Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Phrases That Breed Ex-christians


Kevin H

Recommended Posts

 

Can you list for us reasons you don't worship nor follow Dionysus, Osiris or Zeus? Why do you logically reject these gods?

 

 

These gods are easily traced to mythology with no historical evidence for their existence as actual beings.

 

Since they are limited, localized, and fallible (were they to exist) they would be subject to creation and therefore cannot account for creation. Therefore, any worldview that considers them anything other than myth fails to correspond to reality.

 

There is nothing in the mythology of these gods that serves as a defeater for Christian Theism.

 

There are no defeaters because they are the same. Christ can be traced to the same exact hodgepodge of sun/son worship. He is in fact a mix and match of past sungods. A little Greek here a little roman there.... a few dashes of Egyptian.. and valaa... He is in fact no different then the other gods listed. Nothing Christ does or says via the stories is different then any of a god before him. from walking on water to healing the sick... turning water into wine et al.

 

Your bright morning star (the sun/son) is followed by his 12 disciples.. (signs of the zodiac) A father god breed with a mere mortal to give birth to a savior of mankind... that saviors name was Dionysus. There is nothing new under the sun when it comes to Christianity nothing new at all.

 

You refuse to use the same critical reasoning skills to look at what you believe to be truth, you rely upon faith for your facts much as the pagans did thousands of years before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 187
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Kevin H

    40

  • Kuroikaze

    23

  • KT45

    19

  • Ouroboros

    15

OH, and since you felt the need to trash Pagels I thought one more quote would be warented. I got this from, of all places, Christianbook.com a christian book selling website. I used to order stuff from it all the time back when I was still a believer. They had this to say about Elaine Pagels

 

Elaine Pagels, one of the world's most important writers and thinkers on religion and history, and winner of the National Book Award for her groundbreaking work The Gnostic Gospels

 

 

yes...yes...clearly she is a radical that no one respects. :lmao::shrug::Wendywhatever:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

KH> Due to the enormous abundance of NT mansuscripts (over 5000 Greek, 25,000 in Latin and other languages) we can put the autographa together about 99%. And any textual variants do not affect essential doctrine.

 

 

I have to ask...have you actually READ said textual variants or are you just taking the word of someone else that they don't affect essential doctrine?

 

KH> I have read the literature on it and interviewed leading scholars on it for my radio show.

 

What about the error in the septuigint that led Mathiew to incorectly believe that Issiah claimed that the messaih would be born by a virgin when the hebrew only says young woman? That seems like a pretty serious difference in doctorine to me.

KH> First, who said the LXX made an error? It is interesting that they used parthenos 200 years before Christ! The word means "virgin". But, I hold the view that Matthew saw typology in Isaiah that was more fully realized in Christ. It does get my attention that the LXX uses that term however.

 

Do you OWN research, if you can't pick up a history book on middle eastern history...or heck even read the BIBLE you can see how Judaism started with a belief in a mountain god and then moved and the theology slowly evolved. This is why later books in the OT and the NT included things like angels, heaven, and hell, but the early OT books do not. These things were incorporated into Judaism from the Babylonian religion. At least that is the most accepted theory by biblical scholars.

 

KH> I have done research and everything you just said is false. Now, you made the claim please back it up.

 

 

I DID back it up, read the bible itself its in there, why do you think there is such a radical difference between early judaism and late judaism...if you have a better explanation for where the dotorine of hell came from lets here it. Early Judaism only mentions Sheol which is not the same thing at all. For someone who claims to have "done the research" You are fairly ignorant about the bible and early middle eastern history.

 

KH> That only proves progressive revelation, not radical evolution of religion.

 

KH> I have read Pagels and she is a radical scholar not in keeping with the main of biblical scholarship. Besides, she is only one scholar. Show me where she is in keeping with the majority of biblical scholarship please.

 

Of course YOU think she is radical, your an ignorant evangelical twit. She may be radical by your standards, but her scholarship IS accepted by mainstream scholars...it just so happens that mainstream scholarship pretty much unamiously denies biblcal inerrancy....

 

I was a religion major in college and EVERY single one of my profesers felt her scholarship was valid and well thought out. Believe me I've read radical scholarship and SHE is not radical.

 

In any case its a bit disingenious to ask for scholarly work to back up my claims and then when its given just claim they are radical. You would have claimed anyone I mentioned was radical unless they aggred with YOUR point of view, so all you were doing is pretending to take me seriously.

 

KH> If you want to engage in scholar wars we can do that. It proves little, but it lends weight to a particular view when the main of professional scholars hold to it. Dr. Gleason Archer taught at Princeton and he disagreed with virtually everything Pagels says! So there!

KH> Why should I take your word for it? Let's start with two or three of what you consider absurdities, and what Worldview informs what is absurd and what is not?

 

Fine, lets start with the basics. To me I think the most important evangelical idea is that of Substutuionary Grace. It is nessarally predicated on the idea that the Jewish blood sacrifices were instituted to allow god to forgive sins and that Jesus came as a perfect sacrifice in the line of those sacrifices and thus did away with animal sacrfices as the perfect atonment.

 

Explain why god NEEDS and animal sacrfice to forgive sin. Explain how a substituional death and ancient blood rites are "perfect" justice.

