<!--QuoteBegin-Pepe Muffassa+Mar 17 2005, 11:14 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe Muffassa @ Mar 17 2005, 11:14 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> read the process of cannonization (above post) - that is what establishes legitmacy. It isn't a matter of haphazardly picking books for the bible - it is a matter of considering a huge bunch of books and then holding them up to a standard. All the RCC books were held up to that standard - and while they are interesting and useful for historical purposes, they do not bear the same weight or have the inspired nature of the other 66 books. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm sorry, but I dont' see why the Council's process was any more legitimate thatn any other could be. Let's not forget that the way that you got to BE someone on that council was by surviving the previous coupld of centuries of conflict which had nothing to do with legitimacy of this or that school of Chrsitianity, and everything to do with whom survived or killed who. The standard was chosen according to the particular beliefs of the political victors and books were chosen by human actors, not god. I don't see why that makes them any more special than other texts or insights. Nowhere does Jesus or any other early Christian say anything about the need for a Bible or for it to be central to the religion.
I'm sort of confused at this. Even if Jesus' life contained parallels to older mythologies, that doesn't really disprove that it happened, does it? Just wondering at the logic of a lot of the posts here.
Generally speaking people really only hold two very basic views:
1. All religions shot-out from the idea of Christianity / God of the Bible & Hebrews. 2. Christianity / God of the Bible & Hebrews is a mish-mash of Paganism / Mysticism.
I believe in the first one.
The Bible is attacked many times for having errors and inconsistencies but when I read it, I see how the New Testament beautifully transfers from the Old Testament. If the Bible were a bunch of forgeries and revisions by hundreds or thousands of people, all trying to fit their hidden agenda into the Bible itself, it would be a mess in my opinion. The Bible of today may not answer all your questions but it's far from being that kind of mess.
It's the second law of thermodynamics for cryin' out loud! The natural world moves from order to disorder and the Bible seems very much in order. Imagine how such a compilation (without God's inspiration and intervention) would look if forgeries and revisions had plagued it.
It's a big game of telephone, pass a message on to your friend.
<!--QuoteBegin-DarkATi+Mar 24 2005, 12:58 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi @ Mar 24 2005, 12:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Generally speaking people really only hold two very basic views:
1. All religions shot-out from the idea of Christianity / God of the Bible & Hebrews. 2. Christianity / God of the Bible & Hebrews is a mish-mash of Paganism / Mysticism.
I believe in the first one.
The Bible is attacked many times for having errors...[snip] <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> But doesn't this discount your first view?
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I do have one question for you though Pepe.. and this is not intended to offend at all. What happens when ancient text from egypt bear exactly the same message as christianity, yet predate it by almost four thousand years?
The exact same story christianity is telling has been told for thousands of years in almost the exact same words, with minor name changes and/or location changes.
I agree with rob, lets not have a religion vs science debate considering that is a bit too hot of a topic. I'd rather explore the similarities of religions pre-dating current christianity which has a date of about two thousand years, to something that can go back to six thousand years and carry the same message and even the same context. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> How can all religions have originated from Christianity/ God of the Bible and Hebrews if the aforementioned was not the first?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Generally speaking people really only hold two very basic views: 1. All religions shot-out from the idea of Christianity / God of the Bible & Hebrews. 2. Christianity / God of the Bible & Hebrews is a mish-mash of Paganism / Mysticism. I believe in the first one.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What? ALL religions? Even the ones that PREDATE the dominance of Christianity in the West? Does Hinduism? Buddhism? Taoism? Shintoism? Any of the pagan gods?
I think, generally, there is a much more reasonable third option, which is that Christian thought was a mix of many ideas and some new ones that came a singular time in human history where three of the great cultural traditions (Greek, Hebrew, Roman) met and clashed together all in one explosive region.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Bible is attacked many times for having errors and inconsistencies but when I read it, I see how the New Testament beautifully transfers from the Old Testament.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course, Jews don't see it quite that way.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If the Bible were a bunch of forgeries and revisions by hundreds or thousands of people, all trying to fit their hidden agenda into the Bible itself, it would be a mess in my opinion. The Bible of today may not answer all your questions but it's far from being that kind of mess.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't see how one could properly judge that if they assume from the start that it is an infaliable holy text.
<!--QuoteBegin-Apos+Mar 24 2005, 04:42 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Apos @ Mar 24 2005, 04:42 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Generally speaking people really only hold two very basic views: 1. All religions shot-out from the idea of Christianity / God of the Bible & Hebrews. 2. Christianity / God of the Bible & Hebrews is a mish-mash of Paganism / Mysticism. I believe in the first one.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What? ALL religions? Even the ones that PREDATE the dominance of Christianity in the West? Does Hinduism? Buddhism? Taoism? Shintoism? Any of the pagan gods?
I think, generally, there is a much more reasonable third option, which is that Christian thought was a mix of many ideas and some new ones that came a singular time in human history where three of the great cultural traditions (Greek, Hebrew, Roman) met and clashed together all in one explosive region.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Bible is attacked many times for having errors and inconsistencies but when I read it, I see how the New Testament beautifully transfers from the Old Testament.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course, Jews don't see it quite that way.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If the Bible were a bunch of forgeries and revisions by hundreds or thousands of people, all trying to fit their hidden agenda into the Bible itself, it would be a mess in my opinion. The Bible of today may not answer all your questions but it's far from being that kind of mess.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't see how one could properly judge that if they assume from the start that it is an infaliable holy text. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I can look at the Bible as fallible and it still looks quite consistent. Though I may be a Christian now, I wasn't always. I've done my fair sure of "unbiased" (no one can be entirely unbiased) research. I've read the Bible full-well believing it to be a load of garbage and I still had trouble finding flaws in it.
Let's not turn this into an "inconsistencies in the Bible" thread, though.
I've answered the question that was originally posed, unless another one that is somehow relevant to the first appears, I shall be leaving this thread. My 2 cents have been issued. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Mar 22 2005, 05:55 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Mar 22 2005, 05:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm sort of confused at this. Even if Jesus' life contained parallels to older mythologies, that doesn't really disprove that it happened, does it? Just wondering at the logic of a lot of the posts here. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> not at all, it simply points out that if all sources are correct it could very well be a forgery. Anyways how can we sit here ripping the bible to pieces and not consider the possibility that there was a jesus, as easy it is for a 2000 year old text to be false it is just as easy for a website.
I personaly consider this likley but would never think to rule out any other possibility as i am 18 not 2000-6000 years old and have no REAL knowledge of jesus' life. How can any rational human being completley beleive/disbelieve something that they never saw and was written by people they never knew?
<!--QuoteBegin-Nineteen+Mar 24 2005, 03:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nineteen @ Mar 24 2005, 03:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Mar 22 2005, 05:55 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Mar 22 2005, 05:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm sort of confused at this. Even if Jesus' life contained parallels to older mythologies, that doesn't really disprove that it happened, does it? Just wondering at the logic of a lot of the posts here. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> not at all, it simply points out that if all sources are correct it could very well be a forgery. Anyways how can we sit here ripping the bible to pieces and not consider the possibility that there was a jesus, as easy it is for a 2000 year old text to be false it is just as easy for a website.
I personaly consider this likley but would never think to rule out any other possibility as i am 18 not 2000-6000 years old and have no REAL knowledge of jesus' life. How can any rational human being completley beleive/disbelieve something that they never saw and was written by people they never knew? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> 2 Corinthians 5:7
<!--QuoteBegin-DarkATi+Mar 24 2005, 04:32 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi @ Mar 24 2005, 04:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Nineteen+Mar 24 2005, 03:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nineteen @ Mar 24 2005, 03:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Mar 22 2005, 05:55 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Mar 22 2005, 05:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm sort of confused at this. Even if Jesus' life contained parallels to older mythologies, that doesn't really disprove that it happened, does it? Just wondering at the logic of a lot of the posts here. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> not at all, it simply points out that if all sources are correct it could very well be a forgery. Anyways how can we sit here ripping the bible to pieces and not consider the possibility that there was a jesus, as easy it is for a 2000 year old text to be false it is just as easy for a website.
I personaly consider this likley but would never think to rule out any other possibility as i am 18 not 2000-6000 years old and have no REAL knowledge of jesus' life. How can any rational human being completley beleive/disbelieve something that they never saw and was written by people they never knew? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> 2 Corinthians 5:7
"For we walk by faith, not by sight."
~ DarkATi <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> What confonds me DarkAti, is that even though you say you are fitting yourself into your first view. I could label you as an Egyptian Paganist, since that is where about 90% of your christianity comes from. That, IS a fact. (http://www.religioustolerance.org)
The bible is a collection of fables and legends, especially the OT, the NT was an attempt at history, sadly they failed that with grossly over-stated myths and just re-hashed most of the earlier legends pre-dating the bible by quite a few years. When I say quite a few years I mean well over three thousand.
*edit*
I have not yet recieved a response from the e-mail I sent off to the diocese in Minneapolis. I do hope they don't ignore me. <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+Mar 24 2005, 10:35 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Mar 24 2005, 10:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-DarkATi+Mar 24 2005, 04:32 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi @ Mar 24 2005, 04:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Nineteen+Mar 24 2005, 03:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nineteen @ Mar 24 2005, 03:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Mar 22 2005, 05:55 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Mar 22 2005, 05:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm sort of confused at this. Even if Jesus' life contained parallels to older mythologies, that doesn't really disprove that it happened, does it? Just wondering at the logic of a lot of the posts here. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> not at all, it simply points out that if all sources are correct it could very well be a forgery. Anyways how can we sit here ripping the bible to pieces and not consider the possibility that there was a jesus, as easy it is for a 2000 year old text to be false it is just as easy for a website.
I personaly consider this likley but would never think to rule out any other possibility as i am 18 not 2000-6000 years old and have no REAL knowledge of jesus' life. How can any rational human being completley beleive/disbelieve something that they never saw and was written by people they never knew? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> 2 Corinthians 5:7
"For we walk by faith, not by sight."
~ DarkATi <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> What confonds me DarkAti, is that even though you say you are fitting yourself into your first view. I could label you as an Egyptian Paganist, since that is where about 90% of your christianity comes from. That, IS a fact. (http://www.religioustolerance.org)
The bible is a collection of fables and legends, especially the OT, the NT was an attempt at history, sadly they failed that with grossly over-stated myths and just re-hashed most of the earlier legends pre-dating the bible by quite a few years. When I say quite a few years I mean well over three thousand.
*edit*
I have not yet recieved a response from the e-mail I sent off to the diocese in Minneapolis. I do hope they don't ignore me. <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm interested in a more direct link to this information... I peeked at <a href='http://www.religioustolerance.org' target='_blank'>http://www.religioustolerance.org</a> for a second but I didn't bother looking around.
If you make such a bold statement as to tell me I might as well be an Egyptian Pagan, I'd like more information backing it.
There is some more information for you as to exactly why Christianity "borrowed" almost all of their legends from the egyptians, and of course there is also Hinduism. Which does pre-date christianity by a few thousand years as well.
