World's Greatest Draft (3 Viewers)

[flysack]

2. There's a reason everyone avoided picking a Celebrity until the 5th round. It's because the notion of celebrity is a 20th century phenomenon. Though the word's etymology goes back to the Latin celebritatem, meaning "famous" or "thronged" (OED), we didn't start widely using the term until the the 19th century. The OED traces the first contemporary usage to EXXXXX in 1856, when he wrote, "One of the celebrities of wealth and fashion confessed that..." The next known usage doesn't occur until 1876. The idea may have been born in the 19th century, but it didn't become a phenomenon until the 20th century. Why?

Film.

The idea of celebrity was really born through film, the mass marketing of image and popular fame. Pre-film people may have become famous, but they weren't thought of as celebrities in our sense of the word. Shakespeare could walk down a London street and not a person would recognize him. Same with anyone else "famous" before film and television turned fame into a mass produced, broadcasted image. Then actors become spokespersons and political figures. Rock N Roll musicians became actors. Their faces became more important than their ability. The Beatles couldn't act worth a crap; but they were in a movie that's still watched today. Why? Recognition factor. They became familiar via their image, so familiar that they transcended their genre (musician) and became celebrity figures. Their face became more important than their playing ability.

This is why Marilyn Monroe is the quintessential celebrity.

Monroe couldn't act.

Monroe couldn't sing (did you see Niagara? Even editing couldn't save her dreadful voice).

Monroe couldn't do much of anything except look good and appear in places with other well known people.

She managed to wrangle fame out of this. She managed to shag important people, even marrying a few. Many believe her death was a result of shagging the wrong set of brothers. Conspiracies surround her, transcend her, turned her into something above and beyond a mere vamp with sex appeal. She became an American icon.

This is celebrity.

I think you'll be hard pressed to find one before the 20th century. Next to Alexander the Great or Dostoevsky, celebrities aren't world shakers. They're images first, people second. Images don't affect history or ideas; they affect fads of identity and fashion. Celebrities are the mirrors of popular self-image. This is what makes a good celebrity. They may or may not be talented. What matters isn't their talent, it's that they inhabit what GXX DXXXXX called "the spectacle of the image." In less jargonic terms: they inhabit the limelight. The best celebrities stay there for decades. The greatest stay there past their own deaths, more often than not surrounded in an eternal cocoon of conspiracy theory. Monroe's "suicide" was staged. An FBI plot. A CIA plot. Et cetera. I'd give more examples, but it'd spotlight far too much, even in code. Think of any celebrity who lasted beyond their death. Either the circumstances of their death is thrown in question (rightly or wrongly) or people still see them sitting in football stadiums. They never go away.

You can probably tell I've studied the idea of celebrity. It was crucial to some work I once did. The celebrity judge may see things differently. I just wanted to drop my knowledge in the draft.

I agree with some of what you said but I strongly disagree with Marilyn Monroe being the quintessential celebrity.

I wouldn't say she's the #1 Celebrity, because if I were judge, I would consider "talent and/or world influence" as criteria, and Monroe had neither. However, the essence of celebrity is her. Today we have Paris Hilton, which is just another sign of the decline of Western Civilization: even our celebrities are getting worse.

 

[mad sweeney]

What are you trying to say? If you're saying that Christians think of Jesus as "higher" than Muslims think of Muhammed then I would be more inclined to agree with you, but only by a hair. If you're trying to say what your original statement was, that Jesus is more "important" to Christians than Mohammed is to Muslims then you are way off base. He is exactly AS important to Muslims as Jesus is to Christians.

Christians worship Jesus (as Jesus is God)...Muslims do not worship Muhammad...

that's a HUGE difference...

But does that make Jesus more important to Christians than M is to Muslims? No. It's a difference in what they think of him, but not a difference of empirical importance.

 

[larry_boy_44]

What are you trying to say? If you're saying that Christians think of Jesus as "higher" than Muslims think of Muhammed then I would be more inclined to agree with you, but only by a hair. If you're trying to say what your original statement was, that Jesus is more "important" to Christians than Mohammed is to Muslims then you are way off base. He is exactly AS important to Muslims as Jesus is to Christians.

Christians worship Jesus (as Jesus is God)...Muslims do not worship Muhammad...that's a HUGE difference...

But does that make Jesus more important to Christians than M is to Muslims? No. It's a difference in what they think of him, but not a difference of empirical importance.

except Jesus is somewhere between Muhammad and Allah in Muslim terms of importance...Allah > Muhammadand Jesus is in the middle somewhere (sorta)...the deity of a religion is ALWAYS more important than the prophet of said deity... The biggest difference is that, in some ways, Jesus is both... and that makes him more important to Christianity than Muhammad is to Islam...