 

KH> God "needs" nothing. He often communicates parabolically. The sacrifices were a "shadow" of what was to come. Perfectly consistent.

 

 

 

*sigh* let the dance of one thousand absurdities begin. I must be a masochist because I keep having these conversations with fundies

 

Sorry if I seem rude, but I have had this exact same converastion with probably 40 or 50 christians and I have a feeling that I can predect EVERY argument you will use. You may think your original, but I've seen at least 30 evangelical christians come through her and parrot the same things your saying. Do you know how many people here converted BACK to christianity because of thier words? Exactly zero. ON the other hand I know of at least 2 or 3 christians who came here to evangelize and are now ex-christians themselves.

 

KH> Sorry for the repeats but you know the drill: if Christ is who he says he is, the Christian Faith is true, and we can view the Hebrew Scriptures through him. Then the Law, the Prophets, the Feasts, the sacrifices, etc. make sense.

 

Further, internal consistency does not necessarily make something true but it is a first step. Agreed?

 

Do you know how many people here converted BACK to christianity because of thier words? Exactly zero.

I haven't been here that long but I was sure that at least a few went back to christianity. They probably would have came straight back but are christian tactics really that ineffective? I thought they would at least get the newbies :shrug:

 

 

I can't think of any, though maybe I've forgoten them...it IS posible. I've been here for over a year though, and while people may come and go, I can't think of anyone who came here as a deconvert and came back later to post that they were going back.

 

I don't know for sure though, but the mods might know

 

 

 

KH> Factual locations, characters, events, etc. do not make a religion true, but can lend support to a worldview. Facts by themselves prove little. A string of facts can provide an interpretation.

 

Historical facts don't prove Christianity, but add weight to the evidence for Christianity. That is one of the reasons I say Christian faith is reasonable faith (Acts 17:17, I Peter 3:15).

 

 

So by that logic do you also think Buddhism, Taoism and Confucinism are "reasonable?"

 

I'm not asking if you think they are true or not, we have already established that you think they are false, but do you think the beliefs are reasonable?

 

KH> I think there are reasonable aspects to each but I don't find the overall Worldview each represents as very reasonable, e.g. atheism, pantheism, reincarnation, denial of the reality of evil, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry for the repeats but you know the drill: if Christ is who he says he is, the Christian Faith is true, and we can view the Hebrew Scriptures through him. Then the Law, the Prophets, the Feasts, the sacrifices, etc. make sense.

 

Further, internal consistency does not necessarily make something true but it is a first step. Agreed?

Sorry for the repeats but you know the drill: if Mohammed is who he says he is, the Islamic Faith is true, and we can view the Islamic Scriptures through him. Then the Law, the Prophets, the Feasts, the sacrifices, etc. make sense.

 

Further, internal consistency does not necessarily make something true but it is a first step. Agreed?

 

 

Just making a point

 

When you say christianity is "fact" what do you mean exactly? Do you mean every part of the bible is historically accurate and everything, miracles and all, are all very true. Do you mean that a majority of the historic community support the belief that all of christianity is true? Or are you just saying that christianity is a fact because it "in fact" exist?

 

 

KH> I say Christianity is factual because it is based on the facts of history, i.e. the New Testament is reliable, the radical claims of Christ were recorded and preserved, extra-biblical sources on Christ, etc.

 

There are many facts about Jesus that historians agree on, but come to different conclusions as to what the facts mean based on worldviews, bias, presuppositions, religious views, etc.

 

So, I say belief in Christ as savior is not necessarily based on fact, but supported by fact. This distinguishes it from competing religious options in my opinion.

 

But I say that because many come to faith and relationship with the living Christ internally, subjectively, prior to doing an exhaustive study of the objective evidence for Christ's claims.

Do you believe there is nothing in the bible that can be labeled myth or mythological? To me there is no difference between greek myths and christian myths.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OH, and since you felt the need to trash Pagels I thought one more quote would be warented. I got this from, of all places, Christianbook.com a christian book selling website. I used to order stuff from it all the time back when I was still a believer. They had this to say about Elaine Pagels

 

Elaine Pagels, one of the world's most important writers and thinkers on religion and history, and winner of the National Book Award for her groundbreaking work The Gnostic Gospels

 

 

yes...yes...clearly she is a radical that no one respects. :lmao::shrug::Wendywhatever:

 

 

KH> Please! I didn't trash her. I said she was radical when it comes to mainstream biblical scholarship. Most hold that gnosticism was a late deviation from Christianity. She thinks basically the reverse. She is respected but widely disagreed with. Just Google and you'll see what I mean.

 

But surely you see the Fallacy of Inappropriate Appeal to Authority anyway! Because Dr. X says P is true does not necessarily make P true.

 

However, if the majority or a healthy portion of scholars in the field say P is true, it adds weight to the evidence that P is true. This the difference between Appropriate and Inappropriate Appeal to Authority for anyone who doesn't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

KH> Sorry for the repeats but you know the drill: if Christ is who he says he is, the Christian Faith is true, and we can view the Hebrew Scriptures through him. Then the Law, the Prophets, the Feasts, the sacrifices, etc. make sense.

 

Further, internal consistency does not necessarily make something true but it is a first step. Agreed?

