|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
 Posted - 05/26/2001 : 19:31:27 [Permalink]
|
I did find some interesting material on the web. Always a good way to find some quick gratification ; )
Some of it was New Age stuff that didn't even do more than mention Mithra.
Then I found a cool page that ticked off the things you said: virgin birth, salvation from baptism etc etc. Interestingly enough no tie was made to Mithra and Christ. It was a just a list of things attributined to Mithraism.
There was also a ton of information about Zoroaster relating to Mithra. Sure I had to poke around a bit to find all this, but it's there.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
 |
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2001 : 20:32:11 [Permalink]
|
@tomic, you tell us you found some good sites and then don't provide links? sheesh, you're gonna make me find them myself?
------------
Gambatte kudasai! |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2001 : 20:33:23 [Permalink]
|
@tomic— You probably won't find sites relating Mithra to Jesus.
That's what you have me for.
The facts are there for the taking, make what you will of them.
Remember, it's dangerous to tell the Emperor that he isn't wearing any clothes. Dispite the ongoing debate at this site over Atheists not having morals it is the Christians who have been torturing & murdering doubters for the last 1800 years
If you would like to find out where "Christ" (as oppossed to Jesus) came from do a web scearch for Apollonius of Tyana.
Seek (or is that web–scearch) and ye shall find.
When the dead talk -- they talk to him |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2001 : 20:36:25 [Permalink]
|
The problem I have with web searches is just how little information you find. The average info–web-site is about the size of a longish magazine article. But, I suppose, it's a good place to start.
The site about Saul and Mithra doesn't come right out and say it, but it strongly backs up the standard comparitive mytholigical view of Pauline Christianity. That is that Saul crafted it out of Zoroasterism and that is why he had so many "fights" with Peter. This is backed up by the fact that there were also large centers for the worship of Mary and Dionysos in Tarsus. That and Paul admits to having a nervous collapse while on a business trip to Damascus, just before he reinvents Christianity.Poor guy even has hysterical blindness, not your most stable person.
What I am proposing is a more radical view. The reason I am taking this view are the suspicious names Peter, Paul and Christ
Peter, or Rocky, has long been used by the Roman Catholics to authenticate their Pope. "On this ROCK I shall build my church." Was a word for word quote from the Zend Avesta it was referring to the sacred rock that Mithra was born from. Peter being a member of the same twelve Apostles who followed Mithra it would seem safe to discount him having been an historic figure.
I can't find the name "Paul" anywhere before the Apostle. But I can find the name Poll. Poll was the common nick name for people named Apollonius. And when you get to Apollonius of Tyana you find him closely associated with Christ.
Poll was born around 4 CE and grew up to become a Pythagorean. In his late teens he went on a pilgrimage in the footsteps of Alexander the Great. When Poll got to India he was fascinated, like Alexander's' lieutenants before him, with Hinduism, seeing in it the origins of the Greek philosophies. For five years he studied with the monks of Krishna. When he came back to the Empire he started preaching about Krishna, of course speaking in Greek, Krishna became Christos. Apollonius was so good looking and such a moving speaker that many of the wealthy women of Rome started following his teachings. By 33 CE there was a large following of Christos, or Christ as he was known in Latin, in Rome among these women. Apollonius wrote several books and went on tours around the Italy and Greece. He cured the lame, gave sight to the blind and one time brought the dead back to life (although an eyewitness said that he couldn't swear that the girl in question was actually dead). He also came into and out of fashion in his long life.
The Christians insist that Nero had it in for them. A close check of history finds that Nero had it in for ALL philosophers. At the same time that Paul and Peter were supposed to be arrested and executed by Nero Apollonius was also arrested. The Emperor had Apollonius brought before him in chains. "There is nothing your Christ can do to save you from the God Nero," he boasted. At this Apollonius snapped his fingers and disappeared leaving nothing but a pile of chains. At the same moment he reappeared two days march away. Beats the heck out of being crucified upside down like Peter.
Apollonius lived to be 101 years old.
These stories suggest that the early Roman Christians were worshipers of Krishna and not Jesus. Jesus not getting mixed up with the Christ for years yet.
