Reply With Quote
that is the point i was trying to make. there is a difference between giving thanks and worship.
Personally, I think the earth was created from the blood and bones of a dead giant. At least that's what I believe this week.
Next week I will look into the Great Flood from the Mayan creation myths. Had to get rid of those pesky wood people somehow. I wonder if they are the ones that got trapped in the sediment from Mouse's pictures?
that is the point i was trying to make. there is a difference between giving thanks and worship.
I think it's turtles all the way down.
The Young Earth theory would tend to support the Chinese version of creation that gives the age of the Earth at about 40,000 years.
When Pan Gu died, his blood flooded the earth, so any evidence of widespread flood supports this theory too. ;^)
Fun break is over. This heathen needs to get back to work.
I concur.
I think I've met more atheists and agnostics who grew up in the Archdiocese of San Antonio than from any other religious tradition, including secular upbringing. It cranks out religious skeptics like Southern Baptists crank out missionaries.
I have family by marriage who grew up as Catholics in New York, and they said their catechesis consisted of, "You sit here and we'll tell you what you have to believe, and you'll believe every bit of it or you're going to , and don't you dare ask any questions." Every last one of them is Protestant today.
So was San Antonio even worse?
No matter what evidence I show, it doesn't matter. Some people will just REFUSE to admit the amazing resemblance to many different Sun gods, celebrations, astrological value, etc
People like Extra Stout, even when I go out of my way to destroy his argument, doesn't matter.
You got to be a certain kind of crazy to ignore truth and just hang on to your belief of some god watching us everyday.
Summary:
Its not a big deal that you guys can't agree on exactly how you should worship, what is literal and what isn't and who exactly should be worshiped. Only a portion of your Gospels corroborate each other and each and every one of them aren't first hand accounts but nonetheless you can pick and choose which fits best and how depending on the label of your organized faith. Some of your faiths although rooted in god will still result in because you misexercised your free will and choose the wrong style of worship. Disregard dates because its the priciple of the matter and its that priciple that was reverse duplicated all the way to the beginning of man all of which are in for falsely worshiping the wrong god. So yeah every Egyptian, Early Chinese and all the ing Cavemen are super pissed off right now. These priciples were rightfully taken back thousands of years after the first pre-duplication. The celebrations were also pre-duplicated thousands of years before they were rightfully taken back at the expense of blood shed. Blood shed that was obviously retroactively neccessary to prove a point of orgin. Some facts matter when its hearsay and some facts don't matter at all when an issue questions the first hand accounts or physical maifestation of Jesus. There is no need for physical evidence because everything from your desk to your boogers provide you with everything you need to know. Remember most believers don't need to know they simply need to know how to exercise their free will and choose the one single proper path. Its not sacreligious to pray for your team or our personal victory at the expense of others because when its all said and done Jesus or God or Mary or a Donkey have awarded the ones that truely deserved it. Don't feel bad if god chose Philly over the Cowboys because that doesn't mean Whitten or Romo are going to it just means they either didn't pray hard enough or there are better believers on the Eagles. Free-will is only free enough to choose the one single proper path to the savior and not free enough to expect or desire tangible answers or explanations. So if you don't "freely" choose the right god within the right religion you're destined to cook like baby backs in the depths of inner earth or is below the South Pole. If you happen to fall in the odd category of an abandoned child raised by wolves who can only bark but not speak you might go to for not choosing god as your savior because in reality you're human and still maintain that free ability to choose only one path its just too bad you got stuck being raised by wolves.
it. I'm in. Praise be Jesus, God, Mary and the Donkey unless praising any of the above is against the rules of Christianity or possibly falls into the category of another denomination that might thrust me to for using my free willing ability to only choose one right path wrongly. It really not hard. There are no rules and tons of rules. Everyone is right and everyone is wrong. Regardless one mans heaven is another mans . Its the perfect tragedy.
Can someone make a short list of which Churches offer the best heaven and which ones worship god but falsely because I don't want to think that I'm worshipping properly only to be sent to because the dancing fainting nogs aren't the right ones.
Help me help myself.
I am aware of the more compelling arguments by skeptics. You didn't post them.
The astrological/mythical parallels were in vogue maybe 40-50 years ago. On a general thematic level, of course there are basic parallels between accounts of mythic heroes, stories of birth, death, and rebirth, miracles, legends of creation, etc. The academy then got carried away in trying to find the most tenuous of parallels and ultimately dropped the whole school of thought.
Your "facts" are another thing entirely. They are simply part and parcel a copy-and-paste from Acharya S., whose work was so fanciful and fabricated that honest skeptics more or less disowned her. She wants to take the general thematic parallels among the various religions and legendary accounts and find detailed correlations that simply do not exist.