 

 

KH> I think there are reasonable aspects to each but I don't find the overall Worldview each represents as very reasonable, e.g. atheism, pantheism, reincarnation, denial of the reality of evil, etc.

 

 

Ok, first I'm not really sure I aggree that there is internal consistency, but lets cover that when or more aptly IF you manage to make blood sacrfices seem like a logical system of justice. Until you do that, it really doesn't matter if Jesus sacrifice was consistent with OT sacrfice laws or not.

 

 

Ok, veryr well, I feel the same about christiantiy. Parts of it are resonable, but most of it is not.

 

Just so you know, I'm personally a Taoist, though I find Athiesism to be totally logical. I would agree that Pantheism and reincarnation are not logical for many of the same reasons I think christian theology is illogical.

 

As far as evil goes as a Taoist, as well as a rationalist I see evil as an issue of perspective not of absolutes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry for the repeats but you know the drill: if Mohammed is who he says he is, the Islamic Faith is true, and we can view the Islamic Scriptures through him. Then the Law, the Prophets, the Feasts, the sacrifices, etc. make sense.

 

Further, internal consistency does not necessarily make something true but it is a first step. Agreed?

 

 

Just making a point

 

 

KH> A point with which I agree. If the premises are true, the conclusion follows.

 

KH> I say Christianity is factual because it is based on the facts of history, i.e. the New Testament is reliable, the radical claims of Christ were recorded and preserved, extra-biblical sources on Christ, etc.

 

There are many facts about Jesus that historians agree on, but come to different conclusions as to what the facts mean based on worldviews, bias, presuppositions, religious views, etc.

 

So, I say belief in Christ as savior is not necessarily based on fact, but supported by fact. This distinguishes it from competing religious options in my opinion.

 

But I say that because many come to faith and relationship with the living Christ internally, subjectively, prior to doing an exhaustive study of the objective evidence for Christ's claims.

Do you believe there is nothing in the bible that can be labeled myth or mythological? To me there is no difference between greek myths and christian myths.

 

 

KH> No. I don't think the Bible is mythical genre and the differences between it and Greek myths are rather glaring. It purports to be historical despite various narrative aspects like psalms, proverbs, analogy, and phenomenological language.

 

I also base this on Christ's commentary. Since I hold him to be utterly trustworthy I believe what he affirms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KH> No. I don't think the Bible is mythical genre and the differences between it and Greek myths are rather glaring. It purports to be historical despite various narrative aspects like psalms, proverbs, analogy, and phenomenological language.

 

I also base this on Christ's commentary. Since I hold him to be utterly trustworthy I believe what he affirms.

Okay lets see some things I think are myths and you respond to them.

do you believe it is a fact that every animal, in pairs, entered the Ark? Even kangaroos? They'd have a hard time crossing that big ol' ocean in pairs don't ya think?

 

Do you believe it is a fact that there was a garden of eden and Adam and Eve talked to a talking snake? Or how about that talking donkey in the bible.

 

I have more but you can probably guess others I'd bring up. These sound closer to myth than fact to me. What's your take on these

 

(Oh and I won't go into some long debate about the truth about noah's ark. It would detract from the topic at hand. Just what your viewpoint)

 

-EDIT-

Can you at least see how I can picture these as myths? Is it reasonable to believe this as a myth?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

KH> Please! I didn't trash her. I said she was radical when it comes to mainstream biblical scholarship. Most hold that gnosticism was a late deviation from Christianity. She thinks basically the reverse. She is respected but widely disagreed with. Just Google and you'll see what I mean.

 

But surely you see the Fallacy of Inappropriate Appeal to Authority anyway! Because Dr. X says P is true does not necessarily make P true.

 

However, if the majority or a healthy portion of scholars in the field say P is true, it adds weight to the evidence that P is true. This the difference between Appropriate and Inappropriate Appeal to Authority for anyone who doesn't know.

 

Then don't ask for an appeal to authroity if you aren't going to accept the claims as valid...and I DID google her, how did you think I found said quote. Truely, while I've heard some conservative scholars dismis her work, and I've seen mainstreem/liberal scholars quible of fine points in her stuff but never dismis it in totallity.

 

Gnostisim was a late develpment...from what I've read THAT is the idea that is dismissed by everyone but the conservitive scholars.

 

If it was late then why did Paul spicificly warn people against gnostic like theology? When he writes "beware of wifes tales and genologies" that seems a pretty clear warning against gnostisism to me, considering that gnosticism was known for the elaborate genologies they had that led to the "birth" of the jewish god.

 

Its only fundamentalists/evangelicals such as yourself who want to hold on the the crazy notion that your religion fell out of the sky in a perfect inerring form...and also hold on to the belief that the majority of biblical scholars go along with you.

 

I think this stems from a basic disagreement in defintions. To you "maintstream" means conservative evangelical scholar. To me it means liberal scholar. Truthfully, niether is probably "mainstream" in the normative definition since the numbers between the two are proabably split pretty evenly.

 

Instead of saying "google it" why not provide me with a novel thing we call a "link" to an article you have read that critiques her work so I can examine the claims myself and see if they hold up to reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KH>These gods are easily traced to mythology with no historical evidence for their existence as actual beings.

 

Since they are limited, localized, and fallible (were they to exist) they would be subject to creation and therefore cannot account for creation. Therefore, any worldview that considers them anything other than myth fails to correspond to reality.