 

[flysack]

I, for one, find this Jesus vs. Muhammad argument refreshing.

 

[mad sweeney]

2. There's a reason everyone avoided picking a Celebrity until the 5th round. It's because the notion of celebrity is a 20th century phenomenon. Though the word's etymology goes back to the Latin celebritatem, meaning "famous" or "thronged" (OED), we didn't start widely using the term until the the 19th century. The OED traces the first contemporary usage to EXXXXX in 1856, when he wrote, "One of the celebrities of wealth and fashion confessed that..." The next known usage doesn't occur until 1876. The idea may have been born in the 19th century, but it didn't become a phenomenon until the 20th century. Why?

Film.

The idea of celebrity was really born through film, the mass marketing of image and popular fame. Pre-film people may have become famous, but they weren't thought of as celebrities in our sense of the word. Shakespeare could walk down a London street and not a person would recognize him. Same with anyone else "famous" before film and television turned fame into a mass produced, broadcasted image. Then actors become spokespersons and political figures. Rock N Roll musicians became actors. Their faces became more important than their ability. The Beatles couldn't act worth a crap; but they were in a movie that's still watched today. Why? Recognition factor. They became familiar via their image, so familiar that they transcended their genre (musician) and became celebrity figures. Their face became more important than their playing ability.

This is why Marilyn Monroe is the quintessential celebrity.

Monroe couldn't act.

Monroe couldn't sing (did you see Niagara? Even editing couldn't save her dreadful voice).

Monroe couldn't do much of anything except look good and appear in places with other well known people.

She managed to wrangle fame out of this. She managed to shag important people, even marrying a few. Many believe her death was a result of shagging the wrong set of brothers. Conspiracies surround her, transcend her, turned her into something above and beyond a mere vamp with sex appeal. She became an American icon.

This is celebrity.

I think you'll be hard pressed to find one before the 20th century. Next to Alexander the Great or Dostoevsky, celebrities aren't world shakers. They're images first, people second. Images don't affect history or ideas; they affect fads of identity and fashion. Celebrities are the mirrors of popular self-image. This is what makes a good celebrity. They may or may not be talented. What matters isn't their talent, it's that they inhabit what GXX DXXXXX called "the spectacle of the image." In less jargonic terms: they inhabit the limelight. The best celebrities stay there for decades. The greatest stay there past their own deaths, more often than not surrounded in an eternal cocoon of conspiracy theory. Monroe's "suicide" was staged. An FBI plot. A CIA plot. Et cetera. I'd give more examples, but it'd spotlight far too much, even in code. Think of any celebrity who lasted beyond their death. Either the circumstances of their death is thrown in question (rightly or wrongly) or people still see them sitting in football stadiums. They never go away.

You can probably tell I've studied the idea of celebrity. It was crucial to some work I once did. The celebrity judge may see things differently. I just wanted to drop my knowledge in the draft.

I agree with some of what you said but I strongly disagree with Marilyn Monroe being the quintessential celebrity.

I wouldn't say she's the #1 Celebrity, because if I were judge, I would consider "talent and/or world influence" as criteria, and Monroe had neither. However, the essence of celebrity is her. Today we have Paris Hilton, which is just another sign of the decline of Western Civilization: even our celebrities are getting worse.

I couldn't disagree more. A celebrity need not have talent or influence. They are someone who, for whatever reason, is wildly notable. That's not to say they can't have talent or influence. Celebrity is an inexplicable and fickle hallucination of the masses.

 

[timschochet]

I think you need to study Christianity some more...

Platonic thought and philosophy very much affected the formation and doctrines of Christianity in the first few hundred years of Christianity... that is absolute fact...

and, really, let's not talk about the Dark Ages, unless you really want to compare Christianity in the Dark Ages to Islam in the modern world... because that's the even comparison...

Are you quite sure about this, Larry? From the Wiki entry for Plato:

Medieval scholars knew of Plato only through translations into Latin from the translations into Arabic by Persian and Arab scholars. These scholars not only translated the texts of the ancients, but expanded them by writing extensive commentaries and interpretations on Plato's and Aristotle's works (see Al-Farabi, Avicenna, Averroes).

Only in the Renaissance, with the general resurgence of interest in classical civilization, did knowledge of Plato's philosophy become widespread again in the West.

 

[larry_boy_44]

I think you need to study Christianity some more...

Platonic thought and philosophy very much affected the formation and doctrines of Christianity in the first few hundred years of Christianity... that is absolute fact...

and, really, let's not talk about the Dark Ages, unless you really want to compare Christianity in the Dark Ages to Islam in the modern world... because that's the even comparison...

