So...you need faith to know any kind of truth? OK, let's try...
\"Oh, Father who art in Heaven...how accurate is the King Arthur legend? Amen.\"
11/18/2005 5:54:52 PM
Wrong, King Arthur, if he lived, would have lived around 500 AD, before the medieval period.
11/18/2005 7:17:55 PM
What, King Arthur was the King of Avalon after the fall of the Roman empire.
12/19/2006 2:32:29 AM
Legends are a mass of fallacy wrapped around a little bit of truth. Some things in the Bible might be accurate, while others are not.
3/8/2007 4:36:33 AM
What IS your point?
7/5/2008 2:02:21 PM
Where are "Brittian" and "Scandanivia"?
"He did have a castle and a wizard (probablly a mere magician)"
NO. You don't say!
I see you have as little knowledge of secular history as you do everything else. Good show.
7/5/2008 3:02:37 PM
Citation ( and spellchecker) needed.
7/5/2008 3:06:39 PM
So since Scandinavia had one Britain couldn't have? What, was there a quota on the name 'Arthur' and there could only be one?
7/5/2008 6:14:32 PM
I judge cultures by their mythology. The Arthurian myth pretty much represents the ideals of a civilized era in northern Europe. I like it much more than that goatshit-encrusted nonsense from Moses...in my naive childhood I accepted those chivalric moral standards, to the exclusion of the biblical misogyny, racism, implied filicide, etc. In fact, the powerful Christian presence within Arthur tended to distract from the real moral story line.
Besides, Arthur is more in the direction of Tolkien's vision, which is imho the superior myth of the age.
7/5/2008 6:37:50 PM
10/1/2008 2:33:58 AM
There are many myths. King Arthur - defeater of the Saxons, would point to him being a King of Wessex (WTF is Brittian, you fundy moron?) OR he could have been a Norseman or a Roman legionaire who go "left behind".
Robin Hood is also a myth, although the true Robin Hood was actually a cut-throat bandit who most certainly not dwell in Sherwood Forest, and King Richard the Lionheart spent a maximum of 3 weeks of his entire life in England, abandoning his wife, children and people to the wolves.
Yes there are myths, but none so many that is not already crammed into the Bible.
The point is, we KNOW they are myths - and you brainwashed morons do NOT.
10/1/2008 4:47:17 AM
Actually, there is evidence that there was a Welsh chieftain named "Arturos" or "Arthnou." The legend of King Arthur could have begun as part of an encrusted legend about him.
Some medieval scholars also thought that Odin (while we're talking about Scandinavia) was the name of an ancient Norse chieftain who was so great he was remembered as a god.
10/1/2008 5:30:20 AM
You are correct. I have read this myself, but my memory suggests the original Odian were, what we today would call, russian.
I may remember this wrong of course, and I have no source for this. But I too remember reading something similar.
10/1/2008 9:51:21 AM
Arthur, end of the medieval period? What?? Does heeven know what the medieval period is?
10/1/2008 10:16:03 AM
"so how can you believe in parts of the Bible and not other parts?"
- Isn't that what atheists have been asking Christians for years? How can you believe that homosexuality is wrong, but ignore the passage that says shaving and eating shrimp is wrong? How can you believe in God and Jesus, but willingly overlook the stories of their evil deeds?
Does not compute. That comment contained as many self-contradictions as a chapter of the Bible.
10/1/2008 10:50:01 AM
"probablly a mere magician"
Who wrote this? Napoleon Dynamite?
10/1/2008 2:54:06 PM
Re the god of your bible:
Well I didn't vote fer 'im.
10/1/2008 3:24:15 PM
King Arthur (Arth=Bear in Welsh, Ursus=Bear in Latin) was most likely a chap by the name of Owain Ddanygwyn, a minor 'king' in Britain. His name is simply his battle standard. He might have had a wooden fortress, but never had a castle, 6th century was about 500 years too early for stine castles. Guinevere is derived from Gwynedd (Gwyneth) and simple means 'White Lady', since a cheiftain's wife would often dress in white. It was a title, not a name. He wouldn't have had a wizard or a magician, but probably a form of shaman as an advisor. What's my point? I have no idea, you're too fixated to understand me, anyway.
10/1/2008 4:15:06 PM
I love that the wizard is the one point he concedes, but he was "probablly a mere magician."
A+ for comedy!
10/1/2008 7:06:43 PM
If a 1500-year-old legend is so distorted today, what makes you think your 2000-year-old book of 6000-year-old myths isn't?