As I said, this is a more radical view that I am proposing than that generally held by those who support a "constructed Christianity." It does, however, fit the known facts, and would explain why some philosophies of that time were suppressed while every educated person knew of the "classical" Gods.
When the dead talk -- they talk to him |
|
|
|
Tiptup
Skeptic Friend
USA
86 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2001 : 20:42:23 [Permalink]
|
[QUOTE]Originally posted by JohnPaul Slater:
You express chagrin about Christians ignoring the statistics about people involved in role playing games. You might remember that I felt the same way about Atheist statistics.
No, in case you don't remember, we were debating on a philosophical issue. If we were debating which group is more moral, then your statistics would have been useful.
You show a very healthy skepticism —until you reach the subject of God. Then you stop dead in your tracks. Magic suddenly becomes possible. Why is that?
I never said magic is or is not possible. All I am saying is that if there is anything modern science has shown us, that is that the universes laws are not rigid and inflexible. Also because of the very nature of science we can never say that we know something to be impossible. This is especially true in the bible which claims God performed these miracles. If anything can pull off something that we don't scientifically understand, it would be God who understands everything.
1. What Hebrew bible…" THE Hebrew bible.
Reading the OT leads you almost step by step to the coming of the Messiah. Reading the Hebrew Bible would leave you with no such impression. You can check it out by talking with your local Rabbi. He or she would probably be more than happy to straighten you out on the subject.
Ok, that is why I was wondering what you meant. The Hebrew bible contains all of the books within my "Christian old testament". Now, the Hebrew bible may contain books that are not in the Christian Old Testament, but that is because Christians do not believe them to be inspired. Second, whatever the beliefs modern Judaists hold to, that does not negate what the Hebrew bible actually says. That is made most evident by the fact that they ignore most of the Hebrew bible's ritual ordinances for things like the forgiveness of sins.
Christians are monotheistic and so is the Hebrew bible. If you are referring to the trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), then that is a doctrine that comes from the Hebrew bible. The Christian New Testament only confirms that doctrine of the trinity. Just because there are heretics that don't even understand their own bible, does not mean they speak for it, or that you should buy every word they say.
As for being straightened out on the subject of what the Hebrew bible would leave me to believe. I have read all the parts of the Hebrew bible that are contained in the Christian Old Testament; have you? They contain one prophecy about the Messiah after another. And most fundamentalist Jews agree with that. Unfortunately many do not believe that the Messiah has come yet. That is based off misinterpretations.
Just because you listen to some wacko statement from a liberal Rabbi, does not mean that is what all Jews believe. In fact this may surprise you, but the first Christians were Jews, and there are many Jews today that believe Jesus was the true Messiah spoken of in the "Hebrew bible". Maybe you should go and ask a Messianic Jew to set you straight on this subject.
Isaiah VII "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel: GOD WITH US" Izzy tells this claptrap to his king in the Hebrew Bible and runs right out to find the kid. Overjoyed with this sign from God the King charges into battle—and promptly loses. Ooopsy
Yeah that sure fulfills the prophecies concerning the messiah. You know what, I think your right. Yeah Jesus wasn't the Messiah, some kid that someone went to find and caused a king to loose a battle was...
The Hebrews were not expecting a God; just a human hero. They, by that time, were strict mono-theists.
That doesn't answer my question about what the Hebrew bible really says. I don't care if some people were monotheists at some point in history, for I am also a monotheist. I am asking you to tell me how the prophecies concerning the Messiah, in the Hebrew bi |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2001 : 20:44:10 [Permalink]
|
The bible says this...the bible says that!!!! Touched a nerve there, did I?
You should remember, Tiptup, that in debating an Atheist it does you little good to fall upon the authority of the Bible. Since you (as we Atheists contend) have not even established the existence of any Gods, musty old books about them cannot be expected to be granted authority.
Have I read the NT and the OT? Yes, of course I have. You cannot be considered a literate man without having done so. I appear to have read further into Isaiah than you.
I find it difficult to believe that anyone who has read these books cover to cover (and not just the nice–nice Sunday school -Readers Digest Edition-parts) could believe such nonsense. I am not an Atheist because I do not know the so -called "word of God." I am an Atheist because I have studied it thoroughly and have compared it to the religions of other people and found it wanting.
