Osama Bin Laden killed

[Howiee]

The burden of proof lies with the believer who makes the initial assertion. It is not possible for someone to prove that the bible isn't the word of a god they don't believe in.

But it was you who made the initial assertion that the bible is myth and allegory. I was only asking you to defend your position. I never said that I had proof that the bible is true, because I don't - I have evidences. Namely, the person of Christ; the historical and verifible historical figure who is, like it or not, irrevocably at the very centre of human history. He claimed to be the way, the truth and the life, therefore eliminating all the other competition by default. I believe Him. Simple. That's my logical thread. What's yours?

Well first of all, you're assuming my words to be "emotionally laden", when I am in fact just stating my opinions.

Fair enough. But given that the bulk of your argument consists of moral judgments against God for His seemingly cruel behaviour, and since you have just told me that morals aren't black or white, I can only assume that you're thinking emotionally.

The reason why some appear to hold such strong opinions with regard to religion is due to the fact that, christianity in particular posits itself as Absolute and unquestionable and has done so for centuries to deleterious effect. Historically, the Church has used political leverage to gain its authority and has used it to control and exploit. Beyond that, a lot of people have a problem with chritianity's claim that all non-believers will be tortured eternally by a god who is also all-loving, which is really just a way of threatening people into believing things that otherwise make no real sense. This is one of the major contradictions of the religion and one we are not supposed to question.

I won't shy away from the fact that some Christians in the past have behaved badly. They were wrong. That said, you can't pin a call to violence on Jesus, therefore anyone who does violence in the name of Jesus is ant-Christian.

However, to say that Christianity, in particular, is guilty of this, is to forget about the tyrannical Islamic regimes (that still exist), the atheist genocidal dictators of recent history, the Hindu militants and the Buddhist countries, like Thailand, that are eye-brow deep in corruption. Rather than put any of these down as evil, I would say all this points to Original Sin. By the way, Christianity isn't the only worldview that preaches exclusivity or hell.

Also, whilst there is opposition to christianity, I do think it is often exaggerated. One only has to look at the US, for example where fundamentalist christianity has a lot of power and influence. However, as soon as any dissenters speak against any aspect of the religion, then they play the "persecution" card. Additionally, problems arise when beliefs get in the way of other people's personal freedoms or impede progress. Wanting creation myths taught in school over factual science, for instance.

I disagree. We live in a secular world. The only thing that has power in America is money, sex and celebrity. While I don't disagree that the persecution card can be played, the thousands of Christians slaughtered monthly in, to name but one territory, China, largely goes unheard. Why? Because people need to be told about Jordan's latest husband, of course.

Common sense alone should tell you that biblical edicts such as stoning disobedient children or burning "witches" and people who believe other things alive is abhorrent in this day and age, and yes, I know you are not condoning these things, but you have to accept that if you take the bible fully and literally, then these things are also a part of it. Beyond that, there is the problem that christianity is not in any way progressive.

Assuming that you are an atheist (correct me if I'm wrong), and that you have already stated that morality is neither black or white, can I ask by which objective moral standard do you judge the burning of witches and the stoning of children to be immoral?

Another good example is the way christianity, centuries back blocked medical advances to prevent women from receiving anaesthetic during childbirth because they believed it flew in the fact of god's "curse" on women for the Fall. Obviously, that has long since been overturned, but is a good example of how regressive christianity can be and how damaging that can be when coupled with power and control.

This is hopelessly wide of the mark, Ady. A little historical research will tell you that centuries back (in the UK anyway) most, if not all, hospitals and universities were founded with Christian principles, hence most of them being called "Saint. Something". Not to mention pretty much every single mainstream charity still going today having their roots in Christianity too. Aside from humanitarian, educational and medicinal pioneering (Florence Nightingale, anyone?), the influence Christianity has had on art and culture through its music (how many top artists have been influenced by gospel music? Don't say MC Hammer!) and art has been monumental. And that's an understatement. You can accuse Christianity of many things, but regressive it most definitely is not.

Either way, my responses or opinions to biblical stories do not somehow validate them as being absolutely and unquestionably correct.