Her work was grafted into the film Zeitgeist, which does for religious skepticism what Loose Change did for government skepticism (I don't mean that in a good way). She is trying again soon, with a new tome written in conjunction with some of the more intellectually honest skeptics that supposedly is going to rein in her penchant for playing fast and loose with the facts.
That's the reason I even entered the thread in the first place -- I know that particular series of "facts" is mostly lies. If you had stuck to higher criticism, I wouldn't have bothered.
And you REFUSE to admit that you cannot prove that God or Jesus Christ don't exist so it doesn't matter. You haven't even come close to destroying ES's posts. I think you are just in denial. Deal with it man.
ES didn't refuse to admit the resemblances, but pointed out that your argument is elliptical. You never made the argument, but just pointed to some resemblances. ES also showed your sources to be erroneous.
ES destroyed your argument, and you never noticed.
Anyone who disagrees with MH is either crazy or laboring in bad faith. Even though your evidence is a ragbag, erroneous to boot and you never made an argument for your own conclusions.
IMO, you're the prime exemlar of bad faith in this thread, MH. You're unwilling to evaluate any counterargument, or even cede that any would be reasonable. Anything but an echo appears to be out of bounds with you. You demand that everyone yield to your philosophy, even though it is a beggar. You won't even argue your own brief. And then you berate others as being loons and morons for merely disagreeing.
Lazy!
Last edited by Winehole23; 12-30-2008 at 08:19 PM.
Looks like B2B is on the verge of a meltdown. I'll pray for you though so you can find a good life coach. Good luck.
She is definately guilty of over playing her hand. I think some of her work is based on legitimate arguments by others but she just takes it way to far to lend credibility. However I can tell the difference between a large portion of her opinion and credible points in Zeitgeist. I believe the first part of the movie would have been far better recieved if they took more credible sources for similar points of interest.
I'm not even close. In fact I'm coming over to the other side. Its fool proof. Just like MBS and credit default swaps.
Not for the believer, but this is probably the best observation you've made so far.
Since you asked, may I recommend Kierkegaard's rewrenching of Tertullian: credo quia absurdum. It's a leap in the dark, but if you don't play you can't win the lottery.
Try Joseph Campbell. He falls into Jainism and Jungian mumbo-jumbo, but at least he puts forth an tenable structural argument.
Better yet, read Georges Dumezil's Mitra-Varuna.
Extra credit: Hans Blumenberg's Work on Myth.
Last edited by Winehole23; 12-31-2008 at 06:31 PM.
With credible sources, it would have been a different film.
There is one gentleman in particular who is the closest thing to an intellectually honest Christ-myther I can think of, but even he says some things that are really out there. There is a reason why he's the only one even remotely taken seriously by people who study this stuff -- the evidence just doesn't support the view. The evidence supports some kind of historical Jesus.
To be clear, that dosn't mean I expect people rationally to come to the conclusion that God became a human being, did a bunch of miracles to demonstrate his authority, submitted to being tortured and killed in the body so he could defeat death for all who trust in him by rising again, and then ascending into heaven. I don't expect people to deduce by the scientific method that the Spirit of God can just come into their hearts if they believe and start changing them to become kinder, more giving, selfless Jesus-like people. Those things are arational and supernatural. To the purely rational mind, these things are absurd. Kierkegaard spoke of the "leap of faith" necessary for the rational agent to believe.
Who, please? I like to read.
Robert M. Price
Thanks very much, ES.
ES, have you read Lee Strobel's works?
IMO He produces some of the most lucid apologetic arguments around... his thought process is highly logical and the rationale of his conclusions is almost always explained.
I can't entirely blame my disillusionment with Christianity on the Catholic church. I left it because I thought it was too ritualistic, and thought it seemed like a bunch of sheep mumbling the same thing over and over every single Sunday in church. So in college I joined a fundamentalist Protestant church that preached the exact things Crookshanks has posted; that the bible is literally true (every word of it), that we're all evil sinners, that anyone who doesn't believe in Jesus will be tortured in because they're the greatest evil in the world, etc. When they pushed me to read my bible, I did (for the first time), and I was mortified by how petty and full of anger god was. I had heard most of the stories before in religion class at school, but they're always softened up for children. Not so when you get it from the horse's mouth in the bible, and none of god's crimes ever seemed justified. After a few months in a protestant church, I said to with both of 'em and never looked back.
-Horus was born of the virgin (FALSE -- not a virgin)
Actually, Horus' birth WAS of an miraculous birth. You see, Osiris was DEAD. Isis tried to piece him back together, but she couldn't. His penis was thrown in a river. So she hovered over his body and 'drew his essence'.... She was impregnated by spirit. There was no actual intercourse and impregnation.
Isis was a -virgin goddess-. If you want to tell me that because she and Osiris were together that she wasn't a virgin, then how about we open the pickle jar and talk about Mary being married to Joseph yet still a virgin?