Are you quite sure about this, Larry? From the Wiki entry for Plato:

Medieval scholars knew of Plato only through translations into Latin from the translations into Arabic by Persian and Arab scholars. These scholars not only translated the texts of the ancients, but expanded them by writing extensive commentaries and interpretations on Plato's and Aristotle's works (see Al-Farabi, Avicenna, Averroes).

Only in the Renaissance, with the general resurgence of interest in classical civilization, did knowledge of Plato's philosophy become widespread again in the West.

Yes, I am absolutely, 100% sure that Platonic thought and philosophy had a LARGE amount of influence on the development of Christianity from 0 to 500 AD...

 

[flysack]

Will you people knock it off already?

Both Jesus and Muhammad are the prominent figures in their religion. Just because the Christians have the audacity to call their man "a god" doesn't one-up the importance of Muhammad to the Muslims.

Trying to compare intra-cultural influence is ridiculous, especially in an obviously Christian-dominant forum. Is there one effing Muslim here? Wait, don't identify yourself. It's still not safe to come out yet.

 

[mad sweeney]

What are you trying to say? If you're saying that Christians think of Jesus as "higher" than Muslims think of Muhammed then I would be more inclined to agree with you, but only by a hair. If you're trying to say what your original statement was, that Jesus is more "important" to Christians than Mohammed is to Muslims then you are way off base. He is exactly AS important to Muslims as Jesus is to Christians.

Christians worship Jesus (as Jesus is God)...Muslims do not worship Muhammad...that's a HUGE difference...

But does that make Jesus more important to Christians than M is to Muslims? No. It's a difference in what they think of him, but not a difference of empirical importance.

except Jesus is somewhere between Muhammad and Allah in Muslim terms of importance...Allah > Muhammadand Jesus is in the middle somewhere (sorta)...the deity of a religion is ALWAYS more important than the prophet of said deity... The biggest difference is that, in some ways, Jesus is both... and that makes him more important to Christianity than Muhammad is to Islam...

Jesus is not in the middle of Allah and M. Moses, Abraham and Jesus were all prophets of Allah but no one is betwixt Muhammed and Allah. The duality of Jesus' nature is throwing you off from seeing this empirically. Jesus is divine to Christians and therefore is worshipped in a different nature than M, But the way someone is worshipped doesn't affect the amount of importance they hold.

 

[Mario Kart]

Not sure, but is there a pick to be skipped yet or is the clock off today now?

 

[FUBAR]

My skipped Pick-

5.08--Joan of Arc-Martyr/Saint

From the Wiki:

Joan of Arc is national heroine of France and a Catholic saint. A peasant girl born in eastern France, she led the French army to several important victories during the Hundred Years' War, claiming divine guidance, and was indirectly responsible for the coronation of XXXX. She was captured by the English, tried by an ecclesiastical court, and burned at the stake when she was nineteen years old. Twenty-four years later, the Holy See reviewed the decision of the ecclesiastical court, found her innocent, and declared her a martyr. She was beatified in 1909 and later canonized in 1920.[2]

Joan asserted that she had visions from God that told her to recover her homeland from English domination late in the Hundred Years' War. The uncrowned King XXXX sent her to the siege at Orléans as part of a relief mission. She gained prominence when she overcame the dismissive attitude of veteran commanders and lifted the siege in only nine days. Several more swift victories led to XXXX's coronation at Reims and settled the disputed succession to the throne.

Joan of Arc has remained an important figure in Western culture. From Napoleon to the present, French politicians of all leanings have invoked her memory. Major writers and composers who have created works about her include Shakespeare, Voltaire, XXX, XXX,XXX,XXX,XXX. Depictions of her continue in film, television, video games, song, and dance.

I hate you.

once again, my list of people I've been considering since round 3. Nice pick.Who's next to go? XXXXXXXXXXX?

 

[mad sweeney]

I think you need to study Christianity some more...

Platonic thought and philosophy very much affected the formation and doctrines of Christianity in the first few hundred years of Christianity... that is absolute fact...

and, really, let's not talk about the Dark Ages, unless you really want to compare Christianity in the Dark Ages to Islam in the modern world... because that's the even comparison...

Are you quite sure about this, Larry? From the Wiki entry for Plato:

Medieval scholars knew of Plato only through translations into Latin from the translations into Arabic by Persian and Arab scholars. These scholars not only translated the texts of the ancients, but expanded them by writing extensive commentaries and interpretations on Plato's and Aristotle's works (see Al-Farabi, Avicenna, Averroes).

Only in the Renaissance, with the general resurgence of interest in classical civilization, did knowledge of Plato's philosophy become widespread again in the West.