 

There is nothing in the mythology of these gods that serves as a defeater for Christian Theism.

Before I get what I really have to say I thought I address your points here but I'm not going to quote verses but "god" didn't know where Adam and Eve were in the garden (limited), he couldn't defeat the mighty chariots of iron (limited), he never seemed to show his face to anyone outside the Middle East (localized), and he repentented more than once for things he did (fallible). Also, many gods weren't subject to creation they simply created themselves. More than one god simply willed themselves into existance.

 

Also, who said that the existance of any other god would defeat xianity? Can't jesus share the spotlight with all these other gods? They're just as valid after all. You'll see...

 

El started as the leader of the Ugaritic pantheon (which included Ashurah and Baal...YHWH's brother in some stories I've read...later YHWH usurped daddy's throne and took on his concubine, Ashurah...who was later villified and removed from history...and now look at little baby jesus usurping his daddy's place in history...the irony is simply amazing):

http://www.themystica.org/mythical-folk/articles/el.html

http://www.homsonline.com/Citeis/Ugarit.htm (a statue of El...I don't see the family resemblance at all...this just proves that the HS is jesus' real daddy and YHWH is the uncle)

 

If you want more you can go find them. If you want more "respectable" sources they exist and you can find them yourself as well.

 

As for the Caananites being the origin of the tales we can ask the Israelites what they think

(just a bit from http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_...and%20Reality):

 

The saga of the Israelites, as told in the Bible, was designed as a morality tale to prove the importance of faith in the One God. The stories of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses and Joshua demonstrate that the Israelites were rewarded when they obeyed God, but were punished when they strayed.

 

The historical evidence to back up these events is sparse, and, in some cases, contradictory. In particular, the account of Joshua's conquest of Canaan is inconsistent with the archaeological evidence. Cities supposedly conquered by Joshua in the 14th century bce were destroyed long before he came on the scene. Some, such as Ai and Arad, had been ruins for a 1000 years.

 

The Book of Judges, which directly contradicts Joshua, and shows the Israelites settling the land over a prolonged period, is nearer historical reality; but even it cannot be taken at face value.

 

The archaeological surveys conducted over the past two decades in the hills of Menasseh, Ephraim, Benjamin and Judah, on the west bank of the River Jordan, indicate that the origin and development of the Israelite entity was somewhat different from either of the rival accounts in the Bible. The survey was conducted by more than a dozen archaeologists, most of them from Tel Aviv University's Institute of Archaeology. Their conclusions were published in "From Nomadism to Monarchy," edited by Prof. Israel Finkelstein and Prof. Nadav Na'aman.

 

Around 1200 bce, semi-nomads from the desert fringes to the east, joined by elements from Anatolia, the Aegean, and the south, possibly including Egypt, began to settle in the hill country of Canaan. A large proportion - probably a majority of this population - were refugees from the Canaanite city states, destroyed by the Egyptians in one of their periodic invasions.

 

The conclusion is somewhat startling to Bible readers who know the Canaanites portrayed in the Bible as immoral idolaters: most of the Israelites were in fact formerly Canaanites. The story of Abraham's journey from Ur of the Chaldees, the Patriarchs, the Exodus, Sinai, and the conquest of Canaan, all these were apparently based on legends that the various elements brought with them from their countries of origin. The consolidation of the Israelites into a nation was not the result of wanderings in the desert and divine revelation, but came from the need to defend themselves against the Philistines, who settled in the Canaanite coastal plain more or less at the same time the Israelites were establishing themselves in the hills.

 

So, "El" the creator god began life as a Canaanite deity. What does this mean for his son? Well, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that the son of a myth is also a myth. So, did jesus exist? Nope. Did a local person named jesus or something like him exist? Who cares? His "father" was a local Canaanite deity and so he was just a man. Did he heal the sick and cast out demons? Maybe. A lot of people did in those days. He would have been unremarkable at best considering virtually no one wrote of him. The fact the stories survived only mean the church was able to destroy the writings of others. Not that he was special. If he were special there would be a mountain of writings from anyone and everyone who could write and there would be no need to destroy the competition.

 

But what does this matter? Even if "god" wasn't a local deity, Jesus wasn't the messiah. He failed in most everyway. The messiah wasn't a healer, some priest or a sacrifice. He was a warrior and leader. Jesus failed completely. He wasn't the messiah. He wasn't the son of a god. He wasn't in all likelyhood ever even alive. He wasn't eternal. Like his "father" he was created by men.

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should not fear information.

 

www.jesusneverexisted.com

 

There's some information - don't be afraid.

 

bdp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KH> No. I don't think the Bible is mythical genre and the differences between it and Greek myths are rather glaring. It purports to be historical despite various narrative aspects like psalms, proverbs, analogy, and phenomenological language.

 

I also base this on Christ's commentary. Since I hold him to be utterly trustworthy I believe what he affirms.

Okay lets see some things I think are myths and you respond to them.

do you believe it is a fact that every animal, in pairs, entered the Ark? Even kangaroos? They'd have a hard time crossing that big ol' ocean in pairs don't ya think?

 

Do you believe it is a fact that there was a garden of eden and Adam and Eve talked to a talking snake? Or how about that talking donkey in the bible.