Cyndane, the entire basis for your argument is simply that two similar stories happened, one before the other, and so neither of them can be true, or rather, one of them is a copy off the other.
It's a nice tidy little argument, except for two or three points you've managed to conveniently neglect.
First, besides the four accounts of Jesus' life given in the gospels, the historian Josephus mentions Christ (with much contempt) as a magic-worker, or a sort of sorcerer. Jewish rabbis of the first and second century also referred to him <a href='http://answering-islam.org.uk/Shamoun/talmud_jesus.htm' target='_blank'>numerous times,</a> also often contemptuous, but nonetheless verifying what he said and did. The healing, for example, they claim was some sort of sorcery, but they don't deny it happened.
Not to mention the idea of predictive prophecy, there are estimated to be around 459 prophetic references to Jesus in the OT, (although this number is a little liberal, usually only slightly more than 300 are counted.)
Some short examples:<ul><li>Micah 5:2 - Messiah born in Bethlehem</li><li>Isaiah 53 - Messiah despised by his people, crushed and pieced for everyone else's transgressions.</li><li>Daniel 9 - Date of the Messiah's coming predictied 530 years before Christ (this one has been debated on here before, but the debate basically consisted of someone saying "I'm a hebrew, I speak hebrew, that's not what that word means." Where numerous biblical scholars and translations have found otherwise, I find this kind of objection neglegable.)</li><li>Psalms 22 - Description of crucifixtion, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me" cried out. One of the last things Jesus said on the cross.</li></ul>As I said, there's over 300 of these, some of them more compelling than others. As calculated by Professor Emeritus of Science at Westmont College, Peter Stoner, the likelyhood of any one person fulfilling by chance, say, 8 of these, is 1 in 10^17. If you go a little higher and accept 48 of those prophecies, the chance is 1 in 10^157. By contrast scientific probability breaks down at 1 in 10^50, simply because the chance is so astronomically small. <a href='http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/radio034.htm' target='_blank'>Quoted from here</a>
If you're going to dismiss Jesus as simply a rehash of Egyptian and Hindu myth, you have to deal with this first. There is simply no way that a real person could have unknowlingly fulfilled any of these, (being born in a town your parents didn't live in, dying in a specific way with two other people, having your executioners gamble for your clothes, etc) much less 300 of them.
<!--QuoteBegin-Legionnaired+Mar 25 2005, 10:24 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Mar 25 2005, 10:24 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Cyndane, the entire basis for your argument is simply that two similar stories happened, one before the other, and so neither of them can be true, or rather, one of them is a copy off the other.
It's a nice tidy little argument, except for two or three points you've managed to conveniently neglect.
First, besides the four accounts of Jesus' life given in the gospels, the historian Josephus mentions Christ (with much contempt) as a magic-worker, or a sort of sorcerer. Jewish rabbis of the first and second century also referred to him <a href='http://answering-islam.org.uk/Shamoun/talmud_jesus.htm' target='_blank'>numerous times,</a> also often contemptuous, but nonetheless verifying what he said and did. The healing, for example, they claim was some sort of sorcery, but they don't deny it happened.
Not to mention the idea of predictive prophecy, there are estimated to be around 459 prophetic references to Jesus in the OT, (although this number is a little liberal, usually only slightly more than 300 are counted.)
Some short examples:<ul> </li><li>Micah 5:2 - Messiah born in Bethlehem </li><li>Isaiah 53 - Messiah despised by his people, crushed and pieced for everyone else's transgressions. </li><li>Daniel 9 - Date of the Messiah's coming predictied 530 years before Christ (this one has been debated on here before, but the debate basically consisted of someone saying "I'm a hebrew, I speak hebrew, that's not what that word means." Where numerous biblical scholars and translations have found otherwise, I find this kind of objection neglegable.) </li><li>Psalms 22 - Description of crucifixtion, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me" cried out. One of the last things Jesus said on the cross. </li></ul>As I said, there's over 300 of these, some of them more compelling than others. As calculated by Professor Emeritus of Science at Westmont College, Peter Stoner, the likelyhood of any one person fulfilling by chance, say, 8 of these, is 1 in 10^17. If you go a little higher and accept 48 of those prophecies, the chance is 1 in 10^157. By contrast scientific probability breaks down at 1 in 10^50, simply because the chance is so astronomically small. <a href='http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/radio034.htm' target='_blank'>Quoted from here</a>
If you're going to dismiss Jesus as simply a rehash of Egyptian and Hindu myth, you have to deal with this first. There is simply no way that a real person could have unknowlingly fulfilled any of these, (being born in a town your parents didn't live in, dying in a specific way with two other people, having your executioners gamble for your clothes, etc) much less 300 of them. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Hehe.. legionaired. If you had actually read any of those articles you wouldn't even be saying this.
Everything "jesus" did and all of those "miracles" he created. Is a re-hashing of the older legends. All that has been changes is various names, places, and timeline. That is all. In fact, just in case you missed the links the first time.
After you tell me how this same man appeared over six to seven times in the span of about seven thousand years(different incarnations from egyptian to hindu), then you can refute that jesus was a real person, and not some re-telling of an older fairy tale.
*edit* Ok.. let me start by apologizing because sometimes you get a little emotional with the opposite refuses to hear anything but what they are told.
I shall make it very clear as to what I want you to find for me Legionaired, and to anyone else who wished to attempt this.
I want PROOF that christianity was the first one to have these god-man legends. That means you will have to find a scientific site, with no bias, that shows using our dating methods there is a christian document predating 7000 BC. I have tried looking for something to that effect just to see why everyone who follows certain faiths, be it christianity, islam, hindu, etc.
I wanted to see if there was one "orginal" religion, and I have found it, the older egyptians were THE first to use religion as a means of moral code with fear of eternal suffering.
I have never seen any other documents that have been dated before this religion. Even the writings in many of the caves around the countries don't date that back far other then the paintings of hunts and various other minor ceramonies.
You are welcome to try, but do not cite the bible as a source as it is dated at its earliest at 1200 BC by the dead sea scrolls.
I don't really care if a legend resembling Christ is present in every single worldview through all of time. Why?
Because the Bible said that would happen:
<!--QuoteBegin-Romans 1+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Romans 1)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->8The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, <b>because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.</b>
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. <b>22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.</b> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There's even a book a missionary wrote ("<u>Eternity in Their Hearts</u>", maybe?), documenting his experiences in Africa, where he met a group of people that believed in an all-loving, all poweful God, who had a son that died for their transgressions against that God. In 'Christianese' we call this sort of thing 'general revelation,' or the idea that God is just so awesome a God, that his influence and presence is somehow noticeable. At least, to those who are willing to hear it, and through that, they'll believe in Christ without ever actually hearing the name of Jesus.
The fact that other religions have a lot of the same ideas of Christianity, a lot earlyer, doesn't phase my faith, rather it re-inforces the idea that there is something real, spiritual, and powerful going on in the world.
And, since the Bible is the only holy book with the advent of predictive prophecy that claims itself to be God's inspired word, and while doing so manages to be consistant and without contradiction throughout, I'll assume it's the one with the scoop.
Thus, I'll see that God is real, and that the Bible has the whole story about Him.
<!--QuoteBegin-Legionnaired+Mar 25 2005, 01:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Mar 25 2005, 01:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I don't really care if a legend resembling Christ is present in every single worldview through all of time. Why?
Because the Bible said that would happen:
<!--QuoteBegin-Romans 1+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Romans 1)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->8The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, <b>because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.</b>
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. <b>22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.</b> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There's even a book a missionary wrote ("<u>Eternity in Their Hearts</u>", maybe?), documenting his experiences in Africa, where he met a group of people that believed in an all-loving, all poweful God, who had a son that died for their transgressions against that God. In 'Christianese' we call this sort of thing 'general revelation,' or the idea that God is just so awesome a God, that his influence and presence is somehow noticeable. At least, to those who are willing to hear it, and through that, they'll believe in Christ without ever actually hearing the name of Jesus.
The fact that other religions have a lot of the same ideas of Christianity, a lot earlyer, doesn't phase my faith, rather it re-inforces the idea that there is something real, spiritual, and powerful going on in the world.
And, since the Bible is the only holy book with the advent of predictive prophecy that claims itself to be God's inspired word, and while doing so manages to be consistant and without contradiction throughout, I'll assume it's the one with the scoop.
Thus, I'll see that God is real, and that the Bible has the whole story about Him.
EDITED: because the forum tags hate me. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You have just choosen every cop-out that has ever been used throughout all of christianity's history.
I'll leave it up to the people that actually care about finding out the truth then, since obviously a book that copies every other legend is very "unfaillable".
(I'll give some very good examples when I get home and have more time on the computer, since I have all the links bookmarked there.)
I hate it when people quote the Bible to prove the Bible.
Use historical evidence or whatever, you can quote from the Bible to justify moral actions, beliefs, etc.. But for cry out loud, don't quote the Bible to prove the Bible is real.
I forgot to add, by quote from the source we are trying to prove whether it is the "real" religion or not you are basically saying, "I know this isn't verifible, so I am going to give up all creditablity and look like a ignorant fool by quoting the very thing we are trying to debate."
That is debate 101, in fact not even that, basic english composition which I do know they do teach in all high schools across the nation. Some more then others.
Basic rule that all debates/discussions follow is you back up your sources with other sources from a non-biased source. Obviously using the bible is a very biased source to back up the bible from.
I do hope that made sense.
*edit* If your birthdate is your real one Legionaired, I shall withdraw the previous statement about it being taught at all HS schools, usually they don't teach that till at least junior grade level, assuming you are in the US of course.
First of all, I'm a senior in HS, and I've already got the first 50 credits of my philosophy major under my belt from a combination of post secondary education courses and AP testing. (Though, judging by your birthdate on the forums, it is quite possible you've studied a good deal more than this in either philosophy, comparative religion, or religius studies. If you haven't though, well, I'll consider us on the same page.)
Regardless, don't get so condescending, telling me I'm simply not old enough to know this stuff.
After all, you don't get to be one of the senior members of your church's youth group leadership team, teach groups of 200 students on a regular basis, teach classes on apologetics, and lead a home group without running into a few objections to Christianity along the way. (my church, BTW, is <a href='http://www.xenos.org' target='_blank'>Xenos Christian Fellowship,</a> one of the 13 in the country <a href='http://www.zondervan.com/Books/verbiage.asp?ISBN=031025745X&Type=1000' target='_blank'> Zondervan Publications</a> wrote about as a 'Good to Great' church.)
All that aside...
I HAVE backed up the Bible, (my source) with other extra-biblical information (IE: Josephus, 1-2nd century rabbis, etc).
Those sources are actually slanted, though AGAINST the very thing I am trying to argue for, which is Christ's divinity and the Bible's credibility.
By acknowledging the fact that Christ did, in fact, do healing and miracle work, they autheticate much that is said about Christ. The only area they differ in is saying how He did it.
But, for the purposes of our argument, that is irreleveant. They claim he did do those things, the very things the Bible claims he also did.