Respect for that. Same applies to me.

[Howiee]

Not true in all parts of the world, unfortunately.


Here's a question I thought of last night. There may be an answer or there may not, I don't know. Does it state in the Bible or Qur'an that what is written, the holy words, apply for ever? Like, is there a best before date? That's a serious question. We change and the world changes. The world of 2000 years ago is so different to the world of today. And the Old Testament is even older. So, even if it IS the word of God, wouldn't he be tailoring his word for the people and time he is delivering it to? Delivering messages in a way people could comprehend them. In a way they needed to hear at the time. Meaning, firstly, that differences in approach (Old and New Testament, for example) could be accounted for. But also meaning that, even if it's absolutely infallible, it won't always apply and may not apply now. How one, even God, would deliver a message to people now would be quite different.

So I guess the question is, even if you took them as the word of God, were those words really meant to survive this long?

Smashing question, Dogg Thang.

Allow me a stab at answering on behalf of the bible.

The laws of the Old Testament (where most criticism is aimed) are split into three groups; priestly, moral and civil. The civil laws must be understood in the context of a theocracy (under the direct rule of God). Those OT laws that fall under this category are not applicable today because we are not under a theocracy.

The priestly laws were representative of the future (High Priest) Jesus, who offered Himself as a sacrifice on the cross. Since Jesus fulfilled the priestly laws, they are no longer necessary to be followed and are not now applicable.

The moral laws, on the other hand, are not abolished, because the moral laws are based upon the character of God. Since God's holy character does not change and He is eternal, the moral laws do not change either. Therefore, the moral laws are still in effect and will be until Jesus returns.

In the New Testament we do not see a reestablishment of the civil or priestly laws. But we do see a reestablishment of the moral law.

Hope that makes sense.

[Charlie]

Not true in all parts of the world, unfortunately.


Here's a question I thought of last night. There may be an answer or there may not, I don't know. Does it state in the Bible or Qur'an that what is written, the holy words, apply for ever? Like, is there a best before date? That's a serious question. We change and the world changes. The world of 2000 years ago is so different to the world of today. And the Old Testament is even older. So, even if it IS the word of God, wouldn't he be tailoring his word for the people and time he is delivering it to? Delivering messages in a way people could comprehend them. In a way they needed to hear at the time. Meaning, firstly, that differences in approach (Old and New Testament, for example) could be accounted for. But also meaning that, even if it's absolutely infallible, it won't always apply and may not apply now. How one, even God, would deliver a message to people now would be quite different.

So I guess the question is, even if you took them as the word of God, were those words really meant to survive this long?

Good question. Who knows. If those writing them really believed them to be the words of God then I presume they were supposed (in the mind of the writers) to last forever.

[Ady]

But it was you who made the initial assertion that the bible is myth and allegory. I was only asking you to defend your position. I never said that I had proof that the bible is true, because I don't - I have evidences. Namely, the person of Christ; the historical and verifible historical figure who is, like it or not, irrevocably at the very centre of human history. He claimed to be the way, the truth and the life, therefore eliminating all the other competition by default. I believe Him. Simple. That's my logical thread. What's yours?

I'm not sure what you're asking here. Are you seriously expecting me to provide you with some kind of proof that the god of the bible doesn't exist and that he didn't write said bible? And presumably my failure to do so somehow means that he does exist and that your assertion is correct?

Well, if that's the case, you can chalk that one up. That was very Edward Current, by the way.

Apart from that, I'm certainly interested in your "historical and verifiable" evidence for Jesus. And whether he existed or not, the fact remains that nothing was recorded about his activities until long after he'd already gone. Much of what we know about Jesus today started off as oral tradition which wasn't written down until a long time afterwards.

Fair enough. But given that the bulk of your argument consists of moral judgments against God for His seemingly cruel behaviour, and since you have just told me that morals aren't black or white, I can only assume that you're thinking emotionally.

How does me stating that morals aren't black and white proof that I am thinking emotionally?

I won't shy away from the fact that some Christians in the past have behaved badly. They were wrong. That said, you can't pin a call to violence on Jesus, therefore anyone who does violence in the name of Jesus is ant-Christian.

