[Zgarbas]

He also decided that all Japanese resorts/cities/landmarks with 十 in their name are secretly a tribute to the Christians who came to Japan in the 1st millenium and secretly influenced their culture, only to have their presence hidden by anti-Christians. (because clearly a cross is not something that exists anywhere outside Christianity!)

Like I said, the guy is amazing. Apparently there's another movement that tries to link Christianity to Chinese characters, by renaming the radicals to obvious Christian references and putting them together so as to turn them into Bible quotes.

@raharney: Yesterday during Translations class I was having an argument with my teacher regarding a sequence of tenses in a certain paragraph, and I blurted out "look, the first two lines are a straightforward pair of post hoc ergo propter hoc and the last one is just a consequence", got weird looks, and thought about you <3

Zgarbas Wrote:@raharney: Yesterday during Translations class I was having an argument with my teacher regarding a sequence of tenses in a certain paragraph, and I blurted out "look, the first two lines are a straightforward pair of post hoc ergo propter hoc and the last one is just a consequence", got weird looks, and thought about you <3

So proud

I don't get why some people are so angry at this theory.

Onara Wrote:I don't get why some people are so angry at this theory.

Who's angry? Amazed at the sheer stupidity of it, but laughing about it, not at all angry. I think it's hysterical. (Ok, that's an exaggeration, I'm not in hysterical laughter... more like a soft snicker.)

His misinformation is simply too weak to mislead anyone who takes the slightest effort to look into the development of the characters. If I thought anyone would take him seriously, I might be irritated.

Onara Wrote:I don't get why some people are so angry at this theory.

I agree with the above. Nobody is angry, it's just really stupid and a bit comical.

Ooops, sorry, I forgot, I'm not allowed to say 'stupid' on forum.koohii.com, aka The Debate Club.

yudantaiteki Wrote:I think there's a good possibility of it being sincere. He has other posts on his site about how Christianity supposedly reached Japan in pre-written historical times but was suppressed; I think he's one of many who are allowing their religious beliefs to override their sense of plausibility. In this case I would imagine this belief is a way to address the objection of how Christianity can be the universal, correct religion when it didn't get to Japan for 1500+ years after Jesus' death.

That's a fair point. So he's stupid and crazy too.

True story.

My jewish friend said that katakana looks like Hebrew.
He came to that conclusion when he saw ロ (ro) and pondered for a second.
To which my other friend replied "It's a f*cking square!".

yudantaiteki Wrote:In this case I would imagine this belief is a way to address the objection of how Christianity can be the universal, correct religion when it didn't get to Japan for 1500+ years after Jesus' death.

Why on earth would this be an "objection"? Nobody, not even the looniest as far as I know, has ever argued that Christianity was disseminated spontaneously in ever land at the same time.
Christianity, like every other ideology, including relativist ones, claims to be "universal" on the grounds of its beliefs and truths, not on the grounds of its historico-geographical spread.

Helltrixz Wrote:I don't think anyone gave thought to hebrew being influenced by kana/kanji yet.

Here is my evidence, just compare the similarities! http://jamesjpn.net/2010/06/10/japanese-...th-hebrew/

If that's not just a coincidence, then the visual similarities of かな to 万葉仮名, and 万葉仮名 to 漢字, and the fact that many of them share the same sounds - almost as if they form some kind of evolution - are just unbelievable http://bbs.jinruisi.net/blog/2010/03/000762.html

jimeux Wrote:

Helltrixz Wrote:I don't think anyone gave thought to hebrew being influenced by kana/kanji yet.

Here is my evidence, just compare the similarities! http://jamesjpn.net/2010/06/10/japanese-...th-hebrew/

If that's not just a coincidence, then the visual similarities of かな to 万葉仮名, and 万葉仮名 to 漢字, and the fact that many of them share the same sounds - almost as if they form some kind of evolution - are just unbelievable http://bbs.jinruisi.net/blog/2010/03/000762.html

I think you've just gone and backed up his point...

raharney Wrote:

yudantaiteki Wrote:In this case I would imagine this belief is a way to address the objection of how Christianity can be the universal, correct religion when it didn't get to Japan for 1500+ years after Jesus' death.

Why on earth would this be an "objection"? Nobody, not even the looniest as far as I know, has ever argued that Christianity was disseminated spontaneously in ever land at the same time.
Christianity, like every other ideology, including relativist ones, claims to be "universal" on the grounds of its beliefs and truths, not on the grounds of its historico-geographical spread.

What I mean is that one of the foundational beliefs that many conservative Christians hold is that Christianity is the one correct religion for all of humanity, and all other religions are wrong. But an objection could be (and has been) raised that it seems strange that if God has set up Christianity as the one true religion, certain areas of the world would know about that very soon after Jesus' death (or during his life) whereas other places would go 1500+ years not knowing about it. It seems unfair that a peasant in 1140 in Japan would have no way of learning about the one true religion.