"If you want what the bible says on this matter, then just pick a book in the New Testament or especially the Old Testament; you'll then easily see that it condemns all of mankind as sinners in need of salvation. This is due to the misuse of free will among mankind's earliest parents."
Ah yes, all of mankind condemned. What sick mind wrote that part? They eat the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil and so misused freewill. Of course before they ate it they didn't know the difference between right and wrong but they, and everyone else are punished anyway. And no one ever mentions how free will can be free if use of it involves punishment. I believe I wrote a parable about just this that one of our Christian guests said was a strawman argument. Stories like this could only come from desert nomads. You would never find such a myth from an area where food is easy to come by.
I'm sorry that your experiences in (bible) life have left you bitter about "inherently evil" mankind. Myself I recently drove from New York to Atlanta and then on to California. I traveled with my dog and stopped frequently. Over the course of the trip I literally met hundreds of people (it's a very cute dog) and I can honestly say that there wasn't one of them that I didn't like. Sin nature, inherently evil—nonsense, nothing of the sort. The overwhelming majority of people are very nice. If the (Protestant) bible says otherwise then it needs to be edited (again).
Yes, of course the Mithra story comes from still earlier myths. No one said that it didn't.
The dying and resurrecting God is a basic agrarian mythology. You will find common stories from Northern India to Spain. The God always comes back to life at the beginning of spring just as the crops always come back to life then. Duh!
You don't find dead and resurrected Gods in southern India or South East Asia because they don't have a winter season.
What I said about the difference between the Hebrew Bible and the OT stands. If your idea of a knowledgeable Jew is a "Jew for Jesus" and not a Rabbi you are in trouble.
Try "God a biography" by Jack Miles. It's not some slipshod attack on religion. Miles was a former Jesuit. It won the Pulitzer Prize in 1995.
If you are going to "pound the bible" at least know what you are talking about.
Of course the question of an historic Jesus is one you haven't addressed. You mock my research—without going to the trouble of verifying it. It doesn't sound right to you but you don't look into it. It goes right to the heart of a subject that you consider extremely important, but you still don't check it. Are you afraid of what you might find? It's scholarly research, not based on emotions. Not based on mere faith. If you can find anything I've missed or misrepresented please tell me. We are talking detective work here, science, history. If I've got facts wrong I want to know. You also mock me as a person. If you just want to tell me that I'm a bad person and I am saying things that you are uncomfortable hearing then give me the evidence for the historic Jesus, and I'll retract everything I have said.
Otherwise, as we say in poker, put up or shut up
When the dead talk -- they talk to him |
|
|
|
Tiptup
Skeptic Friend
USA
86 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2001 : 20:45:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnPaul Slater:
The bible says this...the bible says that!!!! Touched a nerve there, did I?
Ohhh... how cute. Did I touch a nerve with your atheistic beliefs? I'm sorry that I seem to bring out your childish debate tactics as well.
You try to say what is in the bible but your own ignorance of what it says shows that you have either forgotten its words or that you are lying about them. Your silly tirade about what you believe the bible says about God illustrates this perfectly. Indeed your lack of knowledge concerning the Old Testaments messianic prophecies does this as well. If you could back up the stuff you say about the bible with some quotes, then maybe I would take you more seriously.
As for my own study of the bible, I am only 20 years old and have not read each individual area in great detail yet. I do have a life. But if you must know I have done, at least, overview studies of each of the books, including Isaiah. Just what part of that book do you believe I need to read, for your “scientific” discussion?
At any rate I will try to answer your other points at a later time. Keep in mind though, just because you are an atheist does not mean your views are necessarily better than others. There have been far greater men and women than you that have existed throughout history, and many of them were not atheists. Just because I do not instantly worship at the feet of your brilliance, does not mean I have a closed mind. You illustrate your own pride by attempting to put me down in such a fashion.