Yes, I am absolutely, 100% sure that Platonic thought and philosophy had a LARGE amount of influence on the development of Christianity from 0 to 500 AD...

Link?

 

[flysack]

2. There's a reason everyone avoided picking a Celebrity until the 5th round. It's because the notion of celebrity is a 20th century phenomenon. Though the word's etymology goes back to the Latin celebritatem, meaning "famous" or "thronged" (OED), we didn't start widely using the term until the the 19th century. The OED traces the first contemporary usage to EXXXXX in 1856, when he wrote, "One of the celebrities of wealth and fashion confessed that..." The next known usage doesn't occur until 1876. The idea may have been born in the 19th century, but it didn't become a phenomenon until the 20th century. Why?

Film.

The idea of celebrity was really born through film, the mass marketing of image and popular fame. Pre-film people may have become famous, but they weren't thought of as celebrities in our sense of the word. Shakespeare could walk down a London street and not a person would recognize him. Same with anyone else "famous" before film and television turned fame into a mass produced, broadcasted image. Then actors become spokespersons and political figures. Rock N Roll musicians became actors. Their faces became more important than their ability. The Beatles couldn't act worth a crap; but they were in a movie that's still watched today. Why? Recognition factor. They became familiar via their image, so familiar that they transcended their genre (musician) and became celebrity figures. Their face became more important than their playing ability.

This is why Marilyn Monroe is the quintessential celebrity.

Monroe couldn't act.

Monroe couldn't sing (did you see Niagara? Even editing couldn't save her dreadful voice).

Monroe couldn't do much of anything except look good and appear in places with other well known people.

She managed to wrangle fame out of this. She managed to shag important people, even marrying a few. Many believe her death was a result of shagging the wrong set of brothers. Conspiracies surround her, transcend her, turned her into something above and beyond a mere vamp with sex appeal. She became an American icon.

This is celebrity.

I think you'll be hard pressed to find one before the 20th century. Next to Alexander the Great or Dostoevsky, celebrities aren't world shakers. They're images first, people second. Images don't affect history or ideas; they affect fads of identity and fashion. Celebrities are the mirrors of popular self-image. This is what makes a good celebrity. They may or may not be talented. What matters isn't their talent, it's that they inhabit what GXX DXXXXX called "the spectacle of the image." In less jargonic terms: they inhabit the limelight. The best celebrities stay there for decades. The greatest stay there past their own deaths, more often than not surrounded in an eternal cocoon of conspiracy theory. Monroe's "suicide" was staged. An FBI plot. A CIA plot. Et cetera. I'd give more examples, but it'd spotlight far too much, even in code. Think of any celebrity who lasted beyond their death. Either the circumstances of their death is thrown in question (rightly or wrongly) or people still see them sitting in football stadiums. They never go away.

You can probably tell I've studied the idea of celebrity. It was crucial to some work I once did. The celebrity judge may see things differently. I just wanted to drop my knowledge in the draft.

I agree with some of what you said but I strongly disagree with Marilyn Monroe being the quintessential celebrity.

I wouldn't say she's the #1 Celebrity, because if I were judge, I would consider "talent and/or world influence" as criteria, and Monroe had neither. However, the essence of celebrity is her. Today we have Paris Hilton, which is just another sign of the decline of Western Civilization: even our celebrities are getting worse.

I couldn't disagree more. A celebrity need not have talent or influence. They are someone who, for whatever reason, is wildly notable. That's not to say they can't have talent or influence. Celebrity is an inexplicable and fickle hallucination of the masses.

I did say this. However, I would count world influence as a criteria. I'm second guessing talent. I think I betrayed my own thoughts on that one. World influence is key though. The scope of their image through time and space (death and the globe) is definitely important.

 

[John Maddens Lunchbox]

I've sent my 6th rounder to larry, thatguy & misfitblondes

 

[larry_boy_44]

What are you trying to say? If you're saying that Christians think of Jesus as "higher" than Muslims think of Muhammed then I would be more inclined to agree with you, but only by a hair. If you're trying to say what your original statement was, that Jesus is more "important" to Christians than Mohammed is to Muslims then you are way off base. He is exactly AS important to Muslims as Jesus is to Christians.

Christians worship Jesus (as Jesus is God)...Muslims do not worship Muhammad...that's a HUGE difference...

But does that make Jesus more important to Christians than M is to Muslims? No. It's a difference in what they think of him, but not a difference of empirical importance.

except Jesus is somewhere between Muhammad and Allah in Muslim terms of importance...Allah > Muhammadand Jesus is in the middle somewhere (sorta)...the deity of a religion is ALWAYS more important than the prophet of said deity... The biggest difference is that, in some ways, Jesus is both... and that makes him more important to Christianity than Muhammad is to Islam...