So, the structure of my argument is as follows:<ul><li> ASSUMPTION : The historical evidence of Josephus' writings and 1-2nd century rabbinical writing is written, if anything, with a negative connotation put on Christ's works.</li><li> The things they say Jesus did match up with the things the Bible said Jesus did.</li><li><b>Thus, Jesus existed, and also did works listed in the Bible (though the Bible's commentary on their spiritual significance is in doubt.)</b>
That is, until the next point... </li><li>ASSUMPTION: Repeated predictive prophecy cannot have been done without spiritual interferance.</li><li>The bible has repeated predictive prophecy, much of which could only have been done by either chance, or spiritual intervention.</li><li>The probability of these things happening on their own, by chance, is so low as to not be taken seriously.</li><li><b>Thus, since Jesus existed, and since he could not have done the things predicted of him by chance, <i>there must have been a spiritual force at work in his life.</i></li><li>Since the Bible is accurate in describing the historical Jesus, has the only detailed account of spiritual happenings in his life of any scripture, and is consistant throughout, <i>it stands out as the only holy book that could have been divinely inspired.</i></li></ul>So, if we can take the Bible seriously, then when the Bible says, "look, people did all this stuff in the past, and this is why," then we can believe Paul when he writes that stuff about people looking to nature and interpreting their own worldviews, with varying degrees of success.</b>
Why don't you take another crack at the above logic, and we'll debate this point until we have some common ground.
EDIT: Missing tag, and some grammatical corrections I missed.
<!--QuoteBegin-Legionnaired+Mar 25 2005, 10:16 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Mar 25 2005, 10:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> First of all, I'm a senior in HS, and I've already got the first 50 credits of my philosophy major under my belt from a combination of post secondary education courses and AP testing. (Though, judging by your birthdate on the forums, it is quite possible you've studied a good deal more than this in either philosophy, comparative religion, or religius studies. If you haven't though, well, I'll consider us on the same page.)
Regardless, don't get so condescending, telling me I'm simply not old enough to know this stuff.
After all, you don't get to be one of the senior members of your church's youth group leadership team, teach groups of 200 students on a regular basis, teach classes on apologetics, and lead a home group without running into a few objections to Christianity along the way. (my church, BTW, is <a href='http://www.xenos.org' target='_blank'>Xenos Christian Fellowship,</a> one of the 13 in the country <a href='http://www.zondervan.com/Books/verbiage.asp?ISBN=031025745X&Type=1000' target='_blank'> Zondervan Publications</a> wrote about as a 'Good to Great' church.)
All that aside...
I HAVE backed up the Bible, (my source) with other extra-biblical information (IE: Josephus, 1-2nd century rabbis, etc).
Those sources are actually slanted, though AGAINST the very thing I am trying to argue for, which is Christ's divinity and the Bible's credibility.
By acknowledging the fact that Christ did, in fact, do healing and miracle work, they autheticate much that is said about Christ. The only area they differ in is saying how He did it.
But, for the purposes of our argument, that is irreleveant. They claim he did do those things, the very things the Bible claims he also did.
So, the structure of my argument is as follows:<ul><li> ASSUMPTION : The historical evidence of Josephus' writings and 1-2nd century rabbinical writing is written, if anything, with a negative connotation put on Christ's works.</li><li> The things they say Jesus did match up with the things the Bible said Jesus did.</li><li><b>Thus, Jesus existed, and also did works listed in the Bible (though the Bible's commentary on their spiritual significance is in doubt.)</b>
That is, until the next point... </li><li>ASSUMPTION: Repeated predictive prophecy cannot have been done without spiritual interferance.</li><li>The bible has repeated predictive prophecy, much of which could only have been done by either chance, or spiritual intervention.</li><li>The probability of these things happening on their own, by chance, is so low as to not be taken seriously.</li><li><b>Thus, since Jesus existed, and since he could not have done the things predicted of him by chance, <i>there must have been a spiritual force at work in his life.</i></li><li>Since the Bible is accurate in describing the historical Jesus, has the only detailed account of spiritual happenings in his life of any scripture, and is consistant throughout, <i>it stands out as the only holy book that could have been divinely inspired.</i></li></ul>So, if we can take the Bible seriously, then when the Bible says, "look, people did all this stuff in the past, and this is why," then we can believe Paul when he writes that stuff about people looking to nature and interpreting their own worldviews, with varying degrees of success.</b>
Why don't you take another crack at the above logic, and we'll debate this point until we have some common ground.
EDIT: Missing tag, and some grammatical corrections I missed. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually I can assume that you haven't completed the course because the vast majority of kids rarely pay attention when completed an english composition course. However, we are pass that and I did apologize if I was wrong, which happens to be the case.
Now, on to the fun stuff.
Firstly we shall quote three errors to avoid while attempting to prove or disprove.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Three Errors To Avoid
1. Do not assume inspiration or infallibility of the documents, with the intent of attempting to prove the inspiration or infallibility of the documents. Do not say the bible is inspired or infallible simply because it claims to be. This is circular reasoning. 2. When considering the original documents, forget about the present form of your Bible and regard them as the collection of ancient source documents that they are. 3. Do not start with modern "authorities" and then move to the documents to see if the authorities were right. Begin with the documents themselves. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I shall start with Josephus first then. Every site I have visited has been a biased view, every one has had either some ministry translate his works and/or a seperate bishop/preacher attempt to interpet his writings. Guess what, that means all of those "translations" are inherently biased towards one side of the arguement.
Next point. Your 1-2nd century rabbis, again same as above. I have yet to see a .edu site where it is not a chrisitianity professor and/or non-biased opinion on these rabbis. Keep in mind they are translating hebrew, which has many different meanings on many different words, and can have the truth spun upon its head just as easily as a top.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> # ASSUMPTION : The historical evidence of Josephus' writings and 1-2nd century rabbinical writing is written, if anything, with a negative connotation put on Christ's works. # The things they say Jesus did match up with the things the Bible said Jesus did. # Thus, Jesus existed, and also did works listed in the Bible (though the Bible's commentary on their spiritual significance is in doubt.) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Argument debunked because all of those "sources" you credited are translated interpeted by biased opinions. Show me real evidence, not some christian professor who thinks he can read hebrew from some 2000 yrs ago.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> # ASSUMPTION: Repeated predictive prophecy cannot have been done without spiritual interferance. # The bible has repeated predictive prophecy, much of which could only have been done by either chance, or spiritual intervention. # The probability of these things happening on their own, by chance, is so low as to not be taken seriously. # Thus, since Jesus existed, and since he could not have done the things predicted of him by chance, there must have been a spiritual force at work in his life. # Since the Bible is accurate in describing the historical Jesus, has the only detailed account of spiritual happenings in his life of any scripture, and is consistant throughout, it stands out as the only holy book that could have been divinely inspired. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This one is even easier. Repeated predictive prophecy. Egyptians were probably the best at this one by far, considering they predicted there would be a god-man walking the earth far longer then your bible shows. Oh but wait, they didn't call him Jesus, it was Horus.
I shall assist in this clearing of the gray fog.
Hindusim. As to why Jesus was actually more taken from hinduism then from egyptian paganism. (Side note for you, hindu scripts pre-date christianity by about three thousand years.) From religioustolerance.org <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> #6 & 45: Yeshua and Krishna were called both a God and the Son of God. 7: Both was sent from heaven to earth in the form of a man. 8 & 46: Both were called Savior, and the second person of the Trinity. 13, 15, 16 & 23: His adoptive human father was a carpenter. 18: A spirit or ghost was their actual father. 21: Krishna and Jesus were of royal descent. 27 & 28: Both were visited at birth by wise men and shepherds, guided by a star. 30 to 34: Angels in both cases issued a warning that the local dictator planned to kill the baby and had issued a decree for his assassination. The parents fled. Mary and Joseph stayed in Muturea; Krishna's parents stayed in Mathura. 41 & 42: Both Yeshua and Krishna withdrew to the wilderness as adults, and fasted. 56: Both were identified as "the seed of the woman bruising the serpent's head." 58: Jesus was called "the lion of the tribe of Judah." Krishna was called "the lion of the tribe of Saki." 60: Both claimed: "I am the Resurrection." 64: Both referred to themselves having existed before their birth on earth. 66: Both were "without sin." 72: Both were god-men: being considered both human and divine. 76, 77, & 78: They were both considered omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. 83, 84, & 85: Both performed many miracles, including the healing of disease. One of the first miracles that both performed was to make a leper whole. Each cured "all manner of diseases." 86 & 87: Both cast out indwelling demons, and raised the dead. 101: Both selected disciples to spread his teachings. 109 to 112: Both were meek, and merciful. Both were criticized for associating with sinners. 115: Both encountered a Gentile woman at a well.121 to 127: Both celebrated a last supper. Both forgave his enemies. 128 to 131: Both descended into Hell, and were resurrected. Many people witnessed their ascensions into heaven. Jesus' and Krishna's mothers were holy virgins: <b> (Its hotly debated for both religions if they were or not) </b> Jesus' and Krishna's mothers had similar names: Miriam (Mary) and Maia <b> (Mia is the hindu word for mother) </b> <b> More simiarlities </b> "The object of Krishna's birth was to bring about a victory of good over evil." 2 Krishna "came onto earth to cleanse the sins of the human beings." 2 "Krishna was born while his foster-father Nanda was in the city to pay his tax to the king." 3 Yeshua was born while his foster-father, Joseph, was in the city to be enumerated in a census so that "all the world could be taxed." Jesus is recorded as saying: "if you had faith as a mustard seed you would say to the mountain uproot yourself and be cast into the ocean" Krishna is reported as having uprooted a small mountain. 4 Krishna's "...foster-father Nanda had to journey to Mathura to pay his taxes" just as Jesus foster-father Joseph is recorded in the Gospel of Luke as having to go to Bethlehem to pay taxes. 10 "The story about the birth of Elizabeth's son John (the Baptist), cousin of Jesus, corresponds with the story in the Krishna myth about the birth of the child of Nanda and his wife Yasoda." 10 Nanda was the foster-father of Krishna. The Greek God Dionysos, Jesus and Krishna were all said to have been placed in a manger basket after birth. <b> Both were said to be cruxified as well, I am also going to leave this last bit unedited to see if you actually read something. </b>
In his book, Graves stated flatly that both Yeshua and Krishna were crucified between two thieves, at the age of about 30 to 36 by "wicked hands." However, this may have been wishful thinking. The "common, orthodox depiction of Krishna's death relates that he was shot in the foot with an arrow while under a tree."
But: The author Jacolliot, referring to the "Bagaveda-Gita and Brahminical traditions," states that the body of Krishna: "was suspended to the branches of a tree by his murderer, that it might become the prey of the vultures...[Later] the mortal frame of the Redeemer had disappeared--no doubt it had regained the celestial abodes..."
M. Guigniaut's Religion de l'Antiquité, which states: "The death of Crishna is very differently related. One remarkable and convincing tradition makes him perish on a tree, to which he was nailed by the stroke of an arrow."
There are other references to Krishna being crucified, and being shown with holes in his feet, hands and side.