Tiptup
-------------------------
I DON'T MAKE SENSE-I GOT MY PRIDE; DON'T NEED NO MEANING; I FEEL NO SHAME-I WILL NOT BELIEVE; I GOT NO CHOICE-I'M OUT OF CONTROL; AND I LOVE IT!! |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2001 : 20:46:44 [Permalink]
|
I just happened to be flipping through the channels late the other night and the PBS series about the Bible was on. I had forgotton a lot of it, but it is a very interesting show.
I found it very interesting that things Jesus did or said in the Bible related more the the writers of the Gospels and the times they lived in rather than the time Jesus lived in.
I wonder how the Christian community took this series. A lot of what is said in it could be particulalry irritating to fundamentalists.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Tiptup
Skeptic Friend
USA
86 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2001 : 20:49:44 [Permalink]
|
I watched it as well. Just so you know, I did find it irritating somewhat. Not their views on the gospels, when and how they were written, that was their particular veiwpoint and I can tolerate that. I was irritated by their interpretations of various ideas that the New Testament tried to communicate. We fundamentalists hold to views that were very different in alot of cases. I think this stems from the fact that fundamentalists try to find the balance of all scripture, while the Jesus Seminar types of that PBS show tend to take verses and stuff out of context as a way to push their views of it. One show that I watched frontline do on the apocalypse sometimes didn't even quote whole verses in an attempt to make the book of Revelation sound the way they wanted. But at any rate, it was entertaining I suppose.
Tiptup
-------------------------
I DON'T MAKE SENSE-I GOT MY PRIDE; DON'T NEED NO MEANING; I FEEL NO SHAME-I WILL NOT BELIEVE; I GOT NO CHOICE-I'M OUT OF CONTROL; AND I LOVE IT!! |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2001 : 20:50:56 [Permalink]
|
If there are people who are better than me (whatever that means) who disagree with my theories, there is a simple explanation.
They are wrong.
Oh, lighten up Tiptup, that was a joke.
But I gotta tellya, I'm several times 20 years old, I hold a couple of advanced degrees, have an IQ in the top one percent and am a member of what is laughingly known as a "government think tank." I am confident that I can hold my own in any crowd. Don't hold up these vague, unnamed, superior people to me– they are superfluous to any point you are making.
A friend of mine, who is a Jesuit physicist, often refers to what he calls "the fundamentalist cult of the bible." He would be interested in your take on that.
You claim that the OT has 200 prophecies concerning Jesus. Seems like an awful lot. More than could actually fit between the covers and still leave room for talking snakes, earth's rotation suddenly stopping, and your occasional plague of frogs. No matter, I've long since tossed my bible into the trash, if you say two hundred I'll take your word. Did you count them yourself, or did a minister give you this number?
So what do we know about prophecies and prophets?
Every modern one from Nostradamous to Jean Dixon to the Psychic Friends Network has had one thing in common. When closely checked they have been shown to be frauds.
When every single prophet that we can check isn't real does it make sense to assume otherwise for ones we can't check?
Of all the hundreds of books about the thousands of Gods who were worshiped in the Middle East why should we pick Yahweh and his particular bible? Because it came along with Jesus as part of a package deal.On it's own it's nothing but archaic exercise.
And why is Jesus worshipped in Europe, because the Imperial government (and later the Roman Catholic Church) made it a capital offense not to worship him (and by extension, them).
You have shown no evidence for an historic Jesus.
You have shown no evidence for an historic Yahweh.
Attacking me is not a substitute for proof.
If you have any proof cough it up—if you don't why do you believe what you believe?
When the dead talk -- they talk to him |
|
|
|
Tiptup
Skeptic Friend
USA
86 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2001 : 20:52:42 [Permalink]
|
Oh, I'm sorry I have been bothering someone as phenomenal as you with these silly notions of mine. Please forgive me. I don't deserve to live without your blessing, oh perfect one. Obviously no vague person in history can compare to you, I realize this now. If only I could go back in time and tell my previous self that you are someone who should never be questioned. Truly your experience and knowledge outweigh any sort stupid beliefs that people such as myself may hold to.
Wait a minute, there's something wrong here. Is that scientific of me, to blindly accept something, just because some person says so? You know what sir? I think you are full of it.
I have tried to take and examine what you are saying, but just because I mention my personal beliefs in a discussion, you seem to think it is fit to spit on me. I notice that every time I mention some view that I hold to, or question one of your assumptions, you get more and more offended and offensive. Have I no right to disagree with your ideas?