 

I have more but you can probably guess others I'd bring up. These sound closer to myth than fact to me. What's your take on these

 

(Oh and I won't go into some long debate about the truth about noah's ark. It would detract from the topic at hand. Just what your viewpoint)

 

-EDIT-

Can you at least see how I can picture these as myths? Is it reasonable to believe this as a myth?

 

 

KH> Some brief comments on each. I don't think Genesis teaches a global flood but a universal flood. I think the text itself shows that this was a huge local event. I know the text and "under all the heavens" etc. is probably from the viewpoint of the observer, "mountains" can mean "hills", etc.

 

So the flood occured in the Mesopatamia and we find accounts of it in other cultures. Penquins, polar bears, kangaroos, etc. were not on the ark. Only animals of special relationship to man and in the region were aboard.

 

The serpent in Genesis was not a Boa with vocal chords. That is a parody and contamination of Middle Ages art. Genesis seems to depict the serpent as something beyond a "snake", perhaps something no longer extant. He was "beautiful" and intelligent, etc.

 

If you were to ask me if donkeys can talk I would say, "Naturally, no". But the Bible does not describe this as a natural event, but a supernatural one. It gets back to theism vs. naturalism. If God exists he can do miracles and specific revelation.

 

You should not fear information.

 

www.jesusneverexisted.com

 

There's some information - don't be afraid.

 

bdp

 

 

KH> Seen it. Very unconvincing.

 

 

Can you list for us reasons you don't worship nor follow Dionysus, Osiris or Zeus? Why do you logically reject these gods?

 

 

These gods are easily traced to mythology with no historical evidence for their existence as actual beings.

 

Since they are limited, localized, and fallible (were they to exist) they would be subject to creation and therefore cannot account for creation. Therefore, any worldview that considers them anything other than myth fails to correspond to reality.

 

There is nothing in the mythology of these gods that serves as a defeater for Christian Theism.

 

There are no defeaters because they are the same. Christ can be traced to the same exact hodgepodge of sun/son worship. He is in fact a mix and match of past sungods. A little Greek here a little roman there.... a few dashes of Egyptian.. and valaa... He is in fact no different then the other gods listed. Nothing Christ does or says via the stories is different then any of a god before him. from walking on water to healing the sick... turning water into wine et al.

 

Your bright morning star (the sun/son) is followed by his 12 disciples.. (signs of the zodiac) A father god breed with a mere mortal to give birth to a savior of mankind... that saviors name was Dionysus. There is nothing new under the sun when it comes to Christianity nothing new at all.

 

You refuse to use the same critical reasoning skills to look at what you believe to be truth, you rely upon faith for your facts much as the pagans did thousands of years before.

 

 

KH> Sorry to be brief, but "pagan parallels" are not valid. If you think so, then you must think John F. Kennedy was borrowed from Abraham Lincoln.

 

I recently organized and conducted a forum on this very topic by evaluating the film "The God Who Wasn't There". The movie makes the claims you make. Read an atheists account here: http://goosetheantithesis.blogspot.com/200...-at-church.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope to God that this isn't the KJPee Kevin that deconverted some time ago. Somebody tell me that it isn't.

 

Please? :HappyCry:

No I don't think so, KevinH joined last year, and posted last time in December. Your thinking of the other Kevin (without H), right?

 

Mithraism? Most of what we know about it comes after the Christian era but we know it was a Roman military cult concerning a god born from a rock. You do the math.

There are plenty of evidence Mithraism was much older, even though very little written record exists. But the little that do exist points to an existing religion, before Jesus:

 

Inscription from Susa of Artaxerxes II Mnemon (404-358 BC), Mithra enjoyed official sanction:

 

"Artaxerxes the Great King, [...] says: [...] By the favor of Ahuramazda, Anahita, and Mithra, this palace I built. May Ahuramazda, Anahita, and Mithra protect me from all evil, and that which I have built may they not shatter nor harm."

 

And there are more, like a king taking the name Mithradates I of Parthia. Which means "given by Mithra".

 

So sorry to burst your bubble, but there are enough proof to know that Mithraism did in fact exist before Jesus. What we don't know is if the late books describe the religious ideas properly, but some of them we can know based on statues and religious paintings from the early period. And also from that it is known from Zoroastrianism, since Mithraism came from there.

 

And Zoroastrianism had celestial entities like Angels, Demons, Satan etc. And Zoroastrianism had the act of "cleansing sins through fire" and they had some beginning ideas of Hell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

KH> Sorry for the repeats but you know the drill: if Christ is who he says he is, the Christian Faith is true, and we can view the Hebrew Scriptures through him. Then the Law, the Prophets, the Feasts, the sacrifices, etc. make sense.

 

Further, internal consistency does not necessarily make something true but it is a first step. Agreed?

 

 

KH> I think there are reasonable aspects to each but I don't find the overall Worldview each represents as very reasonable, e.g. atheism, pantheism, reincarnation, denial of the reality of evil, etc.

 

 

Ok, first I'm not really sure I aggree that there is internal consistency, but lets cover that when or more aptly IF you manage to make blood sacrfices seem like a logical system of justice. Until you do that, it really doesn't matter if Jesus sacrifice was consistent with OT sacrfice laws or not.