Tell that to the Crusaders, the Inquisition, the soldiers under Roman rule (where Christianity was unified and solidified) who sought to kill "heretics" and believers who deviated from the Party Line they helped create. Also tell that to the colonialists and slave masters who beat their slaves whilst quoting scripture telling them they should be subservient.

Yes, I know that much of these acts appeared to be contrary to what Jesus taught, but they are a part of the history of christianity whether you like it or not. And whether you like it or not, these people interpreted the bible and its teachings (including Jesus') in such a way as to justify what they did.

However, to say that Christianity, in particular, is guilty of this, is to forget about the tyrannical Islamic regimes (that still exist), the atheist genocidal dictators of recent history, the Hindu militants and the Buddhist countries, like Thailand, that are eye-brow deep in corruption. Rather than put any of these down as evil, I would say all this points to Original Sin. By the way, Christianity isn't the only worldview that preaches exclusivity or hell.

I don't dispute any of that, but the attitudes of non-christian faiths are not germane to the discussion you and I are having right now. However, rather than attributing "the problem with evil" to Original Sin as you've done, I'd assert its more a problem with the fallibility of human nature. So, in that respect, no one religion is responsible for worldwide atrocities and similarly, no one religion is exempt. Thus, there is nothing special or sacred about christianity outside of its own claims about itself.

And since you mentioned Islam, just like you speak for the historical verifiability of Jesus and what he taught, Muslims would argue the exact same thing about Mohammed.

Assuming that you are an atheist (correct me if I'm wrong), and that you have already stated that morality is neither black or white, can I ask by which objective moral standard do you judge the burning of witches and the stoning of children to be immoral?

Ah, I was waiting for the Objective Moral Standard argument.

The idea of an objective moral standard is a misnomer, particularly as it implies that human morality has to come from some nebulous outside force, which is not the case. Morality is largely determined by how we interact with each other. Humans are social creatures, by nature (I also believe we are all connected spiritually, but that's another issue entirely), thus our moral conduct is determined by this rather than the dictates of a third party. This video sort of explains what I'm trying to get at here:



As for what I "am", I consider myself a spiritual free-thinker, if anything (though I find myself leaning towards practical Buddhism these days, if only in theory). Interestingly, I actually used to be where you are now once upon a time. However, I de-converted from christianity around 10 or so years ago after realising that a lot of what it claimed din't really bear up in the real world. Also, learning about the history of the religion, as well as the teachings of other faiths (which christianity tries its best to demonise) has been a huge eye-opener. It has also made me realise that there is nothing particularly unique or special about anything it claims.

I'm of the opinion that every religion may have something to offer and that there are collective, universal themes running through each. Most of all, we should (IMO) be focused on one another as a species and working collectively towards becoming better. Spiritually evolving, if you will.

The defining principle then is love, not a specific theology. Historical evidence has shown, I think that the aggressive proselytising of any one faith has not made the world a better place.

This is hopelessly wide of the mark, Ady. A little historical research will tell you that centuries back (in the UK anyway) most, if not all, hospitals and universities were founded with Christian principles, hence most of them being called "Saint. Something". Not to mention pretty much every single mainstream charity still going today having their roots in Christianity too. Aside from humanitarian, educational and medicinal pioneering (Florence Nightingale, anyone?), the influence Christianity has had on art and culture through its music (how many top artists have been influenced by gospel music? Don't say MC Hammer!) and art has been monumental. And that's an understatement. You can accuse Christianity of many things, but regressive it most definitely is not.

What I stated before (resulting in the above response) is a fact. It happened. And no, I'm not saying christianity is all bad and I appreciate that some people have been influenced by it in a good way (though simply naming hospitals after saints is neither here nor there, IMO). I'm of the belief than ALL religions can offer something, but it determined by what an individual may need as is also determined by geography. This is also why proponents of christianity are wrong for bulldozing their way into other countries and forcing their religion on the populace.