In the Christian Scriptures (New Testament) Yeshua's crucifixion on a cross or stake is often referred to as being "hung on a tree:" <b> Even quoting your own bible shows the similarities </b> Acts 5:30: "The God of our fathers raised up Jesus...hanging him on a tree. Acts 10:39: "...hanging him on a tree." Acts 13:29: "...they took him down from the tree..." Galatians 3:13: "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us; for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree." 1 Peter 2:24: "...who his own self bare our sins in his body upon the tree..." (All ASV) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In closing, I would just like to state that once more christianity is simply a re-hashing of older and much more reasonable fables that a group of old men, probably elders of a community decided would be better then the current standard of fables, sadly they had to steal ideas from other cultures in order for it to work to their advantage.
The current sad state of christianity is due to the fact that no one is able to correctly translate ancient hebrew since no one was around to know the correct grammatical structure and sentence cohension needed to correct scribe the religion.
<!--QuoteBegin-Legionnaired+Mar 26 2005, 12:25 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Mar 26 2005, 12:25 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I started to prepare my response, looked at the clock, decided 'the hell with it,' and searched tektonics.org.
<a href='http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/krishna01.html' target='_blank'>Bleh</a> and <a href='http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/krishna02.html' target='_blank'> bleh.</a>
Have fun. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Very well I shall quote their site for those who don't want to read it, I know after reading the first few sentences and looking at the top of the website, this would be a biased site as well.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Tekton Apologetics Ministries is committed to providing scholarly answers to serious questions which are often posed on major and minor elements of the Christian faith. We believe in the importance of sound Christian doctrine which is based on a careful exegetical analysis of scriptures from the <b> Holy Bible </b>. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Any site who claims the bible is holy is not listening to both sides. For those that can not read properly, I shall translate for you. They wish to study christian docturine from within the bible and no-where else. After all they are assuming the bible is infaillable and it HAS to be correct. Conclusion: Biased.
Basically you used a biased site in a poor attempt at proof. Lets try this again shall we? How about a non-biased site this time.
Side note: Still no word from Minneapolis disocese I think they are ignoring me, or do not have the answer.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+Mar 26 2005, 09:55 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Mar 26 2005, 09:55 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Side note: Still no word from Minneapolis disocese I think they are ignoring me, or do not have the answer. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I wonder how many challenging e-mails they get, and how many they ignore?
It'll be really annoying if the bishop doesn't respond. You'd think he would - it doesn't send out a good message, otherwise.
<!--QuoteBegin-Snidely+Mar 26 2005, 10:10 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Snidely @ Mar 26 2005, 10:10 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+Mar 26 2005, 09:55 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Mar 26 2005, 09:55 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Side note: Still no word from Minneapolis disocese I think they are ignoring me, or do not have the answer. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I wonder how many challenging e-mails they get, and how many they ignore?
It'll be really annoying if the bishop doesn't respond. You'd think he would - it doesn't send out a good message, otherwise. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I do not believe they get many challenging e-mails simply because I had to ask the arch-bishop here for their e-mail address and even then if certain people I knew didn't know the bishop I'm sure I wouldn't have gotten it.
I do know they have a junk e-mail box, just like all major corporations do just to filter out the crap.
I shall give them another week then I shall call it quits and hope eventually they will get back to me.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+Mar 26 2005, 09:55 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Mar 26 2005, 09:55 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Legionnaired+Mar 26 2005, 12:25 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Mar 26 2005, 12:25 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I started to prepare my response, looked at the clock, decided 'the hell with it,' and searched tektonics.org.
<a href='http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/krishna01.html' target='_blank'>Bleh</a> and <a href='http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/krishna02.html' target='_blank'> bleh.</a>
Have fun. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Very well I shall quote their site for those who don't want to read it, I know after reading the first few sentences and looking at the top of the website, this would be a biased site as well.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Tekton Apologetics Ministries is committed to providing scholarly answers to serious questions which are often posed on major and minor elements of the Christian faith. We believe in the importance of sound Christian doctrine which is based on a careful exegetical analysis of scriptures from the <b> Holy Bible </b>. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Any site who claims the bible is holy is not listening to both sides. For those that can not read properly, I shall translate for you. They wish to study christian docturine from within the bible and no-where else. After all they are assuming the bible is infaillable and it HAS to be correct. Conclusion: Biased.
Basically you used a biased site in a poor attempt at proof. Lets try this again shall we? How about a non-biased site this time.
Side note: Still no word from Minneapolis disocese I think they are ignoring me, or do not have the answer. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm beating a dead horse.
Look at the second link. You see the sources they cited? Let me just copy and paste them for you, since you're obviously too lazy or close-minded to check them yourself.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--># 1984 Garland Publishing Inc. reprint of the Hindu Pantheon of Edward Moor and with an introduction by Burton Feldman. This is apart of "A Garland Series: Myth & Romanticism: A Collection of the Major Mythographic Sources used by the English Romantic Poets". All quotes from Moor are from this edition. # 1810 edition of the Hindu Pantheon by Edward Moor as found in the University of Pennsylvania Rare Book and Manuscript Library. # Quotes from Higgins, Doane, and Lundy located on this page are from Acharya S's chapter titled "Krishna Crucified?" which will appear in her next book "Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled" located online here: <a href='http://truthbeknown.com/kcrucified.htm' target='_blank'>http://truthbeknown.com/kcrucified.htm</a> That chapter is copyrighted by Acharya S 2001. A little bit of Acharya's own viewpoints have been paraphrased from this chapter in this essay. # "A Refutation of Acharya S's book, The Christ Conspiracy." By Mike Licona. This essay is located online on Licona's website here. To get to the essay, click on the Resources link which will provide you with a booklist link and an Article link. Click on the Article link and you will find the essay refuting Acharya's book The Christ Conspiracy. # Mabharata: The Greatest Spiritual Epic of All Time" by Krishna Dharma. Torchlight Publishing, Los Angeles and Delhi, 1999. # Ramayana: India's Immortal Tale Of Adventure, Love, and Wisdom." By Krishna Dharma. Torchlight Publishing, Inc. Copyright 2000 by Krishna Dharma. # "Hindu Myths: A Sourcebook Translated from the Sanskrit" by Wendy Doniger O'Flaherty. Penguin Books, copyright Wendy Doniger O'Flahery 1975. # Articles titled "Puranas" and "Bhagavata Purana". Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 2001. Copyright 1993-2000 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. This refers to the CD ROM version with online updates available. # "KRSNA: The Supreme Personality of Godhead" by A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada (The Founder-Acarya of the international Society for Krishna Consciousness) Bhaktivedanta Book Trust International copyright 1996. This work is in two volumes. # The "Bhagavata Purana" Translated into English by Dr. Ganesh Vasudeo Tagare and edited by Prof. J.L. Shastri. Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, Delhi (copyright) 1976. Private Limited. This edition is a complete translation of this extrememly important and popular Hindu scripture. It is in five volumes and comprises volumes 7-11 of The Ancient Indian Tradition and Mythology series. G.V. Tagare in his introduction to the Bhagavata Purana in his first volume of his translation to this Hindu scripture, gives us this quote from Panikkar's book "A Survey of Indian History" on the popularity of the Bhagavata Purana, that this scripture is:<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Do I see the bible on there?
No, I don't.
Do I see the bible cited ANYWHERE in that entire article?
No, I don't.
Do I, instead, see a critique of a thesis, drawing on commentary on HINDU scriptures?
Yes, I do.
If you can't actually debate with me, I'm happy to just write you off as a troll and move on my way.
Yes, before I even considered saying your website was biased I did actually look at where they cited from. Basically they did what the atheist sites do and take certain quotes out of context, but this time they did it from the hindu ideaology instead of the bible.
I did find what I was looking for, the hindu scripture that pre-dates the new testaments writings and where they based most, (not all) of it off of.
I shall attempt to find a full online resource for this hindu scripture.
*edit* After some searching appearently there are eighteen major books of the Puranas, and a few minor ones.
(Hinduism is not one of the areas I have the greatest strenght in, thusly I am learning along the way. Hooray for school taught researching skills.)
Here are some that are listed. <a href='http://www.hindunet.org/puranas/' target='_blank'>Puranas</a>
This has NOTHING to do with comparing christianity or hinduism to each other, all it lists and talks about is what is in the Puranas. I'm sure most people can draw their own conclusions considering the major puranas texts have been dated at around 1200 BC. (Which is the same time the Dead Sea scrolls were written.)
Oh I forgot to mention, before you call someone a troll perhaps you had better re-evaluate what you are doing in the thread as well.
I have also given you plenty of unbiased sites to base my information off of, yet all I see is an opinion from another minister/preacher/counselor for various christian practices. They took all the wonderful amounts of information that is out there on hinduism and turned it around to meet their agenda just like any other organization/corporation does.
Out of context? Pointing out what is wrong with an idea is taking something out of context?
I'm sorry, but I'm out. First, you insist that the entire NT is made-up, despite the overwhelming historical evidence for the factuality of Christ's existance, then you discout any source you don't like by crying bias.
I could say the _exact_ same thing about religioustolerance.org, because they assume that all religions are funadamentally the same and pay no heed to the glaring historical and scriptural errors in, say, Islam. (IE, Mohammed saying Christ never died on the cross, him saying that the Christians believe the trinity is Mary, God, and Jesus, etc.)
So, in effect, you say what you want, and then put your fingers in your ears and ignore anyone who doesn't think exactly the same way you do.
<!--QuoteBegin-Legionnaired+Mar 26 2005, 04:06 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Mar 26 2005, 04:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Out of context? Pointing out what is wrong with an idea is taking something out of context?
I'm sorry, but I'm out. First, you insist that the entire NT is made-up, despite the overwhelming historical evidence for the factuality of Christ's existance, then you discout any source you don't like by crying bias.
I could say the _exact_ same thing about religioustolerance.org, because they assume that all religions are funadamentally the same and pay no heed to the glaring historical and scriptural errors in, say, Islam. (IE, Mohammed saying Christ never died on the cross, him saying that the Christians believe the trinity is Mary, God, and Jesus, etc.)
So, in effect, you say what you want, and then put your fingers in your ears and ignore anyone who doesn't think exactly the same way you do.
Talk about close-minded.
I'm done here. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm going to go ahead and disagree again.
First off, relgious tolerance says nothing about all of them being the same, they simply list the similarties that most of the major religions share. Not once do they claim to have the answers in fact, many times they state there are conflicting views within each major religion as to how various members of each sect see that religion.
You go ahead and leave that is fine, everyone else who has argued for the new testament has left as well.
I'll update again if I have heard from the minneapolis disocese within a week. Or if anyone has any other questions I would be more then happy to entertain them as well.
No one has ever been convinced into Christianity. Which is why these types of discussions are frowned upon here. <!--emo&::marine::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/marine.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='marine.gif' /><!--endemo-->
People aren't convinced into religion at all, the majority of people are raised from the time of their birth to follow the same beliefs about religion as their parents. It was possible for an entire humanity to accept that there were supernatural gods and beings that watched over us, and when we died we went to an afterlife or heaven. Yet people seem so driven to hold onto their hope, and not accept the facts of science, and that when you die, you may just die.