 

KH> First, by what objective standard are you determining the system of blood sacrifices is valid? It certainly is a picture of the consequences of wrong and the application of justice.

 

Ok, veryr well, I feel the same about christiantiy. Parts of it are resonable, but most of it is not.

 

Just so you know, I'm personally a Taoist, though I find Athiesism to be totally logical. I would agree that Pantheism and reincarnation are not logical for many of the same reasons I think christian theology is illogical.

 

As far as evil goes as a Taoist, as well as a rationalist I see evil as an issue of perspective not of absolutes.

 

 

KH> And that relativism is the rub. It is tantamount to saying that there is nothing actually wrong, just whatever you happen to think is wrong or what a given society says is wrong. Relativism fails miserably.

 

And by the way, Atheism continues to fall on hard times in academic philosophy - especially the last 50 years. Big Bang Cosmology is probably the final nail in the coffin of Atheism in my opinion.

 

Have you examined the evidence for the resurrection of Christ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1). If Christianity is true, Islam is false.

Logical fallacy: Non sequitur, it does not follow.

 

Example:

1) If Bunnyism is true, Christianity and Islam are false

 

2). Christianity is true.

Assumption.

 

2) Bunnyism is true

 

3). Therefore, Islam is false.[/b]

 

3) Therefore Islam and Christianity are false.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope to God that this isn't the KJPee Kevin that deconverted some time ago. Somebody tell me that it isn't.

 

Please? :HappyCry:

No I don't think so, KevinH joined last year, and posted last time in December. Your thinking of the other Kevin (without H), right?

 

Mithraism? Most of what we know about it comes after the Christian era but we know it was a Roman military cult concerning a god born from a rock. You do the math.

There are plenty of evidence Mithraism was much older, even though very little written record exists. But the little that do exist points to an existing religion, before Jesus:

 

Inscription from Susa of Artaxerxes II Mnemon (404-358 BC), Mithra enjoyed official sanction:

 

"Artaxerxes the Great King, [...] says: [...] By the favor of Ahuramazda, Anahita, and Mithra, this palace I built. May Ahuramazda, Anahita, and Mithra protect me from all evil, and that which I have built may they not shatter nor harm."

 

And there are more, like a king taking the name Mithradates I of Parthia. Which means "given by Mithra".

 

So sorry to burst your bubble, but there are enough proof to know that Mithraism did in fact exist before Jesus. What we don't know is if the late books describe the religious ideas properly, but some of them we can know based on statues and religious paintings from the early period. And also from that it is known from Zoroastrianism, since Mithraism came from there.

 

And Zoroastrianism had celestial entities like Angels, Demons, Satan etc. And Zoroastrianism had the act of "cleansing sins through fire" and they had some beginning ideas of Hell.

 

KH> You didn't read what I wrote carefully, Hans. I said most of what we know about Mithraism comes after Christianity. That it existed prior to Christianity is indeed true.

 

 

1). If Christianity is true, Islam is false.

Logical fallacy: Non sequitur, it does not follow.

 

Example:

1) If Bunnyism is true, Christianity and Islam are false

 

2). Christianity is true.

Assumption.

 

2) Bunnyism is true

 

3). Therefore, Islam is false.[/b]

 

3) Therefore Islam and Christianity are false.

 

 

KH> Hans, you really need to slow down. A syllogism just contains the premises, not the fleshing out of the premises.

 

 

 

Islam is an attempt at monotheism but let me cut to the chase. I am willing to defend these premises;

 

1). If Christianity is true, Islam is false.

 

2). Christianity is true.

 

3). Therefore, Islam is false.

 

 

:HaHa: This one belongs on www.fstdt.com.

 

I dare you to defend your second proposition. I dare you.

 

 

KH> That is one of the reasons I am here. I'll present my case for Christianity at some point on a new thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KH> And that relativism is the rub. It is tantamount to saying that there is nothing actually wrong, just whatever you happen to think is wrong or what a given society says is wrong. Relativism fails miserably.

Really? How so? Where? And in what way?

 

And by the way, Atheism continues to fall on hard times in academic philosophy - especially the last 50 years. Big Bang Cosmology is probably the final nail in the coffin of Atheism in my opinion.

Again really? Assumptions. Give us some facts to support this.

 

Have you examined the evidence for the resurrection of Christ?

What evidence? The fake shroud? The billion pieces puzzle of the cross that all together will produce hundreds of crosses? The fake bones of Jesus brother? What exactly is evidence for Jesus' resurrection? An emtpy tomb someone assume was the right one? Or is it "eyewitness" accounts that were written earliest 40 years after the event, and the earliest manuscript we have is from around 150 CE?

 

KH> You didn't read what I wrote carefully, Hans. I said most of what we know about Mithraism comes after Christianity. That it existed prior to Christianity is indeed true.

It really sounded like the argument was that Christianity could not have borrowed from Mithraism because Mithraism was a later religion. Your argument did surely hint that idea.

 

KH> Hans, you really need to slow down. A syllogism just contains the premises, not the fleshing out of the premises.

Okay, but I disagree with the first premise, because it is a logical trap. Just so you know.

 

Consider that there are 37,000 and some denominations of Christians, and if you start on this slippery-slope of claiming one being true and the other being false, we have to go through the list of all denominations and cults and define what really constitutes a real and true Christian teaching in each one of them.