Also "humanitarian, educational and medicinal pioneering" are not exclusive to christianity. The faith wishes to take all the credit for the good in the world, but abdicate all responsibility or involvement with its contributions to the bad as well. This is one of the biggest problems I have. It is not, as Charlie stated overpage that I'm unsure of what I think, but my problem with christianity is its absolute claim to morality, progress and happiness when there is mountains of real-world evidence to show that all of these things also exist OUTSIDE of the religion as well. Thus, the idea that you need to be a christian to be a good, moral, upstanding and peaceful person (which also implies that those who are not christians are the opposite) is completely untrue. Additionally, if it was the one true way, then why so many divisions and sects? Why so many wildly different interpretations of the same base text?

The way I see it, humans are fallible, we make mistakes, we get it wrong, and this reflects in everything we do, including our religions and their humanly fallible texts. When we get things right, we grow and we progress, but when we don't, the results are not pretty.

In truth, I have no problems with what you personally choose to believe and can understand how your faith may have helped you. I have family who are devout christians and again, understand where they are coming from even if I don't get the same thing from it myself. I can also appreciate that my opinions may have sounded a little forceful, sarcastic or sharp on occasion, but this is what happens when religious debates are started on internet forums. Some of it is also due to past experiences of trying to debate reasonably with christians which, in my experience is like pushing p*ss uphill with a fork: you cannot have a discussion with people who believe they alone are right and you are wrong.

That being said, even though we do not agree (and likely never will), unlike many apologists I've encountered, you present your views with lucidity and perspicacity (as opposed to shouting, sanctimony and threats of hell) but the bottom line is the world is full of different points of view and beliefs and this will always be so. This is the very reason we are even having this discussion.

[Howiee]

I'm not sure what you're asking here. Are you seriously expecting me to provide you with some kind of proof that the god of the bible doesn't exist and that he didn't write said bible? And presumably my failure to do so somehow means that he does exist and that your assertion is correct?

I'm not asking that at all. I'm asking you to defend your assertion that the Bible is myth and allegory, which you claim so absolutely.

Apart from that, I'm certainly interested in your "historical and verifiable" evidence for Jesus. And whether he existed or not, the fact remains that nothing was recorded about his activities until long after he'd already gone. Much of what we know about Jesus today started off as oral tradition which wasn't written down until a long time afterwards.

That's not true. The accounts of Jesus were written by eyewitnesses, people close to Jesus or by people under the guidance of those close to Him. There are copious amounts of evidence, both secular and religious, that verify this. It may be the case that you don't like, or believe, the evidence, but that doesn't make the evidence not true.

How does me stating that morals aren't black and white proof that I am thinking emotionally?

Because you were making an absolute moral judgement (on God for being cruel) despite believing that morals are subjective, which, to me, is neither rational or logical. Emotional, then, given the emotions that should cruelty might evoke?

Tell that to the Crusaders, the Inquisition, the soldiers under Roman rule (where Christianity was unified and solidified) who sought to kill "heretics" and believers who deviated from the Party Line they helped create. Also tell that to the colonialists and slave masters who beat their slaves whilst quoting scripture telling them they should be subservient.

Yes, I know that much of these acts appeared to be contrary to what Jesus taught, but they are a part of the history of christianity whether you like it or not. And whether you like it or not, these people interpreted the bible and its teachings (including Jesus') in such a way as to justify what they did.

I'm not sure I follow you here. You're listing acts of savagery carried out by Christians, which I have already stated that I won't shy away from, then you say that these acts were contrary to what Jesus appeared to teach, which is precisely the reason that I gave you in the first place in the hope that you wouldn't list acts of savagery carried out by Christians ... who weren't behaving like Christians. And then you say that no one religion is either responsible or exempt for acts of savagery? Eh? Do you write mortgage small print for a living?

And since you mentioned Islam, just like you speak for the historical verifiability of Jesus and what he taught, Muslims would argue the exact same thing about Mohammed.

Too right they would. And they won't find me disputing his existence. My grief is with the person of Mohammed and what history tells us of his character. But I don't disagree that he existed.

Ah, I was waiting for the Objective Moral Standard argument.