Jesus is not in the middle of Allah and M. Moses, Abraham and Jesus were all prophets of Allah but no one is betwixt Muhammed and Allah. The duality of Jesus' nature is throwing you off from seeing this empirically. Jesus is divine to Christians and therefore is worshipped in a different nature than M, But the way someone is worshipped doesn't affect the amount of importance they hold.

lol I wasn't saying that he was according to Muslim beliefs...I was saying that the comparison in how he is regarded in Christianity is somewhere between where Muslim think of Muhammad and how Muslims think of Allah...the Muslim religion doesn't exist without Muhammad because he wrote the Qu'ran...the Christian religion doesn't exist without Jesus because Jesus is, literally, God...That is why Muhammad is not more important to Muslims than Jesus is to Christians and why its ludicrous to say that Jesus is less influential than Muhammad...

 

[thatguy]

Not sure, but is there a pick to be skipped yet or is the clock off today now?

Usual21 went on the clock at about quarter to 7 ET, so I think the clock is off. Not sure, though, if he still owes his pick in the hour time limit since he went on the clock prior to 7.

 

[Ozymandias]

Knock it off!

If war is an extension of politics by other means, these threads are an extension of the believers/non-believers arguments which have gone on ad nauseum in the FFA. Believing Christians will argue that Jesus was the most important person ever to have lived. They have a vested interest in that argument. Non-believers have a vested interest in the opposing argument.

Give it up. Your either preaching to the choir or to the heathens; and the heathens can't get the choir to listen.

 

[John Maddens Lunchbox]

Round Six

1. Abrantes Marilyn Monroe

2. Mister Cia Immanuel Kant

3. Bobby Layne Paul Cezanne

4. Herbert The Hippo Judas

5. Andy Dufresne Spartacus

6. thatguy Albert Schweitzer

7. Usual21 - UP

8. John Madden's Lunchbox - Pick sent to misfitblondes, larry & thatguy

9. higgins

10. Big Rocks

11. Mad Sweeney

12. Doug B

13. DC Thunder

14. Thorn

15. Yankee23fan

16. Acer FC

17. FUBAR

18. Arsenal of Doom

19. Larry Boy 44

20. Mario Kart

 

[timschochet]

I think you need to study Christianity some more...

Platonic thought and philosophy very much affected the formation and doctrines of Christianity in the first few hundred years of Christianity... that is absolute fact...

and, really, let's not talk about the Dark Ages, unless you really want to compare Christianity in the Dark Ages to Islam in the modern world... because that's the even comparison...

Are you quite sure about this, Larry? From the Wiki entry for Plato:

Medieval scholars knew of Plato only through translations into Latin from the translations into Arabic by Persian and Arab scholars. These scholars not only translated the texts of the ancients, but expanded them by writing extensive commentaries and interpretations on Plato's and Aristotle's works (see Al-Farabi, Avicenna, Averroes).

Only in the Renaissance, with the general resurgence of interest in classical civilization, did knowledge of Plato's philosophy become widespread again in the West.

Yes, I am absolutely, 100% sure that Platonic thought and philosophy had a LARGE amount of influence on the development of Christianity from 0 to 500 AD...

Link?

I'd like to see it too. This may very well be so, but I would think it would be mentioned in Wikipedia, and it's not. So please explain further, Larry.

 

[thatguy]

Knock it off!If war is an extension of politics by other means, these threads are an extension of the believers/non-believers arguments which have gone on ad nauseum in the FFA. Believing Christians will argue that Jesus was the most important person ever to have lived. They have a vested interest in that argument. Non-believers have a vested interest in the opposing argument. Give it up. Your either preaching to the choir or to the heathens; and the heathens can't get the choir to listen.

Seriously.

 

[FUBAR]

What are you trying to say? If you're saying that Christians think of Jesus as "higher" than Muslims think of Muhammed then I would be more inclined to agree with you, but only by a hair. If you're trying to say what your original statement was, that Jesus is more "important" to Christians than Mohammed is to Muslims then you are way off base. He is exactly AS important to Muslims as Jesus is to Christians.

Christians worship Jesus (as Jesus is God)...Muslims do not worship Muhammad...that's a HUGE difference...

But does that make Jesus more important to Christians than M is to Muslims? No. It's a difference in what they think of him, but not a difference of empirical importance.

except Jesus is somewhere between Muhammad and Allah in Muslim terms of importance...Allah > Muhammadand Jesus is in the middle somewhere (sorta)...the deity of a religion is ALWAYS more important than the prophet of said deity... The biggest difference is that, in some ways, Jesus is both... and that makes him more important to Christianity than Muhammad is to Islam...