I'm not saying this is a fatal objection to Christianity or that it has never been addressed before, I just think this might be part of the motivation behind a belief like this. Many ultra-conservative Christians are already taught from an early age to accept the religious beliefs they are taught even if they go against all plausibility -- I'm not talking here about basic belief in God but things like young earth creationism or the KJV being the only divinely inspired version of the Bible.

raharney Wrote:Why on earth would this be an "objection"?

Because in traditional theology, starting immediately after Jesus' reincarnation, you can only be saved ( = go to heaven rather than to hell) by accepting Jesus. If the opportunity to at least learn about Jesus wasn't at least possible, then this condemns many people to hell.

This obviously conflicts with the idea that the biblical God is infinitely good, so there has to be a way for people to know about Jesus. I'm a little fuzzy on how these supposed missionaries fix the problem, but this seems like something headed in that direction. (I'm a little fuzzy on how traditional theology resolves the problem too, but I have a feeling it involves adding Purgatory to the theological view of the universe.)

yudantaiteki Wrote:

raharney Wrote:

yudantaiteki Wrote:In this case I would imagine this belief is a way to address the objection of how Christianity can be the universal, correct religion when it didn't get to Japan for 1500+ years after Jesus' death.

Why on earth would this be an "objection"? Nobody, not even the looniest as far as I know, has ever argued that Christianity was disseminated spontaneously in ever land at the same time.
Christianity, like every other ideology, including relativist ones, claims to be "universal" on the grounds of its beliefs and truths, not on the grounds of its historico-geographical spread.

What I mean is that one of the foundational beliefs that many conservative Christians hold is that Christianity is the one correct religion for all of humanity, and all other religions are wrong. But an objection could be (and has been) raised that it seems strange that if God has set up Christianity as the one true religion, certain areas of the world would know about that very soon after Jesus' death (or during his life) whereas other places would go 1500+ years not knowing about it. It seems unfair that a peasant in 1140 in Japan would have no way of learning about the one true religion.

I'm not saying this is a fatal objection to Christianity or that it has never been addressed before, I just think this might be part of the motivation behind a belief like this. Many ultra-conservative Christians are already taught from an early age to accept the religious beliefs they are taught even if they go against all plausibility -- I'm not talking here about basic belief in God but things like young earth creationism or the KJV being the only divinely inspired version of the Bible.

But this was never an “objection,” just a theological problem: what happens to the unbaptized. For example, in Dante’s Inferno Socrates is not allowed to enter the highest echelons of heaven because he was unbaptized. I think (you can Google it if you don’t believe me) nowadays the mainstream view is that your are still saved if you are righteous, even if you never heard of Christ. In fact, the Catholic Church now accepts that there may be other messiahs that have lived on other planets at other times. We’ve never heard of them but it don’t matter none.
But your argument seems to be that because many Christians are nuts who believe crazy stuff we can then ascribe any beliefs we want to them. This is a propagandist way of thinking.

raharney Wrote:But this was never an “objection,” just a theological problem: what happens to the unbaptized. For example, in Dante’s Inferno Socrates is not allowed to enter the highest echelons of heaven because he was unbaptized. I think (you can Google it if you don’t believe me) nowadays the mainstream view is that your are still saved if you are righteous, even if you never heard of Christ. In fact, the Catholic Church now accepts that there may be other messiahs that have lived on other planets at other times. We’ve never heard of them but it don’t matter none.
But your argument seems to be that because many Christians are nuts who believe crazy stuff we can then ascribe any beliefs we want to them. This is a propagandist way of thinking.

Is this a retroactive law? So all the people that didn't know of Jesus during the last 1500 years were then granted amnesty?

raharney Wrote:

jimeux Wrote:

Helltrixz Wrote:I don't think anyone gave thought to hebrew being influenced by kana/kanji yet.

Here is my evidence, just compare the similarities! http://jamesjpn.net/2010/06/10/japanese-...th-hebrew/

If that's not just a coincidence, then the visual similarities of かな to 万葉仮名, and 万葉仮名 to 漢字, and the fact that many of them share the same sounds - almost as if they form some kind of evolution - are just unbelievable http://bbs.jinruisi.net/blog/2010/03/000762.html

I think you've just gone and backed up his point...

I read Helltrixz's comment backwards. I wanted an opportunity to post the images of 万葉仮名, since I was discussing the topic just the other day before being exposed to the original link-bait spam-blog post in the OP.

Helltrixz Wrote:

raharney Wrote:But this was never an “objection,” just a theological problem: what happens to the unbaptized. For example, in Dante’s Inferno Socrates is not allowed to enter the highest echelons of heaven because he was unbaptized. I think (you can Google it if you don’t believe me) nowadays the mainstream view is that your are still saved if you are righteous, even if you never heard of Christ. In fact, the Catholic Church now accepts that there may be other messiahs that have lived on other planets at other times. We’ve never heard of them but it don’t matter none.
But your argument seems to be that because many Christians are nuts who believe crazy stuff we can then ascribe any beliefs we want to them. This is a propagandist way of thinking.