The idea of an objective moral standard is a misnomer, particularly as it implies that human morality has to come from some nebulous outside force, which is not the case. Morality is largely determined by how we interact with each other. Humans are social creatures, by nature (I also believe we are all connected spiritually, but that's another issue entirely), thus our moral conduct is determined by this rather than the dictates of a third party.

I was angling for it, if I'm being honest.

I don't think it is a misnomer. I think it's a really important question. Without an objective moral standard, morality is based on your opinion at best. Or sheer guesswork. You say that morality is determined by how we interact, which I agree with to an extent, but in some countries they love one another and in others they eat one another. What's your preference?

However, I de-converted from christianity around 10 or so years ago after realising that a lot of what it claimed din't really bear up in the real world.

What in the teachings or ministry of Jesus doesn't bear up in the real world? He describes the human condition like no other so called deity. It just so happens that everything a civilized society holds dear, is taught in the bible, if people care to look.

Thus, the idea that you need to be a christian to be a good, moral, upstanding and peaceful person (which also implies that those who are not christians are the opposite) is completely untrue.

Who in their right mind would say that? That's no idea of Christianity. Some deluded Christians maybe, but not Christianity.

Additionally, if it was the one true way, then why so many divisions and sects? Why so many wildly different interpretations of the same base text?

Original Sin.

That being said, even though we do not agree (and likely never will), unlike many apologists I've encountered, you present your views with lucidity and perspicacity (as opposed to shouting, sanctimony and threats of hell) but the bottom line is the world is full of different points of view and beliefs and this will always be so. This is the very reason we are even having this discussion.

You're not a bad debater, yourself. I enjoy having my beliefs challenged, I'm sure you do too. I really wasn't impressed with the stick men cartoon, though

[Dogg Thang]

In the New Testament we do not see a reestablishment of the civil or priestly laws. But we do see a reestablishment of the moral law.

Hope that makes sense.

Thanks as always, Howiee. Really appreciate the reply and, yes, I think it makes sense. I'd need to go back and find out what category things fall in to to be sure.

[Ady]

I'm not asking that at all. I'm asking you to defend your assertion that the Bible is myth and allegory, which you claim so absolutely.

I would've thought that my assertion was largely self evident. Unless, of course you have proof that the bible's stories are historical events. So to reiterate and expand upon my earlier point, where is the proof of Noah's Ark, of the Tower of Babel, of a Hebrew civilisation in ancient Egypt? In fact, show me one talking snake and I'll shut up.

Thus, if the bible and the stories within are not literal, historical events, then they can only be allegorical or mythical in nature.

That's not true. The accounts of Jesus were written by eyewitnesses, people close to Jesus or by people under the guidance of those close to Him. There are copious amounts of evidence, both secular and religious, that verify this. It may be the case that you don't like, or believe, the evidence, but that doesn't make the evidence not true.

Au contraire.

There is "copious amounts of evidence" that contradicts what you claim. In fact, many books have been written on the very subject (i.e. that the synoptic gospels are not in fact eyewitness accounts) if you care to do the research.

Some articles to back up my claims are:

Here.

Here.

Even christian writers agree that the gospels are not eyewitness accounts.

Because you were making an absolute moral judgement (on God for being cruel) despite believing that morals are subjective, which, to me, is neither rational or logical. Emotional, then, given the emotions that should cruelty might evoke?

I don't think we're going to get anywhere with this because we're talking at cross purposes. However, if you have a compelling case as to how the things I've already deemed to be cruel are in fact moral, then feel free.

Also, to correct you, I was not making an "absolute moral judgement on god", because I do not believe the god of the bible exists. So, if anything, I'm making a "moral judgement" (as you put it) on the PEOPLE who wrote those passages (and, in turn created god in their image).

If you want to know where I think morality comes from (which is what I think you're really getting at), then it was mostly covered in the video I linked. Morality is (IMO) defined by and through our interactions with one another as human beings. One does not need a 3rd party arbiter to tell us that certain acts (stealing, murder, rape etc) are immoral, which is to say there doesn't need to be any sort of "god" for most reasonable people to agree such things are abhorrent. If anyone does need the existence of god to be moral or to define morality, then it suggests they are only being "moral" because they think a god is watching, not because they have any scruples of their own.