Jesus is only more important than Mohammad if you believe in his resurrection and being the savior. As the drafter of Mohammad and a Christian, I'm not going to argue against Jesus, but I will say that the judge should only evaluate the human being and not his being God.

 

[larry_boy_44]

I think you need to study Christianity some more...

Platonic thought and philosophy very much affected the formation and doctrines of Christianity in the first few hundred years of Christianity... that is absolute fact...

and, really, let's not talk about the Dark Ages, unless you really want to compare Christianity in the Dark Ages to Islam in the modern world... because that's the even comparison...

Are you quite sure about this, Larry? From the Wiki entry for Plato:

Medieval scholars knew of Plato only through translations into Latin from the translations into Arabic by Persian and Arab scholars. These scholars not only translated the texts of the ancients, but expanded them by writing extensive commentaries and interpretations on Plato's and Aristotle's works (see Al-Farabi, Avicenna, Averroes).

Only in the Renaissance, with the general resurgence of interest in classical civilization, did knowledge of Plato's philosophy become widespread again in the West.

Yes, I am absolutely, 100% sure that Platonic thought and philosophy had a LARGE amount of influence on the development of Christianity from 0 to 500 AD...

Link?

the best example of this is the idea of "logos" in John chapter 1 (reappearing in the book of Revelation)... and that's right in the Bible (showing that Platonic influence even effected the church very soon after Christ's death)...

 

[larry_boy_44]

Knock it off!If war is an extension of politics by other means, these threads are an extension of the believers/non-believers arguments which have gone on ad nauseum in the FFA. Believing Christians will argue that Jesus was the most important person ever to have lived. They have a vested interest in that argument. Non-believers have a vested interest in the opposing argument. Give it up. Your either preaching to the choir or to the heathens; and the heathens can't get the choir to listen.

actually, i'm not arguing Jesus is most important because I think He is God...I'm saying He's most important because the majority of people drafted so far think He is God... and that says something, I think...

 

[Abrantes]

Seems a little petty to get this worked up over arguing which one of these two massively influential figures was most massively influential.

 

[larry_boy_44]

What are you trying to say? If you're saying that Christians think of Jesus as "higher" than Muslims think of Muhammed then I would be more inclined to agree with you, but only by a hair. If you're trying to say what your original statement was, that Jesus is more "important" to Christians than Mohammed is to Muslims then you are way off base. He is exactly AS important to Muslims as Jesus is to Christians.

Christians worship Jesus (as Jesus is God)...Muslims do not worship Muhammad...that's a HUGE difference...

But does that make Jesus more important to Christians than M is to Muslims? No. It's a difference in what they think of him, but not a difference of empirical importance.

except Jesus is somewhere between Muhammad and Allah in Muslim terms of importance...Allah > Muhammadand Jesus is in the middle somewhere (sorta)...the deity of a religion is ALWAYS more important than the prophet of said deity... The biggest difference is that, in some ways, Jesus is both... and that makes him more important to Christianity than Muhammad is to Islam...

Jesus is only more important than Mohammad if you believe in his resurrection and being the savior. As the drafter of Mohammad and a Christian, I'm not going to argue against Jesus, but I will say that the judge should only evaluate the human being and not his being God.

I'm not arguing based upon the factual nature of the religious beliefs of the religion...the point is how Christians see Christ vs. how Muslims see Muhammadwhich religion is ultimately true is irrelevant...

 

[larry_boy_44]

Seems a little petty to get this worked up over arguing which one of these two massively influential figures was most massively influential.

I wanna be ranked #1!!!!

 

[timschochet]

the best example of this is the idea of "logos" in John chapter 1 (reappearing in the book of Revelation)... and that's right in the Bible (showing that Platonic influence even effected the church very soon after Christ's death)...

Sorry Larry, did you look up "Logos" before you made this statement? It was not an idea created by Plato; it's got nothing to do with Plato. It's Hellenistic in it's origin, and so were the original Christians.

 

[Hoos First]

 

[timschochet]

Got any other proof besides Logos, Larry? That one didn't fly.

 

[thatguy]

Got any other proof besides Logos, Larry? That one didn't fly.

Seriously Tim? Stop provoking him. He won't stop.

 

[Fennis]

I wholeheartedly disapprove of the use of Biblical figures (other than Jesus, of course) in this draft.

really? Why?

Because they're mythological. And I'm being serious.Why don't I just pick the Greek god Nike for my athlete?

You pretty much did by picking Spartacus.

 

[flysack]

 

[Ozymandias]

Let's not bicker and argue over 'ooo picked 'ooo.

