington. He was all about his own personal glory, and everything in the universe filtered through his own ego. Christ, on the other hand, willingly took on the sins of humanity so as to sacrifice Himself on their behalf - without any consideration of His own personal feelings in the matter. That is entirely the opposite of everything Eddington did, said, and thought.
You can't tell the difference between history and prophecy!?
As in the BAD Archer?
I can't help but feel you're just being silly when you place Hitler above Martin Luther King in terms of "great men". At the end of the day we are talking about inadequate people trying to feel better about themselves. They are shaping history in the same way vandalism shapes cities.
History is the past and prophecy the (expected or hoped for) future. What qualitative difference is there?You can't tell the difference between history and prophecy!?
History is what has happened. Prophecy has not happened. One is evidence, the other is not.
Ah however prophecies do happen whether by coincidence or divine intervention depending on your point of view sometimes they come true in very obvious ways.
The way Jesus is portrayed in Revelation is belligerent, militaristic, aggressive, domineering, and without tenderness(towards his enemies) this is what John of Patmos claimed to have seen and I think as a legitimate biblical writing it should be accepted as a portrayal of Jesus.
Alexander, Genghis Khan, and Nader Shah weren't men with inferiority or adequacy issues I can assure you.
Because their were men who led or conquered is not evidence that they ascribed to a particular philosophy. Their are many such ideologies that "Great Men" have used to justify their actions, not all of which are mutually compatible. The Uebermensch, for instance, contradicts the Divine Right of Kings. Furthermore, most (thought not all) of the people you list effectively inherited their sense of power--they did not cultivate it themselves. Many of the things that determine their actions were policy decisions or political imperatives that pre-existed their reigns, such as Alexander's drive to control the greater Greek world or the Mongolian drive to contain the disaggregation caused by nomadism in the Steppes. Finally, almost all of them externalized their rule, creating institutions to regularize their accomplishments. In some way or other, they recognized that their personality was not enough to maintain their accomplishments, and something had to be handed over.
Probably explains The bible in one hand and the gun and give us your land in the other once Europe decided to 'turn Christian'. I think real Christianity died once it left Roman Palestine, Paul going to the Gentiles was a bad idea IMO. Ever since then folks are just church goers.
That passage is actually about divine judgement, not war. I'm sure that others would twist it in such a way that it justifies war and to claim that G-d was on their side, but given the whole teachings of the person known as Jesus, it could not be described as someone using conflict to gain power.
I am aware of its original intention, however history has shown what happens to good intent, it was perverted to a 'God is on our side' agenda 'so we can do whatever the heck we want to you heathens'!
Ever heard 'the slave trade did those backward Africans the world of good' argument'? Does not really match 'Love your neighbour as yourself' does it.
I don't think we disagree.
The Bible itself says God told Paul to go to the Gentiles.
Your simply uncomfortable with the idea that Religion is more than some mushy "be nice" and "love everybody" cliche.
Led them nearly to independence? Gave Sisko and his cronies a well deserved bloody nose? Pushed the Cardassians into chaos?