Another thing, I could care less about what little "government think tank" you are a member of. Lord knows there are enough hot air organizations mooching off society already. At any rate, if you believe yourself to be an expert on the bible and yet cannot even get simple biblical theology straight, then you are less intelligent than you seem to think you are. That would be like a scientist listening to someone talk about special relativity that totally misunderstands the basic notions behind it. Would you hold that person to be credible with that topic? Well, in the same way, if you misunderstand the simple ideas that the bible says about God, then why should I believe anything else you say about its theology? Or, if you contend that your theological statements on the God of the bible are correct, then back them up with some scripture quotes. Otherwise don't expect me to instantly agree with you or with some heretical Jesuit.
When I say that your ideas lack no merit, this is precisely because you have not backed them up. It is not an attack on you or anybody else. Instead of criticizing me as some sort of a mindless zealot, you should be backing up your own ideas, unless of course you are unable to do this, because your ideas actually do lack merit. (That certainly wouldn't be the first time for someone associated with something like a "government think tank".) In that case, I suggest you limit yourself from attacking your opponent and be quite.
When you bring up all the stupid things that you believe the bible says, then I will talk about what the bible actually says. In response, all you seem to be able to do is make fun of me because I said “the bible says this, or the bible says that”, and this is when you were the first person to bring up what the bible supposedly says. For an atheist you seem to rely heavily on your own misinterpretations of the bible. Anyhow, to lampoon me, just because I was trying to hold your backwards ideas accountable is not acting very grown up on your part. For someone so much older and more intelligent than me, you sure don't seem like it.
Anyways, about your information, I still am planning to look over the books and things you referenced. I'm sorry to say that this is mostly because I am having trouble making sense of what you say. I didn't want to say what I am about to say before, but since we are being so candid I'll bring it up. You seem to communicate in a very sloppy manner. You go all over the place, from one idea to another, never legitimizing any of it to a reasonable degree. (God forbid you ever become a teacher.) So in the end I suppose the only way I'll be able to objectively look at your ideas is to thoroughly researching them myself.
Also where is does this number of 200 come from? I don't remember mentioning anything of the kind; once again you erroneously put words into my mouth. This is not the first time you have done this either, you have done this many times |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2001 : 20:54:23 [Permalink]
|
Hmm, I believe I see the (a) problem here, Tiptup. Mr. Slater is basing all of his arguments on a plethora of written works and histories, while you keep saying "show me where it says that in the Bible", while ignoring the other evidence. The whole point is, why do you believe the bible is accurate? This thread is called "Did Jesus Really Exist?", and so far the evidence says 'NO'. The Bible is NOT a reliable source, it is a work of propaganda from a little less than two thousand years ago. It is not on us (atheists) to "prove" this, the burden is upon you. Why do you believe the Bible? What evidence do you have, not only that the Bible is accurate (which is has been PROVEN time and again as not being) but that all the other writings and evidence are wrong? People back then picked and chose between many different writings, found some they liked that fit their purpose, ordered them the way they wanted, not the way they were written, made some stuff up, and for some odd reason, people still buy this nonsensical religion today.
------------
Gambatte kudasai! |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2001 : 20:56:02 [Permalink]
|
Like so many people I tend to have a parochial view of the world, seeing everywhere as an extension of the place that I live. Here intellectualism is the local industry. It is no stranger for a person in this area to be a Ph.D. than it is for someone in Detroit to be an autoworker. It seems strange, and a bit flattering, that you should consider a statement of my attributes to be boasting.
No need to concern yourself about either "think tanks" or my going into teaching. I can assure you that the taxpayers are getting more than their moneys worth & that I have no interest in teaching whatsoever.
As for Jesuit "heresy" —the major denominations of Christianity do not share the same view of the bible as "fundamentalists." Rather they view it as a history / instruction book. This is why you will never find a Dominican arguing over minor inconsistencies in the bible as these are of no consequence to them.