I'm not sure I follow you here. You're listing acts of savagery carried out by Christians, which I have already stated that I won't shy away from, then you say that these acts were contrary to what Jesus appeared to teach, which is precisely the reason that I gave you in the first place in the hope that you wouldn't list acts of savagery carried out by Christians ... who weren't behaving like Christians. And then you say that no one religion is either responsible or exempt for acts of savagery? Eh? Do you write mortgage small print for a living?

Cute.

My point was that people who identify as christians can interpret scripture as a whole to justify some pretty abhorrent things. Christianity isn't simply just about what Jesus said and taught, and if it is, then the entire OT should just be discarded.

Irrespective of what Jesus may have said, two people can read the same bible (i.e. both the OT and NT) and come away with two wildly contradictory interpretations. This, to my mind points to the contradictory nature of the text itself.

Beyond that, Jesus' core teachings were not exclusive to him alone. The oft quoted "Do onto others" phrase, for example existed in different cultures way before Jesus was born.

In short, far from being consistent, the overall message of the bible is confusing and contradictory. The ultimate mixed message. No wonder christianity has so may sects that all believe the other to be wrong.

Too right they would. And they won't find me disputing his existence. My grief is with the person of Mohammed and what history tells us of his character. But I don't disagree that he existed.

Why is it OK to question Mohammed and "what history tells us of his character", but not the character of OT figures and writers who condoned and practised all kinds of barbarity?

I don't think it is a misnomer. I think it's a really important question. Without an objective moral standard, morality is based on your opinion at best. Or sheer guesswork. You say that morality is determined by how we interact, which I agree with to an extent, but in some countries they love one another and in others they eat one another. What's your preference?

Again, I don't think it's that black and white. No one country is all good and no country is all bad (which, ironically goes back to what this thread is actually about...). To refer to the video again, morality is largely emergent and not a fixed ideal imparted from on high somewhere.

What's fallacious about the Objective Morality view is that it is needed in order for people to be moral and that without it, people would become animals, which is not the case.

What in the teachings or ministry of Jesus doesn't bear up in the real world? He describes the human condition like no other so called deity. It just so happens that everything a civilized society holds dear, is taught in the bible, if people care to look.

Humans didn't need the bible to learn that murder and rape were wrong (especially as the bible doesn't actually state that they are). Plenty of other societies in existence around the time of the bible and before got on fine without it. Again, this view that the bible and christianity are arbiters of absolute morality is just not true.

And here's another one for you: the bible condemns homosexuality (an act between two consenting adults at the end of the day), bestiality (quite rightly), but is COMPLETELY SILENT on paedophilia or child abuse, which, at the very least is as despicable as bestiality. Why is that?

If your answer is "Well that's a given", then why is that a given yet bestiality (which is arguably LESS common) not?

Who in their right mind would say that? That's no idea of Christianity. Some deluded Christians maybe, but not Christianity.

A lot of christians do hold this view, as does christianity itself, hence the belief in...

Original Sin.

...which suggests that mankind is innately evil and only a belief in Jesus (i.e. converting to christianity) somehow supersedes that.

You're not a bad debater, yourself. I enjoy having my beliefs challenged, I'm sure you do too. I really wasn't impressed with the stick men cartoon, though

The way the video was rendered had no bearing on the validity of its content.

['Press Start']

Horus was born of the virgin Isis-Meri on December 25th in a cave/manger, with his birth being announced by a star in the East and attended by three wise men.
He was a child teacher in the Temple and was baptized when he was 30 years old.
Horus was also baptized by "Anup the Baptizer," who becomes "John the Baptist."
He had 12 disciples.
He performed miracles and raised one man, El-Azar-us, from the dead.
He walked on water.
Horus was transfigured on the Mount.
He was crucified, buried in a tomb and resurrected.
He was also the "Way, the Truth, the Light, the Messiah, God's Anointed Son, the Son of Man, the Good Shepherd, the Lamb of God, the Word" etc.
He was "the Fisher," and was associated with the Lamb, Lion and Fish ("Ichthys").
Horus's personal epithet was "Iusa," the "ever-becoming son" of "Ptah," the "Father."
Horus was called "the KRST," or "Anointed One," long before the Christians duplicated the story.
In fact, in the catacombs at Rome are pictures of the baby Horus being held by the virgin mother Isis - the original "Madonna and Child" - and the Vatican itself is built upon the papacy of Mithra, who shares many qualities with Jesus and who existed as a deity long before the Jesus character was formalized. The Christian hierarchy is nearly identical to the Mithraic version it replaced. Virtually all of the elements of the Catholic ritual, from miter to wafer to water to altar to doxology, are directly taken from earlier pagan mystery religions.