I originate parts of religion with the Greek Gods system, religion can often be called the "Noble Lie," and philosopher Plato played a major role in making religion what it is today. Plato believed that people should be introduced to the idea of religion and an afterlife to give them meaning in life, it controls people, but for their own good, and makes them function better as a society. A hand picked group of intellects would watch over society, knowing the truth and the reasons behind this system, but eventually everyone bought into religion. Religion is now the cause of almost every war and conflict. I mean, the USA is going over to Iraq and attacking religiously patriotic militants who believe that blowing themselves up to take the enemy with them will make them friends with Allah, and grant them riches in heaven. All because most of the leaders of the USA are devout Christians, and many believe that the revelation and return of Jesus to earth as our saviour will happen soon.
I accept/don't even care that there was someone named "Jesus Christ," but that his adventures were based on mental disorders like schizophrenia, maybe he was a pawn of those all-knowing creators of religion, or maybe he just was fictitious, which wouldn't surprise me at all.
Down with religion. In todays society, it holds us back more than it allows us to take leaps forward. Imagine the billions of people who've died as a result of this "Noble Lie". Yet, in history and economic terms, fatalities mean nothing, (we learned this from communism) and it's all about how far you can advance in strength and power. In fact, we probably wouldn't be where we are today if it weren't 'thanks' to blind religion.
You guys must have learned something from Einstein. Read into his beliefs. Amazingly, the majority of people I know think he was devoted to Christianity. In fact, he was pagan, a praisier of the universe in all its awe, how things came to be as they are as if through some stroke of luck, love of life rather than waiting for death and heaven.
"Religion without science is blind. Science without religion is blind." - Einstein "Buddhism would be an excellent religion for the future, as it promotes a personal connection to spirituality and nature." - Einstein
<!--QuoteBegin-Zyco+Mar 28 2005, 03:57 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Zyco @ Mar 28 2005, 03:57 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> People aren't convinced into religion at all, the majority of people are raised from the time of their birth to follow the same beliefs about religion as their parents. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Missionaries? Although most people follow the religion of their parents, there is a significant minority that form their own views or are "convinced" into practicing another religion. <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It was possible for an entire humanity to accept that there were supernatural gods and beings that watched over us, and when we died we went to an afterlife or heaven. Yet people seem so driven to hold onto their hope, and not accept the facts of science, and that when you die, you may just die.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Science doesn't say anything about what happens after death. There are many philosophical questions that are by definition inanswerable by science. <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I originate parts of religion with the Greek Gods system, religion can often be called the "Noble Lie," and philosopher Plato played a major role in making religion what it is today. Plato believed that people should be introduced to the idea of religion and an afterlife to give them meaning in life, it controls people, but for their own good, and makes them function better as a society. A hand picked group of intellects would watch over society, knowing the truth and the reasons behind this system, but eventually everyone bought into religion.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Religion is often used to control people, but I don't think that many religious leaders don't believe in what they are saying. Now, politicians...
Also, religion doesn't control society at the moment. Religion is an extremely important element in the lives of much of the population, but they aren't ruled over by people who act because of religions reasons, for the most part. <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Religion is now the cause of almost every war and conflict. I mean, the USA is going over to Iraq and attacking religiously patriotic militants who believe that blowing themselves up to take the enemy with them will make them friends with Allah, and grant them riches in heaven. All because most of the leaders of the USA are devout Christians, and many believe that the revelation and return of Jesus to earth as our saviour will happen soon.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Religion is the cause of wars? I completely disagree. Islamic terrorists hate America because we are exporting our culture into their countries and exerting political and economic influence over their governments and economies. Popular dissent is what breeds terrorism. Without that, there would only be a few fanatics who hated America for religious reasons, but the rest of the population couldn't care less.
America did not go to war for religious reasons. America went to war because there was oil, to bring democracy to the Middle East, to reduce terrorism, because we thought that Saddam had WMDs, and to secure a long term strategic partner in the region. Out of all of Bush's advisors who were very important in the Iraq war (Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, etc), I can't think of any that agree with the policy for religious regions. Only Bush (and maybe Wolfowitz) is highly religious. However, he thankfully doesn't dictate foreign policy (and most of his domestic policy, too) according to his religious beliefs, although he is close to the religious right, who do hold apocalyptic views of the world.
There are few wars that are primarily religious. Most are for political, social, or economic reasons. I think you're massively overstating the role of religion in America and the world. <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I accept/don't even care that there was someone named "Jesus Christ," but that his adventures were based on mental disorders like schizophrenia, maybe he was a pawn of those all-knowing creators of religion, or maybe he just was fictitious, which wouldn't surprise me at all.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I have a question for someone. How do you differentiate between a prophet (i.e. someone who hears the words of God in his mind) and a schizophrenic? <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Down with religion.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Down with applying your (not you specifically) religion to other people. <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> In todays society, it holds us back more than it allows us to take leaps forward. Imagine the billions of people who've died as a result of this "Noble Lie".<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I agree.<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Yet, in history and economic terms, fatalities mean nothing, (<b>we learned this from communism</b>)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Huh?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You guys must have learned something from Einstein. Read into his beliefs. Amazingly, the majority of people I know think he was devoted to Christianity. In fact, he was pagan, a praisier of the universe in all its awe, how things came to be as they are as if through some stroke of luck, love of life rather than waiting for death and heaven.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> He's agnostic. <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.... I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. <b>You may call me an agnostic</b>, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Also, Paganism doesn't imply praising the universe and praising the universe doesn't imply paganism. <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"Religion without science is blind. Science without religion is blind." - Einstein<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It's actually, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." I think that science without religion isn't necessarily lame, but you shouldn't take science as the source of your personal philosophy on life.
Comments
I'm sorry, but I dont' see why the Council's process was any more legitimate thatn any other could be. Let's not forget that the way that you got to BE someone on that council was by surviving the previous coupld of centuries of conflict which had nothing to do with legitimacy of this or that school of Chrsitianity, and everything to do with whom survived or killed who. The standard was chosen according to the particular beliefs of the political victors and books were chosen by human actors, not god. I don't see why that makes them any more special than other texts or insights. Nowhere does Jesus or any other early Christian say anything about the need for a Bible or for it to be central to the religion.
1. All religions shot-out from the idea of Christianity / God of the Bible & Hebrews.
2. Christianity / God of the Bible & Hebrews is a mish-mash of Paganism / Mysticism.
I believe in the first one.
The Bible is attacked many times for having errors and inconsistencies but when I read it, I see how the New Testament beautifully transfers from the Old Testament. If the Bible were a bunch of forgeries and revisions by hundreds or thousands of people, all trying to fit their hidden agenda into the Bible itself, it would be a mess in my opinion. The Bible of today may not answer all your questions but it's far from being that kind of mess.
It's the second law of thermodynamics for cryin' out loud! The natural world moves from order to disorder and the Bible seems very much in order. Imagine how such a compilation (without God's inspiration and intervention) would look if forgeries and revisions had plagued it.
It's a big game of telephone, pass a message on to your friend.
Start with, "Science rocks, don'tcha think?"
and end up with "Steven Clark, dumb and stinks."
~ DarkATi
1. All religions shot-out from the idea of Christianity / God of the Bible & Hebrews.
2. Christianity / God of the Bible & Hebrews is a mish-mash of Paganism / Mysticism.
I believe in the first one.
The Bible is attacked many times for having errors...[snip] <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But doesn't this discount your first view?
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I do have one question for you though Pepe.. and this is not intended to offend at all. What happens when ancient text from egypt bear exactly the same message as christianity, yet predate it by almost four thousand years?
The exact same story christianity is telling has been told for thousands of years in almost the exact same words, with minor name changes and/or location changes.
I agree with rob, lets not have a religion vs science debate considering that is a bit too hot of a topic. I'd rather explore the similarities of religions pre-dating current christianity which has a date of about two thousand years, to something that can go back to six thousand years and carry the same message and even the same context.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How can all religions have originated from Christianity/ God of the Bible and Hebrews if the aforementioned was not the first?
1. All religions shot-out from the idea of Christianity / God of the Bible & Hebrews.
2. Christianity / God of the Bible & Hebrews is a mish-mash of Paganism / Mysticism.
I believe in the first one.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What? ALL religions? Even the ones that PREDATE the dominance of Christianity in the West? Does Hinduism? Buddhism? Taoism? Shintoism? Any of the pagan gods?
I think, generally, there is a much more reasonable third option, which is that Christian thought was a mix of many ideas and some new ones that came a singular time in human history where three of the great cultural traditions (Greek, Hebrew, Roman) met and clashed together all in one explosive region.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Bible is attacked many times for having errors and inconsistencies but when I read it, I see how the New Testament beautifully transfers from the Old Testament.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course, Jews don't see it quite that way.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If the Bible were a bunch of forgeries and revisions by hundreds or thousands of people, all trying to fit their hidden agenda into the Bible itself, it would be a mess in my opinion. The Bible of today may not answer all your questions but it's far from being that kind of mess.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't see how one could properly judge that if they assume from the start that it is an infaliable holy text.
1. All religions shot-out from the idea of Christianity / God of the Bible & Hebrews.
2. Christianity / God of the Bible & Hebrews is a mish-mash of Paganism / Mysticism.
I believe in the first one.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What? ALL religions? Even the ones that PREDATE the dominance of Christianity in the West? Does Hinduism? Buddhism? Taoism? Shintoism? Any of the pagan gods?
I think, generally, there is a much more reasonable third option, which is that Christian thought was a mix of many ideas and some new ones that came a singular time in human history where three of the great cultural traditions (Greek, Hebrew, Roman) met and clashed together all in one explosive region.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Bible is attacked many times for having errors and inconsistencies but when I read it, I see how the New Testament beautifully transfers from the Old Testament.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course, Jews don't see it quite that way.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If the Bible were a bunch of forgeries and revisions by hundreds or thousands of people, all trying to fit their hidden agenda into the Bible itself, it would be a mess in my opinion. The Bible of today may not answer all your questions but it's far from being that kind of mess.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't see how one could properly judge that if they assume from the start that it is an infaliable holy text. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can look at the Bible as fallible and it still looks quite consistent. Though I may be a Christian now, I wasn't always. I've done my fair sure of "unbiased" (no one can be entirely unbiased) research. I've read the Bible full-well believing it to be a load of garbage and I still had trouble finding flaws in it.
Let's not turn this into an "inconsistencies in the Bible" thread, though.
I've answered the question that was originally posed, unless another one that is somehow relevant to the first appears, I shall be leaving this thread. My 2 cents have been issued. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
~ DarkATi
not at all, it simply points out that if all sources are correct it could very well be a forgery. Anyways how can we sit here ripping the bible to pieces and not consider the possibility that there was a jesus, as easy it is for a 2000 year old text to be false it is just as easy for a website.