I think where you are having difficulty understanding me (and I in turn misunderstanding your misunderstandings) is that you think that I am discussing theology and its merits. I am not. I am discussing comparative theology, or as I have been calling it (from my Atheistic point of reference) comparative mythology. In comparative theology one is not so concerned with what a religion teaches but rather how that relates the teachings of other religions.
There is a charming book by Diane Wolkstein called "The First Love Stories" This work of comparative mythology traces different cultures views of love from Isis & Osris to Tristran & Iseult. Wolkstein does not step on any toes as I am doing. You might find it interesting.
I have given you my theory, brief outlines of the source myths and references for a more in depth study. I don't know what more you could want. What I am trying to do is to point you in the direction of certain information that I believe will have an impact on your point of view vis–á–vis religion. I am stating my view as clearly as I can. I'm sorry you find my use of language hard to follow, as I said, I am Irish (by birth not just decent) and that is the way we speak. Do I sometimes ramble? Hey, I'm old! It took a long time and a lot of hard work to become old, so cut me some slack.
Since I am putting my views on the public forum, particularly on a "skeptic" forum, I expect skepticism. My hopes are purely self serving, that is I hope that one of the people who is reading this might point out any of the flaws in my logic so that I might refine my views. I am not concerned that you believe what I am saying, I am only concerned that I get the facts straight.
There is an old saying that history is written by the winners. The Church is the ultimate winner. I am trying to view history not through the eyes of the church but through cold facts, in an attempt to develop a more accurate view of the world.
You may not care about facts, you may only be concerned with faith—but you are still a help to me. Thank you.
NT vs. OT
Hank Hannagraaf, that guy we all love to hate, likes to say that you must judge what you read in the bible by that which you read elsewhere in the bible. This leaves you with some pretty pieces of circular logic.
For instance—we know Jesus is the Messiah because he fulfills the messianic prophecies of the Old Testament.
Why should we listen to the religious books of an obscure minor tribe in the Middle East? Because Jesus tells us to do so.
What comparative mythology does is lift you out of the middle of this circle and let you see how it compares with the rest of the worlds belief systems. It can't tell you the "truth" it can only compare.
Was Jesus the Messiah the Jews were expecting?
Christians say yes, but he was even more than they had dreamed of—a Messiah to the whole world.
The Jews have had a number of men who claimed to be the Messiah pop up through their history, the most recent passed away only a few years ago in Brooklyn, NY. The original concept of Messiah was a King who would lead them to victory and freedom from the Greeks. A "God-man" is a Persian and not a Jewish concept. No "God-man" is mentioned in the Hebrew Bible. (If he is in the OT that would show editorial work beyond the obvious rearrangement that we were looking for) They waited so long for him that the Romans conquered the Greeks, somewhat changing the Messiahs job description.
Did Jesus the Messiah free the Jews from Rome as prophesized? Well…actually the Romans destroyed Israel and drove the Jews to the Four Corners of the Earth. That is probably the reason why if you asked a Jew today if Jesus is the Messiah they would say no.
However when you get to comparative mythology and match the story up against Mithric messianic prophecies Jesus fulfills them letter by letter.
This is the part that I find suspicious, as this was the religion of most of the Roman Legions. The first time Rome uses Christianity (the first unquestioned records that Christianity even existed) was not to keep the people quiet. It was to wage the bloodiest civil wars human kind had known to that time.
Of course what I am suggesting is not that Jesus was one groups messiah or their neighbors. I'm suggesting that the known facts of prevailing mythologies taken along with the complete lack of collaborating evidence strongly imply that Jesus was a fictional character. I also contend that it points you toward the probable author.
" These documents that you say helped uphold Roman society and its enslavement of its people, did not do this. In fact, the bible had the opposite effect, even with the corruption of the Church into the political world doing everything in its power to stop this."
I don't think history will support your assertion.
First the pure Church corrupting into the political world I believe is an assumption. Every piece of verifiable research that I can lay my hands on shows that the Church was attached to the government from day one, separation coming only after the government collapsed and the church did not.
As for the positive effect of the bible on the Western world, that came only after the Reformation. You must remember that to the historic Christian church access to the bible was forbidden to all but the priesthood. A main objective of the Protestants was to obtain direct access to the bible for the common man.