 

[timschochet]

Let me restate my point: Many, if not most of the people on Larry's list, whom he claims were "influenced by Jesus", were actually influenced MORE by Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, at least in terms of what they did with their lives. Humanity owes the preservation of the writings of these three philosophers to the Muslim religion, which kept these writings alive and relevant during the Christian dark ages. Just another argument why Islam may in the long run be just as influential as Christianity, and why Muhammad is more influential than Jesus.

 

[larry_boy_44]

the best example of this is the idea of "logos" in John chapter 1 (reappearing in the book of Revelation)... and that's right in the Bible (showing that Platonic influence even effected the church very soon after Christ's death)...

Sorry Larry, did you look up "Logos" before you made this statement? It was not an idea created by Plato; it's got nothing to do with Plato. It's Hellenistic in it's origin, and so were the original Christians.

Yes, I did...the thing is that they took the idea of "logos" from Platonic philosophers who converted...I can't prove it well without spotlighting, but I'll work on some stuff that I can post at the end of the draft. But Platonic philosophy had a HUGE effect on Christianity and Christian thought in the early few centuries...(note: if you want I can PM you some names and I believe their wiki articles have better explanations)

 

[larry_boy_44]

Got any other proof besides Logos, Larry? That one didn't fly.

not without spotlighting people who should be drafted...but I pmed you some stuff...

 

[thatguy]

the best example of this is the idea of "logos" in John chapter 1 (reappearing in the book of Revelation)... and that's right in the Bible (showing that Platonic influence even effected the church very soon after Christ's death)...

Sorry Larry, did you look up "Logos" before you made this statement? It was not an idea created by Plato; it's got nothing to do with Plato. It's Hellenistic in it's origin, and so were the original Christians.

Yes, I did...the thing is that they took the idea of "logos" from Platonic philosophers who converted...

I can't prove it well without spotlighting, but I'll work on some stuff that I can post at the end of the draft. But Platonic philosophy had a HUGE effect on Christianity and Christian thought in the early few centuries...

(note: if you want I can PM you some names and I believe their wiki articles have better explanations)

Better idea, why don't you and Tim go start a private chat room somewhere.

 

[dparker713]

I was looking at the Wiki description of Judas. There is no historical evidence that he lived, despite the fact that a Gospel by Judas was discovered (which many Christians appear to be skeptical of.)But Andy may have a point about people that we have no evidence that they ever existed. How much emphasis to put on this will be up to the various judges.

4 different stories written by different authors all confirm his existence. Just because they're all in the same collection of works does not invalidate their use to confirm Judas' existence.

 

[Mario Kart]

My skipped Pick-

5.08--Joan of Arc-Martyr/Saint

From the Wiki:

Joan of Arc is national heroine of France and a Catholic saint. A peasant girl born in eastern France, she led the French army to several important victories during the Hundred Years' War, claiming divine guidance, and was indirectly responsible for the coronation of XXXX. She was captured by the English, tried by an ecclesiastical court, and burned at the stake when she was nineteen years old. Twenty-four years later, the Holy See reviewed the decision of the ecclesiastical court, found her innocent, and declared her a martyr. She was beatified in 1909 and later canonized in 1920.[2]

Joan asserted that she had visions from God that told her to recover her homeland from English domination late in the Hundred Years' War. The uncrowned King XXXX sent her to the siege at Orléans as part of a relief mission. She gained prominence when she overcame the dismissive attitude of veteran commanders and lifted the siege in only nine days. Several more swift victories led to XXXX's coronation at Reims and settled the disputed succession to the throne.

Joan of Arc has remained an important figure in Western culture. From Napoleon to the present, French politicians of all leanings have invoked her memory. Major writers and composers who have created works about her include Shakespeare, Voltaire, XXX, XXX,XXX,XXX,XXX. Depictions of her continue in film, television, video games, song, and dance.

I hate you.

once again, my list of people I've been considering since round 3. Nice pick.Who's next to go? XXXXXXXXXXX?

I am really disappointed right now seeing Joan of Arc picked and not on my team. She was the person I was referring to when I mentioned I might pick her in the third round but definitely in my 4th/5th. I picked my two artists in those spots and was hoping Joan would fall to my 6th/7th. As long as I get my other one I had slotted for my next two, I will be somewhat happy but darn it all.

 

[Ozymandias]

the best example of this is the idea of "logos" in John chapter 1 (reappearing in the book of Revelation)... and that's right in the Bible (showing that Platonic influence even effected the church very soon after Christ's death)...

Sorry Larry, did you look up "Logos" before you made this statement? It was not an idea created by Plato; it's got nothing to do with Plato. It's Hellenistic in it's origin, and so were the original Christians.