Mithra, Sungod of Persia

The story of Mithra precedes the Christian fable by at least 600 years. According to Wheless, the cult of Mithra was, shortly before the Christian era, "the most popular and widely spread 'Pagan' religion of the times." Mithra has the following in common with the Christ character:

Mithra was born of a virgin on December 25th.
He was considered a great traveling teacher and master.
He had 12 companions or disciples.
He performed miracles.
He was buried in a tomb.
After three days he rose again.
His resurrection was celebrated every year.
Mithra was called "the Good Shepherd."
He was considered "the Way, the Truth and the Light, the Redeemer, the Savior, the Messiah."
He was identified with both the Lion and the Lamb.
His sacred day was Sunday, "the Lord's Day," hundreds of years before the appearance of Christ.
Mithra had his principal festival on what was later to become Easter, at which time he was resurrected.
His religion had a Eucharist or "Lord's Supper."

There are many more Jesus's which is just a metaphor for the Sun of god of which northing can survive without. It truly is the light! :LOL:

Its not a halo!!!!





RE: Music and number being what the universe is made of, indeed, or more like resonance.



This thread will never end though. Such is the ingenious fracturing of the truth, hidden in many places with each arguing their piece is the only piece.

[Resonance]

Can we keep the religion out of this thread and stick to the main topic? I can promise you that no conclusion will be reached and you will all be further entrenched in the beliefs you entered this thread with.

[dataDave]

I worship the Sun. It creates and provides everything. I actually believe it has a consciousness to some effect, I thought that long before that ****ty Danny Boyle film too.

[Neon Ignition]

If it does, ask it to make sure it's sunny next Tuesday when I'm at Alton Towers

I believe that the episodes of Doctor Who are the retellings of real events and he is the one true vessel... you can't disprove it!!

[Howiee]

Horus was born of the virgin Isis-Meri on December 25th

Mithra was born of a virgin on December 25th.

It's at the seams that the counterfeit good falls apart. If you read the bible, you will conclude that there is no way Jesus could've been born on December 25th.

I once bought a Criterion DVD on eBay - Kurosawa's Ran - but it wasn't until I noticed a small typo on the reverse that I realised that this seemingly genuine DVD was a blatant fake. I had been fooled.

The fact that these characters predate Christ is neither here nor there; all the doctrines of Christianity exist in the Old Testament where we can see the prophetic teachings of Jesus as the son of God. The actual life of Jesus is recorded history.

[Neon Ignition]

Though again, there's no concrete proof of his place as the son of God, hence the reliance on faith that makes this debate and endless one. If there truly was a man called Jesus who had a profound effect on those around him at that time it would seem to me, again purely through theorisation, that he would be a normal man who gained fame and notoriety through revolutionist teachings and practices that ultimately led to his execution. After his death his followers embellished upon the details of his life in an effort to promote his teachings and gain additional followers. In the end though that's all we're left with, endless theories that we as individuals are left to decide whether we put stock into.

[Ady]

@Press Start To Begin

Excellent post. You summed it up. These stories are mythological and archetypal. It's all about what they mean to us collectively as a species rather than whether any of them literally happened or not.

The fact that these characters predate Christ is neither here nor there; all the doctrines of Christianity exist in the Old Testament where we can see the prophetic teachings of Jesus as the son of God. The actual life of Jesus is recorded history.

ORLY?

[dvdx2]

irrespective of what you believe, we are on this earth for a very short amount of time. Appreciate the here and now, do a good deed for someone you love today, smile and realise how lucky you are to be breathing.

:-)