The first publishers (hand written editions, not type) of translations of the bible were put to death for their troubles.
It is very true that those in the US of the 1800's who were demanding an end to slavery used the bible as the main support to their opinion. But sadly it is also true that the pro slavery side did exactly the same thing.
The bible is almost a perfect bureaucratic tool —so long as you keep it out of the general publics hands, as was done for 1500 years. Look what people can do with it today. Some ministers tell you how Jesus was filthy rich and you should be rich too, some use it to help the unfortunate, some do little magic acts with it on TV, some create great works of art, some use it to bolster their own bigotry. There is even one bunch that thinks the bible wants them to dance around in the backwoods and play with rattlesnakes.
It is the reflection of whoever happens to be using it at the time.
The positive effects being the result of the new philosophy of "humanism" that became prevalent in Europe in reaction to the collapse of the Roman Catholic Church. Humanism, by the bye, not equating with the Atheistic humanism of today but by decent Christians who modified their view of the bible to reflect their own innate goodness.
Shrines! Shrines!
Surely you don't
believe in the gods.
What's your argument?
Where's your proof?
—Aristophanes
When the dead talk -- they talk to him |
|
|
|
Tiptup
Skeptic Friend
USA
86 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2001 : 20:57:27 [Permalink]
|
As I have stated many times. I do plan on researching on whether or not there was a “historical” Jesus. All I was saying is that in the meantime, as I discuss other related issues, that you all do not illegitimately attack me for views I hold. (This is especially true when you guys talk about these things in the first place.) Also I ask that people do not misquote me or expect me to blindly accept and believe what someone else says. Otherwise, I'll just do the same thing back to you guys.
At any rate, I have never said that the gospels are not reliable. It is you people who believe this. And for your sake, I am looking for independent verification of Jesus' life. But if the gospels really are so unreliable, then none of you have given me any evidence to support this. Only vague statements about how they were made up by the Roman government. Well, I think the burden of proof belongs to your side in that case.
As for the Roman government, when I said that the bible tore it down, I was specifically referring to the reformation. The Roman Catholic Church had become more and more corrupted over the years. When the fundamentalist reformers learned of what the bible actually says, society began to make great strides. The only reason that the Roman government and the later monarchies were able to last as long as they did, is because they hid the scriptures and stifled the true faith though their corruption. This is why the Romans joined Christianity, so that they could control it from the inside. (And if you say that the Romans created Christianity one more time without any evidence to reinforce that statement of yours, then I'm going to go crazy. You keep talking about all this information that ties Christianity to Rome, well share it.)
You say that because people believe the bible means different things, that there is no right interpretation. Well, in the end, there can only be one meaning that was intended for any particular text. The difference between liberal Christians who misquote bible verses and fundamentalists, is that we fundies at least try to get the bible's meanings right and don't change them on purpose. The same thing goes for any other heretical church out there. Whether TV evangelist or atheist, if what you say disagrees with the bible, then it cannot be biblical (that's just common sense).
Now, when I called your Jesuit friend a heretic, I was referring to the fact that the Catholic Church holds the doctrine that all scripture is true. If your friend believes that this view is incorrect, then he is a heretic in the Catholic Church, and that is what I meant. If you want to talk about how Roman Catholic theology differs from my own point of view, then that is something different from what I meant.
Also, those Christians, who made up the abolitionist movement, were using a true interpretation of the bible, while their opponents were not. The protestant reformers were fundamentalists like myself and this is one of the things I can easily agree with Hank on, scripture alone. Don't go adding extra crap to what the bible says. Otherwise you can just go and start your own different religion. If you wanna be a Christian, then you should believe the Christian bible.
As for my referring to your "government think tank" in the way I did, or my talking about your other credentials. I was only doing this in a similar fashion as to how you were making fun of me. I wasn't being serious, nor was I expressing any heartfelt beliefs of mine. I trying to let you know how it feels, good night.
Tiptup
-------------------------
I DON'T MAKE SENSE-I GOT MY PRIDE; DON'T NEED NO MEANING; I FEEL NO SHAME-I WILL NOT BELIEVE; I GOT NO CHOICE-I'M OUT OF CONTROL; AND I LOVE IT!! |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