 

P1) If Arminianism is true, Calvinism is false

 

Do you agree to that one too?

 

--edit--

 

You see the problem I have with "If Christianity is true, then Islam is false" is that if you start interpreting the Gospels and Paul etc as allegories and mystical Gnostic literature, then you actually can end up with interpreting the Bible and fit it with the Koran too. Every Christian today read one passage literal, another figurative and they skip the next with the excuse of "doesn't apply today in our culture". So with the same template of breaking up the scripture, we could do it for a new universalist generic mystical and spiritual Christianity that could combine other religions into it. Then we would have the premise of "If Christianity is True, Islam is also True".

 

Your premise is based on your current version and understanding of Christianity.

 

Lets say the Docetism from the second century were right, how will that effect your religion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KH> Some brief comments on each. I don't think Genesis teaches a global flood but a universal flood. I think the text itself shows that this was a huge local event. I know the text and "under all the heavens" etc. is probably from the viewpoint of the observer, "mountains" can mean "hills", etc.

 

So the flood occured in the Mesopatamia and we find accounts of it in other cultures. Penquins, polar bears, kangaroos, etc. were not on the ark. Only animals of special relationship to man and in the region were aboard.

 

Wrong. The bible clearly shows this is supposed to be a worldwide flood.

 

Genesis 7:19-23

 

19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. [a] , 21 Every living thing that moved on the earth perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.

 

Frankly....by even trying to pass this off as a local event, you just displayed that YOU find the global flood story impossible to swallow. Particularly as a flood of that magnitude would have left very specific evidence of it's passing (geological records in the ice cores in Greenland for example).

 

Not to mention trying to pass this off as a local event, you rip the miraculous right out of it. You've minimized an act you believe was attributable to god. Gee. How nice of you.

 

So either you believe this story is the fanciful description of a local event, therefore minimizing the work of god OR you believe this was a global event despite all geological evidence to the contrary.

 

What is it they say about having your cake and eating it too? :scratch:

 

That is the only true temptation most religions have to offer on a wide scale. It is the ULTIMATE in having your cake and eating it too. In what other belief systems do you die, and live eternally at the same time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

KH> First, by what objective standard are you determining the system of blood sacrifices is valid? It certainly is a picture of the consequences of wrong and the application of justice.

 

No, its a stupid idea made up by bronze age cultists who claimed that somehow when they killed one of there cows god could magicly forgive them. Its utter nonsense. You might as well claim people walk on the sky as far as I'm concerened.

 

 

KH> And that relativism is the rub. It is tantamount to saying that there is nothing actually wrong, just whatever you happen to think is wrong or what a given society says is wrong. Relativism fails miserably.

 

Ok, I think your version of relativism falls prey to the standard christian strawman of relativism, that without god we would all be immoral and kill and rape each other. but even if your discrpition is absolutly right...what then? Just because society decides right from wrong instead of god. How does relativism fail miserably. Let me clue you in on something Belief does not equal truth. I for one would rather live in the real world. Even if said world is complex and confusing its better than pretending in invisible beings in the sky that tell us right from wrong. Ask any antropologist and they will TELL you that societies ARE the ones that decided right from wrong and always have been.

 

Besides you follow a god that allowed human sacrifice in his name...I'd hardly call his morality "absolute"

 

 

And by the way, Atheism continues to fall on hard times in academic philosophy - especially the last 50 years. Big Bang Cosmology is probably the final nail in the coffin of Atheism in my opinion.

 

I could really care less that YOU thinkg Atheism has fallen on hard times, no one really cares what you think. your belief is not proof

Have you examined the evidence for the resurrection of Christ?

 

OH GOOD NIGHT....could you stop being so damn presumptious for one damn minute. This is NOT Athiesm.net it is EXchristian.net I was a chrstian for 6 freaking years. I evangilized led bible studies, played in a worship band, got up every morning to "talk to God" even when on a mission trip to India while I was in college. I was also a religion major so I dare say I've studied the claims of christ JUST as much as you.

 

I've also cearly studied less biasesd accounts of christianities origins than you. Well, anyone you read who doesn't aggree with your a-prioi postion is labeled an extremist in your mind anyway.

 

The resurection is a hoax and worst, and at best is just a story cobbled together from bits of fables from the first centruy. Do you KNOW how many religions in the first century worshiped a god who died and was resurected? Have you ever studied the roman mystery cults? People believed in made up stuff like this all the time back then. And it hasn't changed much today. The bible says something like 40 people witnessed his resurection.

 

How much do you want to bet that I can dig up 40 people living in the united states right now that claim to have seen Elvis since he died. And we live in an age where claims lare held much more skepticly and can be more easily tested. Back then it would have been virtually imposible to test said claims. People can be idiots, I know it and you know it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KH> Some brief comments on each. I don't think Genesis teaches a global flood but a universal flood. I think the text itself shows that this was a huge local event. I know the text and "under all the heavens" etc. is probably from the viewpoint of the observer, "mountains" can mean "hills", etc.

 

So the flood occured in the Mesopatamia and we find accounts of it in other cultures. Penquins, polar bears, kangaroos, etc. were not on the ark. Only animals of special relationship to man and in the region were aboard.