I personaly consider this likley but would never think to rule out any other possibility as i am 18 not 2000-6000 years old and have no REAL knowledge of jesus' life. How can any rational human being completley beleive/disbelieve something that they never saw and was written by people they never knew?
not at all, it simply points out that if all sources are correct it could very well be a forgery. Anyways how can we sit here ripping the bible to pieces and not consider the possibility that there was a jesus, as easy it is for a 2000 year old text to be false it is just as easy for a website.
I personaly consider this likley but would never think to rule out any other possibility as i am 18 not 2000-6000 years old and have no REAL knowledge of jesus' life. How can any rational human being completley beleive/disbelieve something that they never saw and was written by people they never knew? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
2 Corinthians 5:7
"For we walk by faith, not by sight."
~ DarkATi
not at all, it simply points out that if all sources are correct it could very well be a forgery. Anyways how can we sit here ripping the bible to pieces and not consider the possibility that there was a jesus, as easy it is for a 2000 year old text to be false it is just as easy for a website.
I personaly consider this likley but would never think to rule out any other possibility as i am 18 not 2000-6000 years old and have no REAL knowledge of jesus' life. How can any rational human being completley beleive/disbelieve something that they never saw and was written by people they never knew? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
2 Corinthians 5:7
"For we walk by faith, not by sight."
~ DarkATi <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What confonds me DarkAti, is that even though you say you are fitting yourself into your first view. I could label you as an Egyptian Paganist, since that is where about 90% of your christianity comes from. That, IS a fact. (http://www.religioustolerance.org)
The bible is a collection of fables and legends, especially the OT, the NT was an attempt at history, sadly they failed that with grossly over-stated myths and just re-hashed most of the earlier legends pre-dating the bible by quite a few years. When I say quite a few years I mean well over three thousand.
*edit*
I have not yet recieved a response from the e-mail I sent off to the diocese in Minneapolis. I do hope they don't ignore me. <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
not at all, it simply points out that if all sources are correct it could very well be a forgery. Anyways how can we sit here ripping the bible to pieces and not consider the possibility that there was a jesus, as easy it is for a 2000 year old text to be false it is just as easy for a website.
I personaly consider this likley but would never think to rule out any other possibility as i am 18 not 2000-6000 years old and have no REAL knowledge of jesus' life. How can any rational human being completley beleive/disbelieve something that they never saw and was written by people they never knew? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
2 Corinthians 5:7
"For we walk by faith, not by sight."
~ DarkATi <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What confonds me DarkAti, is that even though you say you are fitting yourself into your first view. I could label you as an Egyptian Paganist, since that is where about 90% of your christianity comes from. That, IS a fact. (http://www.religioustolerance.org)
The bible is a collection of fables and legends, especially the OT, the NT was an attempt at history, sadly they failed that with grossly over-stated myths and just re-hashed most of the earlier legends pre-dating the bible by quite a few years. When I say quite a few years I mean well over three thousand.
*edit*
I have not yet recieved a response from the e-mail I sent off to the diocese in Minneapolis. I do hope they don't ignore me. <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm interested in a more direct link to this information... I peeked at <a href='http://www.religioustolerance.org' target='_blank'>http://www.religioustolerance.org</a> for a second but I didn't bother looking around.
If you make such a bold statement as to tell me I might as well be an Egyptian Pagan, I'd like more information backing it.
~ DarkATi
<a href='http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/prehistory/egypt/religion/religion.html' target='_blank'>Egyptian religion (Ancient, not current)</a>
<a href='http://www.religioustolerance.org/christ.htm' target='_blank'>Christianity</a>
There is some more information for you as to exactly why Christianity "borrowed" almost all of their legends from the egyptians, and of course there is also Hinduism. Which does pre-date christianity by a few thousand years as well.
<a href='http://www.religioustolerance.org/hinduism.htm' target='_blank'>Hinduism</a>
It's a nice tidy little argument, except for two or three points you've managed to conveniently neglect.
First, besides the four accounts of Jesus' life given in the gospels, the historian Josephus mentions Christ (with much contempt) as a magic-worker, or a sort of sorcerer. Jewish rabbis of the first and second century also referred to him <a href='http://answering-islam.org.uk/Shamoun/talmud_jesus.htm' target='_blank'>numerous times,</a> also often contemptuous, but nonetheless verifying what he said and did. The healing, for example, they claim was some sort of sorcery, but they don't deny it happened.
Not to mention the idea of predictive prophecy, there are estimated to be around 459 prophetic references to Jesus in the OT, (although this number is a little liberal, usually only slightly more than 300 are counted.)
Some short examples:<ul><li>Micah 5:2 - Messiah born in Bethlehem</li><li>Isaiah 53 - Messiah despised by his people, crushed and pieced for everyone else's transgressions.</li><li>Daniel 9 - Date of the Messiah's coming predictied 530 years before Christ (this one has been debated on here before, but the debate basically consisted of someone saying "I'm a hebrew, I speak hebrew, that's not what that word means." Where numerous biblical scholars and translations have found otherwise, I find this kind of objection neglegable.)</li><li>Psalms 22 - Description of crucifixtion, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me" cried out. One of the last things Jesus said on the cross.</li></ul>As I said, there's over 300 of these, some of them more compelling than others. As calculated by Professor Emeritus of Science at Westmont College, Peter Stoner, the likelyhood of any one person fulfilling by chance, say, 8 of these, is 1 in 10^17. If you go a little higher and accept 48 of those prophecies, the chance is 1 in 10^157. By contrast scientific probability breaks down at 1 in 10^50, simply because the chance is so astronomically small. <a href='http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/radio034.htm' target='_blank'>Quoted from here</a>
If you're going to dismiss Jesus as simply a rehash of Egyptian and Hindu myth, you have to deal with this first. There is simply no way that a real person could have unknowlingly fulfilled any of these, (being born in a town your parents didn't live in, dying in a specific way with two other people, having your executioners gamble for your clothes, etc) much less 300 of them.
It's a nice tidy little argument, except for two or three points you've managed to conveniently neglect.
First, besides the four accounts of Jesus' life given in the gospels, the historian Josephus mentions Christ (with much contempt) as a magic-worker, or a sort of sorcerer. Jewish rabbis of the first and second century also referred to him <a href='http://answering-islam.org.uk/Shamoun/talmud_jesus.htm' target='_blank'>numerous times,</a> also often contemptuous, but nonetheless verifying what he said and did. The healing, for example, they claim was some sort of sorcery, but they don't deny it happened.
Not to mention the idea of predictive prophecy, there are estimated to be around 459 prophetic references to Jesus in the OT, (although this number is a little liberal, usually only slightly more than 300 are counted.)
Some short examples:<ul>
</li><li>Micah 5:2 - Messiah born in Bethlehem
</li><li>Isaiah 53 - Messiah despised by his people, crushed and pieced for everyone else's transgressions.
</li><li>Daniel 9 - Date of the Messiah's coming predictied 530 years before Christ (this one has been debated on here before, but the debate basically consisted of someone saying "I'm a hebrew, I speak hebrew, that's not what that word means." Where numerous biblical scholars and translations have found otherwise, I find this kind of objection neglegable.)
</li><li>Psalms 22 - Description of crucifixtion, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me" cried out. One of the last things Jesus said on the cross.
</li></ul>As I said, there's over 300 of these, some of them more compelling than others. As calculated by Professor Emeritus of Science at Westmont College, Peter Stoner, the likelyhood of any one person fulfilling by chance, say, 8 of these, is 1 in 10^17. If you go a little higher and accept 48 of those prophecies, the chance is 1 in 10^157. By contrast scientific probability breaks down at 1 in 10^50, simply because the chance is so astronomically small. <a href='http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/radio034.htm' target='_blank'>Quoted from here</a>
If you're going to dismiss Jesus as simply a rehash of Egyptian and Hindu myth, you have to deal with this first. There is simply no way that a real person could have unknowlingly fulfilled any of these, (being born in a town your parents didn't live in, dying in a specific way with two other people, having your executioners gamble for your clothes, etc) much less 300 of them. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hehe.. legionaired. If you had actually read any of those articles you wouldn't even be saying this.
Everything "jesus" did and all of those "miracles" he created. Is a re-hashing of the older legends. All that has been changes is various names, places, and timeline. That is all. In fact, just in case you missed the links the first time.
<a href='http://www.religioustolerance.org' target='_blank'>Religious Tolerance</a>
<a href='http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/prehistory/egypt/religion/religion.html' target='_blank'>Egyptian Religion (ancient)</a>
After you tell me how this same man appeared over six to seven times in the span of about seven thousand years(different incarnations from egyptian to hindu), then you can refute that jesus was a real person, and not some re-telling of an older fairy tale.
*edit* Ok.. let me start by apologizing because sometimes you get a little emotional with the opposite refuses to hear anything but what they are told.
I shall make it very clear as to what I want you to find for me Legionaired, and to anyone else who wished to attempt this.
I want PROOF that christianity was the first one to have these god-man legends. That means you will have to find a scientific site, with no bias, that shows using our dating methods there is a christian document predating 7000 BC. I have tried looking for something to that effect just to see why everyone who follows certain faiths, be it christianity, islam, hindu, etc.
I wanted to see if there was one "orginal" religion, and I have found it, the older egyptians were THE first to use religion as a means of moral code with fear of eternal suffering.
I have never seen any other documents that have been dated before this religion. Even the writings in many of the caves around the countries don't date that back far other then the paintings of hunts and various other minor ceramonies.
You are welcome to try, but do not cite the bible as a source as it is dated at its earliest at 1200 BC by the dead sea scrolls.
Because the Bible said that would happen:
<!--QuoteBegin-Romans 1+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Romans 1)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->8The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, <b>because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.</b>
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. <b>22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.</b> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There's even a book a missionary wrote ("<u>Eternity in Their Hearts</u>", maybe?), documenting his experiences in Africa, where he met a group of people that believed in an all-loving, all poweful God, who had a son that died for their transgressions against that God. In 'Christianese' we call this sort of thing 'general revelation,' or the idea that God is just so awesome a God, that his influence and presence is somehow noticeable. At least, to those who are willing to hear it, and through that, they'll believe in Christ without ever actually hearing the name of Jesus.
The fact that other religions have a lot of the same ideas of Christianity, a lot earlyer, doesn't phase my faith, rather it re-inforces the idea that there is something real, spiritual, and powerful going on in the world.
And, since the Bible is the only holy book with the advent of predictive prophecy that claims itself to be God's inspired word, and while doing so manages to be consistant and without contradiction throughout, I'll assume it's the one with the scoop.
Thus, I'll see that God is real, and that the Bible has the whole story about Him.
EDITED: because the forum tags hate me.
Because the Bible said that would happen:
<!--QuoteBegin-Romans 1+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Romans 1)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->8The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, <b>because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.</b>
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. <b>22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.</b> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There's even a book a missionary wrote ("<u>Eternity in Their Hearts</u>", maybe?), documenting his experiences in Africa, where he met a group of people that believed in an all-loving, all poweful God, who had a son that died for their transgressions against that God. In 'Christianese' we call this sort of thing 'general revelation,' or the idea that God is just so awesome a God, that his influence and presence is somehow noticeable. At least, to those who are willing to hear it, and through that, they'll believe in Christ without ever actually hearing the name of Jesus.
