|
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
 Posted - 06/13/2001 : 22:13:02 [Permalink]
|
It seems to me that the people who have always done the evil in this world have been religious. They have destroyed each other throughout recorded history and in their sacred books have recorded other (probably mythical) dasterdly deeds.
Communism (and other totalitarian states) were like religions in that one was ordered to believe in them or suffer the consequences. Look at what happened to the scientists in the USSR who disagreed with Lysenko. To the Gulag with them!
Now, I am not one to blame anybody who has not at anytime during his/her life done anything which physically hurt others. Mentally, people should be able to consider the source and resist letting it bother them to the point where retaliation is the result.
However, it is much better to have no religion at all, so that you do not have that history of rape and murder in the background of your beliefs.
ljbrs
If the Creators of the Inquisition had known better, they would have done better!
|
 |
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2001 : 11:47:59 [Permalink]
|
What you have to keep in mind that it is people who cause wars not gods (NRA--National Religion Assoc. ) for the very simple reason that there aren't any gods.
When you look at wars historically you find that religion only became a main cause of them in Europe and the Near East with the advent of monotheism.
Polytheism tended to be much more inclusive of other peoples belief systems. It would meld with, rather than supplant, existing religions. That is why, through out northern Europe, you will find statuary dedicated to gods who have hyphenated names. The hyphenation joins gods of two cultures that share the same aspects.
When you read Caesar's The Gallic Wars he talks about the gods of the Celts at some length but he calls them names like Juno and Mars. This was partly through arrogance but mostly because he recognized his own gods in those of the Celts. The Roman and Gaelic gods shared the same Indo/European roots.
Not to say that this prevented wars, after all he called the book The Gallic Wars not The Picnic in Paris. It just wasn't the cause of wars.
That leaves us with the sticky question of why was The Prince of PEACE the cause of the bloodiest wars Europe has known and not Mars the god of WAR.
I think that it has to do with the structure of political power. The worshipers under Polytheism were just as fervent as the Christians are (one afternoon in 27BCE, 248 priests of the Saeculum ((Pluto & Persephone)) in Rome publicly castrated themselves as a demonstration of faith) Exactly the same fundamentalist loonies were attracted to these religions as to Islam or Christianity. But Polytheism was divided into hundreds of different small religions. Individually they could never have the power over enough people to cause that much trouble.
Not that they didn't try. Apollo through his Oracle at Delphi egged on his fair share of wars. When the Pythagoreans poisoned the inventor Hero (that's his name not my editorial comment) for heresy, because he had invented the twin cycle steam engine, they postponed the industrial revolution by almost two thousand years.
You also have to keep in mind that the polytheistic religions never claimed to be the source of morality. Morality was strictly a human enterprise. You can see some of the hatred god based morality generates simply by looking in the Euthrypho forum.
But to cause real trouble religious zealots need organization, money and numbers. Something that only being mandated THE ONE TRUE RELIGION by the Emperor Theodosius can provide. No longer does your one little cult have to co-exist with a hundred others. Everybody but you worships devils. Hey, Saint Paul said so to Timothy (TIIMMAAAY!)
It isn't much of a stretch from other people worshipping gods who are devils to people who worship your god in a slightly different way needing their asses kicked too.
Now you can see why I started the topic about drinking alcohol
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
Mespo_man
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2001 : 14:03:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it.
Dr. Frankenstein: Would you mind telling me who's brain I did put in?
Igor: And you won't be angry?
Dr. Frankenstein: I will NOT be angry.
Igor: Abby someone.
Dr. Frankenstein: Abby someone. Abby who?
Igor: Abby Normal.
Regards,
(:raig
|
|
|
|
Tiptup
Skeptic Friend
USA
86 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2001 : 08:01:40 [Permalink]
|
Wow did this thread die fast. I must have the touch of death or something. Broven disappoints me. I was hoping that he would continue his debate. Unless something I did forced him to end it or something. Anyhow JohnPaul, I will still try to debate you if no one else will. Only when I have time though. My schedule is really busy during the summer so you might have to wait periodically. Anyhow, onto the dissection…
Good news Tiptup. Both Duane Gish and Philip Johnson have announced their retirements, that's 2 job openings you can now apply for.
I don't know who those two are. Perhaps you can elaborate?