12/26/2010 8:51:31 AM
Yes, the past is shrouded. To gain any insight into what happened in the past, we have to use all available material. This includes, for example:
Archaeological findings, old documents (like chronicles, legal documents, even business transactions etc.), linguistic correlations, and a lot more.
This applies to the myth of King Arthur, where surely is more than a grain of truth in it. But the original myth of King Arthur surely isn't describing exactly what happened 1500 years ago.
Of course this method applies also to the book widely known as "The Bible".
Yes, I agree that one cannot use ones own discernment to gather the truth. Truth is gained by hard work and an open mind. Or in other words: Truth is gained by Science.
Truth is NOT gained by faith, but by systematic, hard, and honest work.
And the result for "The Bible" is: This is a complex document from the bronze- and iron-age, containing ancient myths, legends, moral codes, chronicles etc., and must be understood in the context of the ancient society it was written in. The Bible makes perfect sense when it is viewed as a purely human work from several millenia ago.
On the other hand, The Bible does not make any sense when viewed as something as "God's infallible word".
12/26/2010 10:09:10 AM
"Ok, like King Arthur was a king in Brittian?"
Speaking as a Briton (who lives in Britain
, mayhaps there was a king of a place called 'Brittian'; care to point out on a map this country called 'Brittian'?!). Just as there was a talking snake in the 'Garden of Eden'.
"He was a king towards the end of the Mideivl period? He had a wife named Gueinevere and a knight named Lancelot?"
You were clearly 'hoemskuled', considering your spelling. In the Holy Britannian Empire in the anime series "Code Geass" , there was Guinevere su Britannia, the First Princess:
Just as there was actually a talking snake, as described in the Bible. Amirite?
"None of that contradicts reason or common sense."
But it's purely legend (and which still carries great cultural power here in the UK).
"But its all false."
Even Arthurian scholars wouldn't contradict you. Just as professors of theology - who know infinitely more about your beliefs than you do, Rom831 - would acknowledge that the 'talking snake' in the Garden of Eden was merely metaphor.
Y'know. 'Metaphor'. As in not
real. Thus the Bible isn't
literal. So if one thing in it isn't real, all of it is complete bollocks.
"King Arthur was a minor king in Scandanivia (not Brittian) at the begining of the period (not the end)."
And you know more than said Arthurian scholars to say this... how?
Prove it or be subjected to the ignominy of .
"He did have a castle"
'It's only a model.'
-"Monty Python and the Holy Grail"
"and a wizard (probablly a mere magician)"
The Disney animated film "Sword in the Stone" and the film "Excalibur" are not
documentaries. Neither are the comics "Camelot 3000" or "Slaine" in "2000 AD" factual historical documents, but just fantasy. Rather like the Bible, hmmmmm?
Frankly, the anime series "Fate/Stay Night" (featuring a female reincarnation of Arthur, a.k.a. 'Sabre') would blow your mind.
"and that's about as close to the Legend as it comes. What's my point? You cannot use your own discernment to gather the truth."
Your point: 'The Bible is about as factual as the Arthurian legend, but I daren't admit it, or be proved the failure I am. After all: 'Truth' is purely subjective. Fact is objective'.
"You will be wrong."
A definite case of:
"so how can you believe in parts of the Bible and not other parts?"
Oh, just the notion of a talking snake
renders any credibility the so-called 'Bible' has to be completely invalid. You & your ilk can't even produce one piece of physical evidence for the existence of Jesus (PROTIP: The Turin Shroud was proven years ago to be just a medieval fake).
Like I say: If one part of the Bible is mere 'metaphor', then all of it is lies.
And you don't need to be a professor of theology to discern that. After all:
'Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for Atheism ever conceived'
But you keep waiting for your J-man to blow his horn and suck you (& everyone on Ruptured Retards) off. Frankly, there's more chance of King Arthur returning from Avalon, in Britain's hour of need. Which will happen, going by your logic eh, Rom831? If you disagree, then you admit your Jesus won't come and (C)Rapture you because he doesn't exist.
Catch-22 can be such a bitch, eh?
12/26/2010 11:43:18 AM
Bad grammar and bad logic, but ironically enough, he makes a point at the end. Which is why I believe none of it.
12/26/2010 12:46:50 PM
'... how can you believe in parts of the Bible and not other parts?'
So close, yet so very far.
1/3/2011 2:35:36 PM
Christ, I'm not going to bother with this horrid pile of misspelling and history fail.
1/3/2011 5:41:24 PM