 

The serpent in Genesis was not a Boa with vocal chords. That is a parody and contamination of Middle Ages art. Genesis seems to depict the serpent as something beyond a "snake", perhaps something no longer extant. He was "beautiful" and intelligent, etc.

 

If you were to ask me if donkeys can talk I would say, "Naturally, no". But the Bible does not describe this as a natural event, but a supernatural one. It gets back to theism vs. naturalism. If God exists he can do miracles and specific revelation.

You kinda missed the point of my post. Let's for instance take the stance that everything you just said in the above quote is what the bible really meant. Can you see how it would be hard to believe something "beyond a snake" was talking to eve? Can you see how a story about a supernatural talking donkey can be hard to be taken as fact? Can you see how a book with unicorns and cockatrices and evil creatures that try to get you to do bad things can be as weird to believe in?

 

My real question is this. Do you think it is reasonable or understandable that many people would have a hard time believe much of the bible with stories like these? Can it even seem slightly reasonable to dismiss the whole bible when it contains these stories that are often accepted as fact? Can you understand why people would not believe the bible as factual?

 

If you can understand why most people might find it hard to believe many bible passages and stories then you can understand why most of us left. Understand we have good reasons to believe that the bible isn't true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KH> Some brief comments on each. I don't think Genesis teaches a global flood but a universal flood. I think the text itself shows that this was a huge local event. I know the text and "under all the heavens" etc. is probably from the viewpoint of the observer, "mountains" can mean "hills", etc.

 

So the flood occured in the Mesopatamia and we find accounts of it in other cultures. Penquins, polar bears, kangaroos, etc. were not on the ark. Only animals of special relationship to man and in the region were aboard.

 

Wrong. The bible clearly shows this is supposed to be a worldwide flood.

 

Genesis 7:19-23

 

19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. [a] , 21 Every living thing that moved on the earth perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.

 

You can't slip one by on WR Kevin, she is a great fact checker. Surely you knew this though. I guess that makes you a liar for Christ. Most apologists fall into this category so it's not a big surprise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't slip one by on WR Kevin, she is a great fact checker. Surely you knew this though. I guess that makes you a liar for Christ. Most apologists fall into this category so it's not a big surprise.

 

Thanks Vigile! :grin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

KH> Sorry to be brief, but "pagan parallels" are not valid.

 

The heck they aren't valid. Why would THE GOD of all gods have to copy pagan gods? Get real... he couldn't create something new that hadn't been done before? Every single aspect of Christianity is a carbon copy off of a preexisting belief system. There is nothing what so ever unique about the doctrine.

 

If you think so, then you must think John F. Kennedy was borrowed from Abraham Lincoln.

 

:ugh: I'm not sure what you mean here? Both were real US Presidents, am I to assume that both pagan gods are real gods?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kevin H says:

 

God does not torture anyone for eternity for failure to comply. I don't blame you for rejecting that Staw Man.

 

But previously Kevin H said:

 

We come to Christ for salvation from the coming wrath of a holy and righteous God before whom we will stand one day. His gracious provision is the Cross. Or, you can stand before God on your own terms and merit and take your best shot. Good luck.

 

Well which is it Kevin? Are we going to be sent to hell by your god for failure to accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and saviour or are we not? And please no bullshit about him not sending us there, but our "choosing" to go there. Either your god is all powerful and all loving and can save his creations from anything including themselves or he isn't and can't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I say Christianity is factual because it is based on the facts of history, i.e. the New Testament is reliable, the radical claims of Christ were recorded and preserved, extra-biblical sources on Christ, etc.

 

There are many facts about Jesus that historians agree on, but come to different conclusions as to what the facts mean based on worldviews, bias, presuppositions, religious views, etc.

 

So, I say belief in Christ as savior is not necessarily based on fact, but supported by fact. This distinguishes it from competing religious options in my opinion.

 

But I say that because many come to faith and relationship with the living Christ internally, subjectively, prior to doing an exhaustive study of the objective evidence for Christ's claims.

The saddest part of this is that this entire post is a delusion. The only reason any of this makes sense to you is because you want it to make sense. You have yet to make one single argument in either of your most recent threads that does not stem from a presumption that the bible is true. You always say 'if it's true' or 'if christ exists'. The 'facts' you speak of simply do not exist.

 

He doesn't, you're wrong, you're fooled and you are blind. WE are the ones who have had the scales removed from our eyes.

 

I've only tried to discuss what I see as a problem for the church in America and why people become disillusioned emotionally or intellectually with Christianity.
The problem with the church in America is that its doctrine is false. It doesn't match up with reality no matter how many context arguments you make. All you have to do is heal one sick person or raise one dead person back to life. You can't do it. All your claims of truth and power and grace and mercy do not mean a single thing in the material world. Virgin birth does not happen. Resurrection from the dead does not happen. Blind men seeing and lame people walking does not happen. Withered limbs do not become restored. Your god is as useless and powerless as you or I.

 

That is one of the reasons I am here. I'll present my case for Christianity at some point on a new thread.
Yeah, why don't you just respect the site's mission and not do that. This is not your evangelism ground, this is a site for us to help each other now that we've stopped believing in magic and miracles and eternal damnation.

 

Or maybe I just don't understand X-C's true 'context'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.