Shhhh, do you hear that noise? That's Joseph Campbell turning over in his grave.
Uh, I have been going over his book and he isn't as smart as you think he is. I've been marking mistakes, inaccuracies, half-truths, and outdated materials on almost every page of his occidental book. (It is kind of sad too because he seemed like a very intelligent philosopher.) He is especially iffy regarding much of his beliefs concerning the Old Testament, Yahweh, and Elohim.
I also find that the historical evidence is far stronger supporting the cannon that came from the council of Nicea than what would support the Gnostic books.
Okay, I'm calling you on that one.
One, you don't actually know what the so called Gnostics believed.
Two, you don't know what the historical evidence is, so you have no way to compare Orthodox Christianity with it. And you certainly are unequipped to compare Gnosticism with either Orthodoxy or history.
Ok I'm calling you on calling me on that one. We have a number of Gnostic books that have been recovered in recent years. All of them profess views that are heretical from my standpoint. If you want to argue which standpoint is better, then that is a separate topic.
As for evidence, I know the evidence regarding the known Gnostic books is rather weak, even if I cannot be certain about the books that are still lost. I find that the bible on the other hand, from a strictly historical standpoint is very reliable.
There are no historical records of either Jesus or his Apostles.
That statement seems to contradict itself. I find plenty of historical records, but I have a sneaking suspicion that you wouldn't believe them no matter how sound they are.
The only events that occur in the NT that do have historical records are Baptism in the River Jordan and the Sermon on the mount.
Baptism was a Mithric initiation rite that was dedicated to the Persian demi-god (called a yazatas) "John." It would have been attended mostly by Roman troops and merchants from surrounding countries. NEVER BY JEWS.
The Sermon on the Mount is completely historical. The sermon, the loaves, the fish, the Lords Prayer (except for the 2 words "Our Father") all absolutely historical. That is an accurate description of the Mass of Mithra, common to all of Zoroasterianism. They held it every Sunday rain or shine. Sunday is the Sabbath to them because Mithra is the Sol Invictus, unlike the Jews who hold their Sabbath a day earlier. The Roman Legions stationed in Israel would have attended these services regularly. Jews wouldn't have gone anywhere near them.
I'll ignore your claim regarding historical records for now because I don't buy it. As for Mithric and Zoroastrian similarities found within the New Testament. Even the Hebrews had religious practices that were from other religions and societies. The God of the bible is one to adopt pagan practices that are based off of His shadow and turn them into true worship. Although I am still engrossed in the occidental book, I want to eventually see what the Mithra book that I bought says as well. (It is all coming slowly. Just hang on, I'll try and form a response eventually.)
You would think that when the |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2001 : 11:58:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Dr. Frankenstein: Would you mind telling me who's brain I did put in?
Igor: And you won't be angry?
Dr. Frankenstein: I will NOT be angry.
Igor: Abby someone.
Dr. Frankenstein: Abby someone. Abby who?
Igor: Abby Normal.
Hehe I related this bit over in another topic...
------------
Gambatte kudasai!
Edited by - tokyodreamer on 06/25/2001 12:07:21 |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2001 : 12:57:25 [Permalink]
|
I don't know who those two (Duane Gish and Philip Johnson) are. Perhaps you can elaborate?
Both are leaders in the Creationism movement. Gish has headed CRI for the past 6000 years and Johnson is a Prof over at Berkeley.
I've been marking mistakes, inaccuracies, half-truths, and outdated materials on almost every page of his (Joseph Campbell) occidental book. (It is kind of sad too because he seemed like a very intelligent philosopher.) He is especially iffy regarding much of his beliefs concerning the Old Testament, Yahweh, and Elohim.
I didn't think that you would like what he had to say, that's why I recommended him to you. He wasn't a Philosopher he was a Mythologist. He is not stating "beliefs" when he traces the origins of Yahweh and Elohim. He is stating very well documented (look in the back of the book at the several thousand reference notes) research
We have a number of Gnostic books that have been recovered in recent years. All of them profess views that are heretical from my standpoint. If you want to argue which standpoint is better, then that is a separate topic.
The only Gnostic gospel I personally have read is Thomas. The question remains "which is the heresy?" Is it the Arian (Gnostic is a slight that the Catholics put on these books) or the gospels you are familiar with. They both come from the same time period, they both have the same claims of authority, yet they contradict each other. You have no way to truly know which is correct.