There is even another story about Mut-em-ua, the Virgin Queen of Egypt.
The God Taht announced to her that she would become pregnant.
The god Kneph (the Holy Spirit) mystically impregnated the virgin Isis by holding a cross, the symbol of life, to her mouth.
etc... This is not new. By the way, Mut is also one of ISIS' names. The Great Mother, Mut-Isis-Nekkhbet, all the same Goddess Mother.
- Isis-Meri (FALSE -- Merion is never appended to Isis)
Incorrect again. Isis is not her ONLY name. 'Goddess of Many Names' / 'Queen of the Gods' Click her for Link about Isis
She is also known as Aset, Ast, Est, Meri-En-Sakar, and many others.
You see Egyptian Gods had -many forms- but they were all just different incarnations of the same Gods. One of Isis' forms was the Goddess of Nature and Harvest - MERI-EN-SAKAR. Click here for link They are all forms of ISIS, the Mother.
Isis ultimately absorbed and represented hundreds if not thousands of different goddesses, all forms of the Mother, ISIS. Her worship survived until around the 6th century AD, until it was largely replaced by the new Mother, Mary, whose name was obviously influenced by Isis' form of MERI, Goddess of Nature and Harvest.
- December 25 (FALSE -- November 15, roughly)
Incorrect again. Ancient Egyptians, in fact, ALMOST EVERY MAJOR CIVILIZATION in human history celebrated Dec. 25th because that is when the Sun begins it's journey back to Spring and Summer.
This is said to be the Sun 'reborn' and coming back from death. Horus being the Sun God, Egyptians celebrated Horus birth as Dec. 21st-25th, but his ACTUAL entrance into Earth was "on the last day of the Egyptian Khoaik" which falls around Nov. 15
Jesus' birth day is NEVER mentioned in the Bible, however it too is celebrated on Dec. 25th once again, to coincide with the worship of the Sun. The date was chosen to occur on the same date as the birth of Mithra, Dionysus and the Sol Invictus (unconquerable Sun), etc.
Therefore, both Horus and Jesus are just forms of Sun worship and their birthdays ARE celebrated on Dec. 21st-25th even though NEITHER Jesus nor Horus was actually born on that day.
with his birth being announced by a star in the East (FALSE -- fabrication)
The Star in the East is Sirius. Sirius was -THE MOST IMPORTANT- Star to ancient Egyptians. The entire Egyptian calendar was based on the rising of Sirius. They created 12 months, with 30 days each.
Sirius is also EQUIVALENT to -Isis- .
link here
So. Isis aka Sirius, the mother of Horus, heralds her son's/the Sun's arrival.
and attended by three wise men.(FALSE -- fabrication, and note that the number of Magi in the biblical account is never defined)
Once again...
The Bible says the wise men brought 3 gifts. Gold, frankincense and myrrh. We assume it's 3 men.
However, we can now be SURE it is 3 men. The wise men ask Herod "Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him."
They saw his star in the east. The bright Star in The East has always been known as SIRIUS. In Orion's belt, there are 3 stars that point to Sirius. They always point to Sirius. They have always been called the THE THREE KINGS OF ORION.
By the way, Sirius is known as Isis, the constellation near Sirius is that of Orion, which was attributed to Osiris. Horus coming from the Father, through the Mother, to rise on Earth. Jesus says I come from my Father who sent me. Horus coming from Osiris (Orion)
-3- stars point directly to Sirius, which in turn, Sirius heralds the coming of the Sun. The Three Kings of Orion.
I will do the rest later.
-------------------------
Ok. ES seems to have the same STEREOTYPICAL problem that all Christian nitpickers have. I've seen it before.
"Oh, 'immaculate conception' is blah blah blah."
They get stuck on NITPICKING terms and just FOREGO and IGNORE the OVERALL REALITY of the story.
So, changing the phrase 'immaculate conception' to 'miraculous birth', now what? We still have the same similarity.
That right there is a complete destruction of christian defense.
All that crap about "fabrication" are all lies and misinformation.
Christians apparently don't care if ISIS was a virgin and had a miraculous birth of Horus, impregnated from thin air from a DEAD OSIRIS.
They don't care that it closely resembles the Jesus birth.
They want a carbon copy, EXACTLY like Jesus or they won't admit anything.
That is not honest. It's obvious that the Jesus story was COPIED and INFLUENCED just like all other Sun gods. They changed the details around for every incarnation, but the basic plot is the same.
To deny this is just dishonest and on the verge of insanity. It's the same cast of characters with details and names changed around for every different incarnation they thought up.
Really, there is no denying this. To just turn a blind eye and nitpick little words and ignore the overall similar stories is absurd.
Man, this is getting good. Classic thread!!!!!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