Yes, I did...the thing is that they took the idea of "logos" from Platonic philosophers who converted...

I can't prove it well without spotlighting, but I'll work on some stuff that I can post at the end of the draft. But Platonic philosophy had a HUGE effect on Christianity and Christian thought in the early few centuries...

(note: if you want I can PM you some names and I believe their wiki articles have better explanations)

Better idea, why don't you and Tim go start a private chat room somewhere.

Right. I thought this whole draft was interesting until we got into a religious discussion, over and over and over and over and over...Either they quit, or I will.

 

[timschochet]

Now Larry just sent me a pm listing various "Neo-Platonists" who were influential among the early Christians, so this is a much better argument and defense of his statement. It doesn't change the fact that the majority of these ideas were lost to the Christian world until the Muslims gave it back to them.

 

[flysack]

Right. I thought this whole draft was interesting until we got into a religious discussion, over and over and over and over and over...Either they quit, or I will.

I find the entire thing trite and annoying. I'm with Ozy here. Take it somewhere else, or I'm leaving Dodge with Ozy.

 

[larry_boy_44]

the best example of this is the idea of "logos" in John chapter 1 (reappearing in the book of Revelation)... and that's right in the Bible (showing that Platonic influence even effected the church very soon after Christ's death)...

Sorry Larry, did you look up "Logos" before you made this statement? It was not an idea created by Plato; it's got nothing to do with Plato. It's Hellenistic in it's origin, and so were the original Christians.

Yes, I did...the thing is that they took the idea of "logos" from Platonic philosophers who converted...

I can't prove it well without spotlighting, but I'll work on some stuff that I can post at the end of the draft. But Platonic philosophy had a HUGE effect on Christianity and Christian thought in the early few centuries...

(note: if you want I can PM you some names and I believe their wiki articles have better explanations)

Better idea, why don't you and Tim go start a private chat room somewhere.

Right. I thought this whole draft was interesting until we got into a religious discussion, over and over and over and over and over...Either they quit, or I will.

really? You expected to have a "World's Greatest Person" draft and not have religious discussions pop up all the time?

Seriously?

could you have been any more delusional?

 

[timschochet]

the best example of this is the idea of "logos" in John chapter 1 (reappearing in the book of Revelation)... and that's right in the Bible (showing that Platonic influence even effected the church very soon after Christ's death)...

Sorry Larry, did you look up "Logos" before you made this statement? It was not an idea created by Plato; it's got nothing to do with Plato. It's Hellenistic in it's origin, and so were the original Christians.

Yes, I did...the thing is that they took the idea of "logos" from Platonic philosophers who converted...

I can't prove it well without spotlighting, but I'll work on some stuff that I can post at the end of the draft. But Platonic philosophy had a HUGE effect on Christianity and Christian thought in the early few centuries...

(note: if you want I can PM you some names and I believe their wiki articles have better explanations)

Better idea, why don't you and Tim go start a private chat room somewhere.

Right. I thought this whole draft was interesting until we got into a religious discussion, over and over and over and over and over...Either they quit, or I will.

No worries, we're done. At least I am. I made my point, he can agree with it or not.

 

[flysack]

Now Larry just sent me a pm listing various "Neo-Platonists" who were influential among the early Christians....

I got an idea -SEND HIM A PM BACK< -- genius

 

[mad sweeney]

Right. I thought this whole draft was interesting until we got into a religious discussion, over and over and over and over and over...Either they quit, or I will.

I find the entire thing trite and annoying. I'm with Ozy here. Take it somewhere else, or I'm leaving Dodge with Ozy.

Rollins doesn't run away! I put him one step under Chuck Norris on the list of who the boogey man checks his closet for when it goes to bed!

 

[Thorn]

Now Larry just sent me a pm listing various "Neo-Platonists" who were influential among the early Christians, so this is a much better argument and defense of his statement. It doesn't change the fact that the majority of these ideas were lost to the Christian world until the Muslims gave it back to them.

So he tried to take it to PM and you brought it back? Christ.

 

[Abrantes]

Let's not bicker and argue over 'ooo picked 'ooo.

 

[timschochet]

I do think that as more religious figures get taken, and especially when NCCommish gives his rankings, these debates will surface again.

 

[thatguy]

Now Larry just sent me a pm listing various "Neo-Platonists" who were influential among the early Christians, so this is a much better argument and defense of his statement. It doesn't change the fact that the majority of these ideas were lost to the Christian world until the Muslims gave it back to them.

So he tried to take it to PM and you brought it back? Christ.

So you're siding with Larry on this one?