There are no historical records of either Jesus or his Apostles.
That statement seems to contradict itself. I find plenty of historical records, but I have a sneaking suspicion that you wouldn't believe them no matter how sound they are.
We will never know, will we, because you are never going to tell me what these records are. Oh yeah, you've got these great historical records but I won't "believe" them, so nah-nah-a-boo-boo I can't see them.
Let me guess, the Angel Moroni gave you these records on an invisible gold plate.
Do they not appear at this seance because there is a doubter in the room?
Even the Hebrews had religious practices that were from other religions and societies. The God of the bible is one to adopt pagan practices that are based off of His shadow and turn them into true worship.
Somebody hasn't been reading his Exodus.
… I have found accounts (earthquakes, darkness at mid-day, veil of temple rent, dead walking streets) of these events you describe. All of the
details are there, from Romans and Jews.
Then let's see them. I think you are making this up.
Well, may I ask how you know the fact that Constantine never converted to Christianity?
Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
While you are at it, can you explain why public opinion is not important?
Public opinion is of no importance because what we are trying to find here is the facts.
A little story--when my daughter, who is 6 or seven years older than you, was in second grade they had a hamster in the classroom. No one could tell if it was a girl or a boy so they decided to vote on it. My daughter came home very upset about how stupid her classmates (and her teacher) were. If the hamster was a girl it didn't matter if every last child voted that it was a boy. The fact remanded that it was a girl.
I find that public opinion is composed of individual opinions and the early Christians lived far closer to the biblical events than you did, can you explain how this is so easily discounted?
You already know the answer to this. You discount the opinions of all of those people who lived closer to, and believed in, Buddha, Mohammed, Osiris, and even Joseph Smith. The list goes on and on of man/gods you don't believe in that had contemporaries who were ready to die for them. You also reject the opinions of the majority of early Christians and claim their opinions (Gnostic) aren't tru |
|
|
|
Tiptup
Skeptic Friend
USA
86 Posts |
Posted - 06/27/2001 : 07:01:39 [Permalink]
|
Gish has headed CRI for the past 6000 years and Johnson is a Prof over at Berkeley.
Oh. I cannot stand the CRI. They torture what the bible's plain language actually says just to match their own preconceived notions. What makes you think I would want anything to do with such an organization?
I didn't think that you would like what he (Joseph Campbell) had to say, that's why I recommended him to you. He wasn't a Philosopher he was a Mythologist. He is not stating "beliefs" when he traces the origins of Yahweh and Elohim. He is stating very well documented (look in the back of the book at the several thousand reference notes) research.
Oh I'm finding the book very interesting. It gives me insight into where you are coming from. As for his knowledge of mythology, he mixes his beliefs or philosophy into his interpretations, this is what I found very interesting. The “well documented research” regarding Yahweh and Elohim that he states is based on the (now) outdated beliefs of Liberal Christians and other biblical critics, not archeology or history. (At least not as far as I have discovered.)
There are no historical records of either Jesus or his Apostles.
That statement seems to contradict itself. I find plenty of historical records, but I have a sneaking suspicion that you wouldn't believe them no matter how sound they are.
We will never know, will we, because you are never going to tell me what these records are. Oh yeah, you've got these great historical records but I won't "believe" them, so nah-nah-a-boo-boo I can't see them.
Let me guess, the Angel Moroni gave you these records on an invisible gold plate.
Do they not appear at this seance because there is a doubter in the room?
Well if you really want to know them I can post them at any time. I thought that I would finish studying your comparative mythologies first though. I had no idea that you were waiting for them with such anticipation. I figured that most people here could care less when I posted my information.
Somebody hasn't been reading his Exodus.
That can't be me. I just finished another study of Exodus a couple months ago.
… I have found accounts (earthquakes, darkness at mid-day, veil of temple rent, dead walking streets) of these events you describe. All of the
details are there, from Romans and Jews.
Then let's see them. I think you are making this up.
No I am not making it up. I'll get to work on a paper right away since your being so “mean”.
Public opinion is of no importance because what we are trying to find here is the facts.