The fact that other religions have a lot of the same ideas of Christianity, a lot earlyer, doesn't phase my faith, rather it re-inforces the idea that there is something real, spiritual, and powerful going on in the world.
And, since the Bible is the only holy book with the advent of predictive prophecy that claims itself to be God's inspired word, and while doing so manages to be consistant and without contradiction throughout, I'll assume it's the one with the scoop.
Thus, I'll see that God is real, and that the Bible has the whole story about Him.
EDITED: because the forum tags hate me. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You have just choosen every cop-out that has ever been used throughout all of christianity's history.
I'll leave it up to the people that actually care about finding out the truth then, since obviously a book that copies every other legend is very "unfaillable".
(I'll give some very good examples when I get home and have more time on the computer, since I have all the links bookmarked there.)
Use historical evidence or whatever, you can quote from the Bible to justify moral actions, beliefs, etc..
But for cry out loud, don't quote the Bible to prove the Bible is real.
That is debate 101, in fact not even that, basic english composition which I do know they do teach in all high schools across the nation. Some more then others.
Basic rule that all debates/discussions follow is you back up your sources with other sources from a non-biased source. Obviously using the bible is a very biased source to back up the bible from.
I do hope that made sense.
*edit* If your birthdate is your real one Legionaired, I shall withdraw the previous statement about it being taught at all HS schools, usually they don't teach that till at least junior grade level, assuming you are in the US of course.
Regardless, don't get so condescending, telling me I'm simply not old enough to know this stuff.
After all, you don't get to be one of the senior members of your church's youth group leadership team, teach groups of 200 students on a regular basis, teach classes on apologetics, and lead a home group without running into a few objections to Christianity along the way. (my church, BTW, is <a href='http://www.xenos.org' target='_blank'>Xenos Christian Fellowship,</a> one of the 13 in the country <a href='http://www.zondervan.com/Books/verbiage.asp?ISBN=031025745X&Type=1000' target='_blank'> Zondervan Publications</a> wrote about as a 'Good to Great' church.)
All that aside...
I HAVE backed up the Bible, (my source) with other extra-biblical information (IE: Josephus, 1-2nd century rabbis, etc).
Those sources are actually slanted, though AGAINST the very thing I am trying to argue for, which is Christ's divinity and the Bible's credibility.
By acknowledging the fact that Christ did, in fact, do healing and miracle work, they autheticate much that is said about Christ. The only area they differ in is saying how He did it.
But, for the purposes of our argument, that is irreleveant. They claim he did do those things, the very things the Bible claims he also did.
So, the structure of my argument is as follows:<ul><li> ASSUMPTION : The historical evidence of Josephus' writings and 1-2nd century rabbinical writing is written, if anything, with a negative connotation put on Christ's works.</li><li> The things they say Jesus did match up with the things the Bible said Jesus did.</li><li><b>Thus, Jesus existed, and also did works listed in the Bible (though the Bible's commentary on their spiritual significance is in doubt.)</b>
That is, until the next point...
</li><li>ASSUMPTION: Repeated predictive prophecy cannot have been done without spiritual interferance.</li><li>The bible has repeated predictive prophecy, much of which could only have been done by either chance, or spiritual intervention.</li><li>The probability of these things happening on their own, by chance, is so low as to not be taken seriously.</li><li><b>Thus, since Jesus existed, and since he could not have done the things predicted of him by chance, <i>there must have been a spiritual force at work in his life.</i></li><li>Since the Bible is accurate in describing the historical Jesus, has the only detailed account of spiritual happenings in his life of any scripture, and is consistant throughout, <i>it stands out as the only holy book that could have been divinely inspired.</i></li></ul>So, if we can take the Bible seriously, then when the Bible says, "look, people did all this stuff in the past, and this is why," then we can believe Paul when he writes that stuff about people looking to nature and interpreting their own worldviews, with varying degrees of success.</b>
Why don't you take another crack at the above logic, and we'll debate this point until we have some common ground.
EDIT: Missing tag, and some grammatical corrections I missed.
Regardless, don't get so condescending, telling me I'm simply not old enough to know this stuff.
After all, you don't get to be one of the senior members of your church's youth group leadership team, teach groups of 200 students on a regular basis, teach classes on apologetics, and lead a home group without running into a few objections to Christianity along the way. (my church, BTW, is <a href='http://www.xenos.org' target='_blank'>Xenos Christian Fellowship,</a> one of the 13 in the country <a href='http://www.zondervan.com/Books/verbiage.asp?ISBN=031025745X&Type=1000' target='_blank'> Zondervan Publications</a> wrote about as a 'Good to Great' church.)
All that aside...
I HAVE backed up the Bible, (my source) with other extra-biblical information (IE: Josephus, 1-2nd century rabbis, etc).
Those sources are actually slanted, though AGAINST the very thing I am trying to argue for, which is Christ's divinity and the Bible's credibility.
By acknowledging the fact that Christ did, in fact, do healing and miracle work, they autheticate much that is said about Christ. The only area they differ in is saying how He did it.
But, for the purposes of our argument, that is irreleveant. They claim he did do those things, the very things the Bible claims he also did.
So, the structure of my argument is as follows:<ul><li> ASSUMPTION : The historical evidence of Josephus' writings and 1-2nd century rabbinical writing is written, if anything, with a negative connotation put on Christ's works.</li><li> The things they say Jesus did match up with the things the Bible said Jesus did.</li><li><b>Thus, Jesus existed, and also did works listed in the Bible (though the Bible's commentary on their spiritual significance is in doubt.)</b>
That is, until the next point...
</li><li>ASSUMPTION: Repeated predictive prophecy cannot have been done without spiritual interferance.</li><li>The bible has repeated predictive prophecy, much of which could only have been done by either chance, or spiritual intervention.</li><li>The probability of these things happening on their own, by chance, is so low as to not be taken seriously.</li><li><b>Thus, since Jesus existed, and since he could not have done the things predicted of him by chance, <i>there must have been a spiritual force at work in his life.</i></li><li>Since the Bible is accurate in describing the historical Jesus, has the only detailed account of spiritual happenings in his life of any scripture, and is consistant throughout, <i>it stands out as the only holy book that could have been divinely inspired.</i></li></ul>So, if we can take the Bible seriously, then when the Bible says, "look, people did all this stuff in the past, and this is why," then we can believe Paul when he writes that stuff about people looking to nature and interpreting their own worldviews, with varying degrees of success.</b>
Why don't you take another crack at the above logic, and we'll debate this point until we have some common ground.
EDIT: Missing tag, and some grammatical corrections I missed. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually I can assume that you haven't completed the course because the vast majority of kids rarely pay attention when completed an english composition course. However, we are pass that and I did apologize if I was wrong, which happens to be the case.
Now, on to the fun stuff.
Firstly we shall quote three errors to avoid while attempting to prove or disprove.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Three Errors To Avoid
1. Do not assume inspiration or infallibility of the documents, with the intent of attempting to prove the inspiration or infallibility of the documents. Do not say the bible is inspired or infallible simply because it claims to be. This is circular reasoning.
2. When considering the original documents, forget about the present form of your Bible and regard them as the collection of ancient source documents that they are.
3. Do not start with modern "authorities" and then move to the documents to see if the authorities were right. Begin with the documents themselves.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I shall start with Josephus first then. Every site I have visited has been a biased view, every one has had either some ministry translate his works and/or a seperate bishop/preacher attempt to interpet his writings. Guess what, that means all of those "translations" are inherently biased towards one side of the arguement.
Next point.
Your 1-2nd century rabbis, again same as above. I have yet to see a .edu site where it is not a chrisitianity professor and/or non-biased opinion on these rabbis.
Keep in mind they are translating hebrew, which has many different meanings on many different words, and can have the truth spun upon its head just as easily as a top.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
# ASSUMPTION : The historical evidence of Josephus' writings and 1-2nd century rabbinical writing is written, if anything, with a negative connotation put on Christ's works.
# The things they say Jesus did match up with the things the Bible said Jesus did.
# Thus, Jesus existed, and also did works listed in the Bible (though the Bible's commentary on their spiritual significance is in doubt.)
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Argument debunked because all of those "sources" you credited are translated interpeted by biased opinions. Show me real evidence, not some christian professor who thinks he can read hebrew from some 2000 yrs ago.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
# ASSUMPTION: Repeated predictive prophecy cannot have been done without spiritual interferance.
# The bible has repeated predictive prophecy, much of which could only have been done by either chance, or spiritual intervention.
# The probability of these things happening on their own, by chance, is so low as to not be taken seriously.
# Thus, since Jesus existed, and since he could not have done the things predicted of him by chance, there must have been a spiritual force at work in his life.
# Since the Bible is accurate in describing the historical Jesus, has the only detailed account of spiritual happenings in his life of any scripture, and is consistant throughout, it stands out as the only holy book that could have been divinely inspired.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This one is even easier. Repeated predictive prophecy. Egyptians were probably the best at this one by far, considering they predicted there would be a god-man walking the earth far longer then your bible shows. Oh but wait, they didn't call him Jesus, it was Horus.
I shall assist in this clearing of the gray fog.
Hindusim.
As to why Jesus was actually more taken from hinduism then from egyptian paganism. (Side note for you, hindu scripts pre-date christianity by about three thousand years.)
From religioustolerance.org
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
#6 & 45: Yeshua and Krishna were called both a God and the Son of God.
7: Both was sent from heaven to earth in the form of a man.
8 & 46: Both were called Savior, and the second person of the Trinity.
13, 15, 16 & 23: His adoptive human father was a carpenter.
18: A spirit or ghost was their actual father.
21: Krishna and Jesus were of royal descent.
27 & 28: Both were visited at birth by wise men and shepherds, guided by a star.
30 to 34: Angels in both cases issued a warning that the local dictator planned to kill the baby and had issued a decree for his assassination. The parents fled. Mary and Joseph stayed in Muturea; Krishna's parents stayed in Mathura.
41 & 42: Both Yeshua and Krishna withdrew to the wilderness as adults, and fasted.
56: Both were identified as "the seed of the woman bruising the serpent's head."
58: Jesus was called "the lion of the tribe of Judah." Krishna was called "the lion of the tribe of Saki."
60: Both claimed: "I am the Resurrection."
64: Both referred to themselves having existed before their birth on earth.
66: Both were "without sin."
72: Both were god-men: being considered both human and divine.
76, 77, & 78: They were both considered omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.
83, 84, & 85: Both performed many miracles, including the healing of disease. One of the first miracles that both performed was to make a leper whole. Each cured "all manner of diseases."
86 & 87: Both cast out indwelling demons, and raised the dead.
101: Both selected disciples to spread his teachings.
109 to 112: Both were meek, and merciful. Both were criticized for associating with sinners.
115: Both encountered a Gentile woman at a well.121 to 127: Both celebrated a last supper. Both forgave his enemies.
128 to 131: Both descended into Hell, and were resurrected. Many people witnessed their ascensions into heaven.