Is this a retroactive law? So all the people that didn't know of Jesus during the last 1500 years were then granted amnesty?

Ehr...What? 'Laws' aren't true until they are discovered or conceived. Is that what you are saying?
Before Marx there were no social classes. Before Newton discovered the law of gravity people used to fly through the air.

raharney Wrote:Before Marx there were no social classes. Before Newton discovered the law of gravity people used to fly through the air.

There was no such thing as a time before Marx discovered social classes and Newton discovered the law of gravity. Or were you there?

Vempele Wrote:

raharney Wrote:Before Marx there were no social classes. Before Newton discovered the law of gravity people used to fly through the air.

There was no such thing as a time before Marx discovered social classes and Newton discovered the law of gravity. Or were you there?

Then how do you know there wasn't a time. If you were there then there was a time.

raharney Wrote:

Helltrixz Wrote:Is this a retroactive law? So all the people that didn't know of Jesus during the last 1500 years were then granted amnesty?

Ehr...What? 'Laws' aren't true until they are discovered or conceived. Is that what you are saying?
Before Marx there were no social classes. Before Newton discovered the law of gravity people used to fly through the air.

It's a literal question. Is Socrates nowadays allowed into the highest parts of heaven?

Helltrixz Wrote:

raharney Wrote:

Helltrixz Wrote:Is this a retroactive law? So all the people that didn't know of Jesus during the last 1500 years were then granted amnesty?

Ehr...What? 'Laws' aren't true until they are discovered or conceived. Is that what you are saying?
Before Marx there were no social classes. Before Newton discovered the law of gravity people used to fly through the air.

It's a literal question. Is Socrates nowadays allowed into the highest parts of heaven?

My point is that theologians don't make the divine laws (if such exists) anymore than physicists make natural laws so your question is bit of a crazy one.

raharney Wrote:My point is that theologians don't make the divine laws (if such exists) anymore than physicists make natural laws so your question is bit of a crazy one.

Well, in one way of speaking, you could say that theologians do make the divine laws, if they don't exist.

Or, if they do exist, it could be like the movie Dogma where the church does have some influence on divine law.

Tzadeck Wrote:

raharney Wrote:My point is that theologians don't make the divine laws (if such exists) anymore than physicists make natural laws so your question is bit of a crazy one.

Well, in one way of speaking, you could say that theologians do make the divine laws, if they don't exist.

Or, if they do exist, it could be like the movie Dogma where the church does have some influence on divine law.

They "make" interpretations of divine law, that is, they try to explain it in a consistent and coherent way within discursive rules about conditions that are not of their making.
They are working with a body of evidence (the Bible etc.) that cannot be ignored. In that way they are like scientists working with theories and hypothesis that they aim to "make" conform to the evidence. Whether the evidence is illusionary or not is another matter.

I don't know the movie Dogma. Sounds interesting.

raharney Wrote:But this was never an “objection,” just a theological problem: what happens to the unbaptized. For example, in Dante’s Inferno Socrates is not allowed to enter the highest echelons of heaven because he was unbaptized. I think (you can Google it if you don’t believe me) nowadays the mainstream view is that your are still saved if you are righteous, even if you never heard of Christ. In fact, the Catholic Church now accepts that there may be other messiahs that have lived on other planets at other times. We’ve never heard of them but it don’t matter none.

But your argument seems to be that because many Christians are nuts who believe crazy stuff we can then ascribe any beliefs we want to them. This is a propagandist way of thinking.

Your argument seems to be that even though Christians consider the Bible to be the word of an all powerful, all knowing God, it's wrong to assume that they believe its contents, and better to instead assume that they believe what the Argentinian dude who just got elected Pope says.

Tzadeck Wrote:Well, in one way of speaking, you could say that theologians do make the divine laws, if they don't exist.

Or, if they do exist, it could be like the movie Dogma where the church does have some influence on divine law.

Alanis Morissette was a more open minded type of God. The main character in the collection of short stories Christians refer to as The Bible, not so much:

"You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments."

That's the Second Commandment. Kinda hard to misinterpret. Apparently, even the great, great grandkids of a pagan Buddhist should be worried.

raharney Wrote:They "make" interpretations of divine law, that is, they try to explain it in a consistent and coherent way within discursive rules about conditions that are not of their making.
They are working with a body of evidence (the Bible etc.) that cannot be ignored. In that way they are like scientists working with theories and hypothesis that they aim to "make" conform to the evidence. Whether the evidence is illusionary or not is another matter.

I don't know the movie Dogma. Sounds interesting.

Now it's easy to look at theology as though it has its base in evidence, but you're looking at it through a way of thinking (the scientific method and empiricism) that wasn't really developed until the 17th century. Theology is much older than that, and there is a whole range of different levels of theology, from those that take philosophical traditions seriously to those who really don't.

My understanding, based admittedly only on a few college classes I took, is that the church I was raised in, Catholicism, is full of beliefs, traditions, and laws that are not based on the Bible whatsoever. As far as I know many of them have no basis in any body of evidence, illusionary or not.