A little story--when my daughter, who is 6 or seven years older than you, was in second grade they had a hamster in the classroom. No one could tell if it was a girl or a boy so they decided to vote on it. My daughter came home very upset about how stupid her classmates (and her teacher) were. If the hamster was a girl it didn't matter if every last child voted that it was a boy. The fact remanded that it was a girl.
Yes, but the public opinion of the early Christians was supposedly based on the study of facts as they saw them, not blind belief. Those who claimed to be first-hand witnesses had enough confidence to die for what they claimed to be facts. If it were not for this Martyrdom, I doubt Christianity would have spread and grown as fast as it did under the circumstances of the early Christians. Unless of course you believe all of that to be the rewriting of history by the latter Church, which contradicts the information uncovered by a number of disciplines that I know of.
You discount the opinions of all of those people who lived closer to, and believed in, Buddha, Mohammed, Osiris, and even Joseph Smith. The list goes on and on of man/gods you don't believe |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 06/27/2001 : 13:30:21 [Permalink]
|
Oh. I cannot stand the CRI.
Sorry, a senior moment on my part. He isn't head of CRI he is the head of ICR. All these hucksters start to look alike after awhile.
The "well documented research" regarding Yahweh and Elohim that he states is based on the (now) outdated beliefs of Liberal Christians and other biblical critics, not archeology or history. (At least not as far as I have discovered.)
Not according to his bibliography. What history and what archeological findings do you think should be included in new editions of the book?
Well if you really want to know them I can post them at any time…I had no idea that you were waiting for them with such anticipation. I figured that most people here could care less when I posted my information.
You have been claiming to be in possession of; and I have been requesting this information since we started months and months ago. What does it take to list some references? You don't have to supply the actual material, I'd be more than happy to acquire it myself--if only I knew what it was.
No I am not making (Roman & Jewish accounts of dead walking streets, veil of temple rent, darkness at mid day, etc.) up. I'll get to work on a paper right away since your being so "mean".
Don't trouble yourself with a full length paper. Just give the references. Of course this is actually me still being "mean." I know you don't have any references.
Yes, but the public opinion of the early Christians was supposedly based on the study of facts as they saw them, not blind belief. Those who claimed to be first-hand witnesses had enough confidence to die for what they claimed to be facts.
There is no historic record of any of these first hand witnesses. They are all based solely on myth. It doesn't matter what wonderful things they did or felt--they are fictional.
And since the entire Jesus scenario is taken straight from previously existing
Mythologies it would be absurd to suppose that there were "first-hand witnesses."
If it were not for this Martyrdom, I doubt Christianity would have spread and grown as fast as it did under the circumstances of the early Christians. Unless of course you believe all of that to be the rewriting of history by the latter Church, which contradicts the information uncovered by a number of disciplines that I know of.
Are you again in possession of secret information? These hollow claims are becoming wearisome.
I even believe Hercules and Gilgamesh are based on real people, or at least ideas formed into them from reality.
You are probably right in both cases. Most mythologists hold that Heracles is the base myth for the Jesus/Mithra character.
I also do not discount the beliefs of the Gnostics, although I do not accept the idea that they comprised majority of early Christians, even though their literature may have been widespread. I even believe that many of the Gnostics were true Christians, even though I disagree with a lot of their less vital beliefs. I cannot completely reject any of those religious beliefs as you reject Christianity. I just find that the surviving version of Christianity to be the correct one based on what I know.
You keep saying this, and it makes no sense at all.
The "surviving version of Christianity" is the ONLY record of the life of Jesus. There is nothing else to check the "facts" against. There is no written record from that time of these events. The archeological findings that have been made show that Gnosticism was extremely wide spread.
I cannot stress this strongly enough--neither the Orthodox nor the Gnostic versions represent a version of history. It never happened. No Jesus, no Virgin Mary, no Joseph, no Holy Ghost, no God the Father, no first hand witnesses. It's just a story.
You said that you rely on experts in a given field that you are not well versed in. I was pointing out that there could be differing experts within the same field. You ob |
|
|
|
Tiptup
Skeptic Friend
USA
86 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2001 : 09:40:36 [Permalink]
|
Don't trouble yourself with a full length paper. Just give the references. Of course this is actually me still being "mean." I know you don't have any references.
Well since I will be going over your older statements concerning the historicity of Jesus, I might as well put it together into a reply of some kind. I'll put my basic ideas down along with the references you so diligently seek. |
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2001 : 17:32:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
What can be seen in the NT is Jesus always showing respect for Rome. Give unto Caesar… and such. While making the Jewish authorities out to be villains.
Don't forget that Rome (in the person of Pontius Pilate) also shows respect for Jesus as well. The early Christians weren't fools. They saw what happened to Jerusalem in 70 CE.
Greg.
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2001 : 14:42:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Just give the references. Of course this is actually me still being "mean." I know you don't have any references.
Well since I will be going over your older statements concerning the historicity of Jesus, I might as well put it together into a reply of some kind. I'll put my basic ideas down along with the references you so diligently seek.
Well, it's been almost a month now that we've been waiting for those pesky references. This "thread" was about to slip out of the "30 days" folder, so I thought that I would just pop in to remind Tiptup and renew the thread.
Can't find them can you, son?
I know that I can't and I've been looking for a hell of a lot longer than a month. It may be why broven never returned. It's why I left Christianity and never came back.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2001 : 14:08:22 [Permalink]
|
The end of the Eighteenth Century was affectionately known as the "Age of Reason". I wonder what they will call the beginning of the Twenty-first? One of the most reasonable people was Thomas Paine, the author of Common Sense a book that should be required reading for any Skeptic. But the poor lad has fallen out of literary favor. So I thought that I might include a piece of his here where he touches on, almost as eloquently as meself, a topic we previously discussed. The fortune teller Isaiah and his attributed prediction of Jesus.
quote:
The story is simply this: The king of Syria and the king of Israel (I have already mentioned that the Jews were split into two nations, one of which was called Judah, the capital of which was Jerusalem, and the other Israel), made war jointly against Ahaz, king of Judah, and marched their armies towards Jerusalem. Ahaz and his people became alarmed, and the account says verse 2, "And his heart was moved, and the heart of his people, as the trees of the wood are moved with the wind."
In this situation of things, Isaiah addresses himself to Ahaz, and assures him in the name of the Lord (the cant phrase of all the prophets) that these two kings should not succeed against him; and to satisfy Ahaz that this should be the case, tells him to ask a sign. This, the account says, Ahaz declined doing; giving as a reason that he would not tempt the Lord; upon which Isaiah, who is the speaker, says, ver. 14, "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son;" and the 16th verse says, "For before this child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land which thou abhorrest (or dreadest, meaning Syria and the kingdom of Israel) shall be forsaken of both her kings." Here then was the sign, and the time limited for the completion of the assurance or promise; namely, before this child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good.
Isaiah having committed himself thus far, it became necessary to him, in order to avoid the imputation of being a false prophet, and the consequences thereof, to take measures to make this sign appear. It certainly was not a difficult thing, in any time of the world, to find a girl with child, or to make her so; and perhaps Isaiah knew of one beforehand; for I do not suppose that the prophets of that day were any more to be trusted than the priests of this. Be that, however, as it may, he says in the next chapter, ver. 2, "And I took unto me faithful witnesses to record, Uriah the priest, and Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah, and I went unto the prophetess, and she conceived and bare a son."
Here then is the whole story, foolish as it is, of this child and this virgin; and it is upon the barefaced perversion of this story that the book of Matthew, and the impudence and sordid interest of priests in later times, have founded a theory, which they call the Gospel; and have applied this story to signify the person they call Jesus Christ; begotten, they say, by a ghost, whom they call holy, on the body of a woman, engaged in marriage, and afterwards married, whom they call a virgin, 700 years after this foolish story was told; a theory which, speaking for myself, I hesitate not to believe, and to say, is as fabulous and as false as God is true.
But to show the imposition and falsehood of Isaiah we have only to attend to the sequel of this story; which, though it is passed over in silence in the book of Isaiah, is related in the 28th chapter of the second Chronicles, and which is, that instead of these two kings failing in their attempt against Ahaz, king of Judah, as Isaiah had pretended to foretell in the name of the Lord, they succeeded; Ahaz was defeated and destroyed; an hundred and twenty thousand of his people were slaughtered; Jerusalem was plundered, and two hundred thousand women, and sons and daughters carried into captivity. Thus much for this lying prophet and imposter, Isaiah, and the book of falsehoods that bears his name.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