Jesus' and Krishna's mothers were holy virgins: <b> (Its hotly debated for both religions if they were or not) </b>
Jesus' and Krishna's mothers had similar names: Miriam (Mary) and Maia <b> (Mia is the hindu word for mother) </b>
<b> More simiarlities </b>
"The object of Krishna's birth was to bring about a victory of good over evil." 2
Krishna "came onto earth to cleanse the sins of the human beings." 2
"Krishna was born while his foster-father Nanda was in the city to pay his tax to the king." 3 Yeshua was born while his foster-father, Joseph, was in the city to be enumerated in a census so that "all the world could be taxed."
Jesus is recorded as saying: "if you had faith as a mustard seed you would say to the mountain uproot yourself and be cast into the ocean" Krishna is reported as having uprooted a small mountain. 4
Krishna's "...foster-father Nanda had to journey to Mathura to pay his taxes" just as Jesus foster-father Joseph is recorded in the Gospel of Luke as having to go to Bethlehem to pay taxes. 10
"The story about the birth of Elizabeth's son John (the Baptist), cousin of Jesus, corresponds with the story in the Krishna myth about the birth of the child of Nanda and his wife Yasoda." 10 Nanda was the foster-father of Krishna.
The Greek God Dionysos, Jesus and Krishna were all said to have been placed in a manger basket after birth.
<b> Both were said to be cruxified as well, I am also going to leave this last bit unedited to see if you actually read something. </b>
In his book, Graves stated flatly that both Yeshua and Krishna were crucified between two thieves, at the age of about 30 to 36 by "wicked hands." However, this may have been wishful thinking.
The "common, orthodox depiction of Krishna's death relates that he was shot in the foot with an arrow while under a tree."
But: The author Jacolliot, referring to the "Bagaveda-Gita and Brahminical traditions," states that the body of Krishna: "was suspended to the branches of a tree by his murderer, that it might become the prey of the vultures...[Later] the mortal frame of the Redeemer had disappeared--no doubt it had regained the celestial abodes..."
M. Guigniaut's Religion de l'Antiquité, which states: "The death of Crishna is very differently related. One remarkable and convincing tradition makes him perish on a tree, to which he was nailed by the stroke of an arrow."
There are other references to Krishna being crucified, and being shown with holes in his feet, hands and side.
In the Christian Scriptures (New Testament) Yeshua's crucifixion on a cross or stake is often referred to as being "hung on a tree:"
<b> Even quoting your own bible shows the similarities </b>
Acts 5:30: "The God of our fathers raised up Jesus...hanging him on a tree.
Acts 10:39: "...hanging him on a tree."
Acts 13:29: "...they took him down from the tree..."
Galatians 3:13: "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us; for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree."
1 Peter 2:24: "...who his own self bare our sins in his body upon the tree..." (All ASV)
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In closing, I would just like to state that once more christianity is simply a re-hashing of older and much more reasonable fables that a group of old men, probably elders of a community decided would be better then the current standard of fables, sadly they had to steal ideas from other cultures in order for it to work to their advantage.
The current sad state of christianity is due to the fact that no one is able to correctly translate ancient hebrew since no one was around to know the correct grammatical structure and sentence cohension needed to correct scribe the religion.
<a href='http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/krishna01.html' target='_blank'>Bleh</a> and <a href='http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/krishna02.html' target='_blank'> bleh.</a>
Have fun.
<a href='http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/krishna01.html' target='_blank'>Bleh</a> and <a href='http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/krishna02.html' target='_blank'> bleh.</a>
Have fun. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Very well I shall quote their site for those who don't want to read it, I know after reading the first few sentences and looking at the top of the website, this would be a biased site as well.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Tekton Apologetics Ministries
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Biased.
Next statement (this is from the about page).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Tekton Apologetics Ministries is committed to providing scholarly answers to serious questions which are often posed on major and minor elements of the Christian faith. We believe in the importance of sound Christian doctrine which is based on a careful exegetical analysis of scriptures from the <b> Holy Bible </b>.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Any site who claims the bible is holy is not listening to both sides.
For those that can not read properly, I shall translate for you.
They wish to study christian docturine from within the bible and no-where else. After all they are assuming the bible is infaillable and it HAS to be correct.
Conclusion: Biased.
Basically you used a biased site in a poor attempt at proof. Lets try this again shall we? How about a non-biased site this time.
Side note: Still no word from Minneapolis disocese I think they are ignoring me, or do not have the answer.
I wonder how many challenging e-mails they get, and how many they ignore?
It'll be really annoying if the bishop doesn't respond. You'd think he would - it doesn't send out a good message, otherwise.
I wonder how many challenging e-mails they get, and how many they ignore?
It'll be really annoying if the bishop doesn't respond. You'd think he would - it doesn't send out a good message, otherwise. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I do not believe they get many challenging e-mails simply because I had to ask the arch-bishop here for their e-mail address and even then if certain people I knew didn't know the bishop I'm sure I wouldn't have gotten it.
I do know they have a junk e-mail box, just like all major corporations do just to filter out the crap.
I shall give them another week then I shall call it quits and hope eventually they will get back to me.
<a href='http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/krishna01.html' target='_blank'>Bleh</a> and <a href='http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/krishna02.html' target='_blank'> bleh.</a>
Have fun. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Very well I shall quote their site for those who don't want to read it, I know after reading the first few sentences and looking at the top of the website, this would be a biased site as well.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Tekton Apologetics Ministries
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Biased.
Next statement (this is from the about page).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Tekton Apologetics Ministries is committed to providing scholarly answers to serious questions which are often posed on major and minor elements of the Christian faith. We believe in the importance of sound Christian doctrine which is based on a careful exegetical analysis of scriptures from the <b> Holy Bible </b>.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Any site who claims the bible is holy is not listening to both sides.
For those that can not read properly, I shall translate for you.
They wish to study christian docturine from within the bible and no-where else. After all they are assuming the bible is infaillable and it HAS to be correct.
Conclusion: Biased.
Basically you used a biased site in a poor attempt at proof. Lets try this again shall we? How about a non-biased site this time.
Side note: Still no word from Minneapolis disocese I think they are ignoring me, or do not have the answer. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm beating a dead horse.
Look at the second link. You see the sources they cited? Let me just copy and paste them for you, since you're obviously too lazy or close-minded to check them yourself.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--># 1984 Garland Publishing Inc. reprint of the Hindu Pantheon of Edward Moor and with an introduction by Burton Feldman. This is apart of "A Garland Series: Myth & Romanticism: A Collection of the Major Mythographic Sources used by the English Romantic Poets". All quotes from Moor are from this edition.
# 1810 edition of the Hindu Pantheon by Edward Moor as found in the University of Pennsylvania Rare Book and Manuscript Library.
# Quotes from Higgins, Doane, and Lundy located on this page are from Acharya S's chapter titled "Krishna Crucified?" which will appear in her next book "Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled" located online here: <a href='http://truthbeknown.com/kcrucified.htm' target='_blank'>http://truthbeknown.com/kcrucified.htm</a> That chapter is copyrighted by Acharya S 2001. A little bit of Acharya's own viewpoints have been paraphrased from this chapter in this essay.
# "A Refutation of Acharya S's book, The Christ Conspiracy." By Mike Licona. This essay is located online on Licona's website here. To get to the essay, click on the Resources link which will provide you with a booklist link and an Article link. Click on the Article link and you will find the essay refuting Acharya's book The Christ Conspiracy.
# Mabharata: The Greatest Spiritual Epic of All Time" by Krishna Dharma. Torchlight Publishing, Los Angeles and Delhi, 1999.
# Ramayana: India's Immortal Tale Of Adventure, Love, and Wisdom." By Krishna Dharma. Torchlight Publishing, Inc. Copyright 2000 by Krishna Dharma.
# "Hindu Myths: A Sourcebook Translated from the Sanskrit" by Wendy Doniger O'Flaherty. Penguin Books, copyright Wendy Doniger O'Flahery 1975.
# Articles titled "Puranas" and "Bhagavata Purana". Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 2001. Copyright 1993-2000 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. This refers to the CD ROM version with online updates available.
# "KRSNA: The Supreme Personality of Godhead" by A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada (The Founder-Acarya of the international Society for Krishna Consciousness) Bhaktivedanta Book Trust International copyright 1996. This work is in two volumes.
# The "Bhagavata Purana" Translated into English by Dr. Ganesh Vasudeo Tagare and edited by Prof. J.L. Shastri. Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, Delhi (copyright) 1976. Private Limited. This edition is a complete translation of this extrememly important and popular Hindu scripture. It is in five volumes and comprises volumes 7-11 of The Ancient Indian Tradition and Mythology series. G.V. Tagare in his introduction to the Bhagavata Purana in his first volume of his translation to this Hindu scripture, gives us this quote from Panikkar's book "A Survey of Indian History" on the popularity of the Bhagavata Purana, that this scripture is:<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Do I see the bible on there?
No, I don't.
Do I see the bible cited ANYWHERE in that entire article?
No, I don't.
Do I, instead, see a critique of a thesis, drawing on commentary on HINDU scriptures?
Yes, I do.
If you can't actually debate with me, I'm happy to just write you off as a troll and move on my way.
Please, give me that pleasure.
I did find what I was looking for, the hindu scripture that pre-dates the new testaments writings and where they based most, (not all) of it off of.
<a href='http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/southasia/Religions/texts/Puranas.html' target='_blank'>Puranas</a>
I shall attempt to find a full online resource for this hindu scripture.
*edit* After some searching appearently there are eighteen major books of the Puranas, and a few minor ones.
(Hinduism is not one of the areas I have the greatest strenght in, thusly I am learning along the way. Hooray for school taught researching skills.)
Here are some that are listed.
<a href='http://www.hindunet.org/puranas/' target='_blank'>Puranas</a>
This has NOTHING to do with comparing christianity or hinduism to each other, all it lists and talks about is what is in the Puranas. I'm sure most people can draw their own conclusions considering the major puranas texts have been dated at around 1200 BC. (Which is the same time the Dead Sea scrolls were written.)
Oh I forgot to mention, before you call someone a troll perhaps you had better re-evaluate what you are doing in the thread as well.
I have also given you plenty of unbiased sites to base my information off of, yet all I see is an opinion from another minister/preacher/counselor for various christian practices. They took all the wonderful amounts of information that is out there on hinduism and turned it around to meet their agenda just like any other organization/corporation does.
I'm sorry, but I'm out. First, you insist that the entire NT is made-up, despite the overwhelming historical evidence for the factuality of Christ's existance, then you discout any source you don't like by crying bias.
I could say the _exact_ same thing about religioustolerance.org, because they assume that all religions are funadamentally the same and pay no heed to the glaring historical and scriptural errors in, say, Islam. (IE, Mohammed saying Christ never died on the cross, him saying that the Christians believe the trinity is Mary, God, and Jesus, etc.)
So, in effect, you say what you want, and then put your fingers in your ears and ignore anyone who doesn't think exactly the same way you do.
Talk about close-minded.
I'm done here.
I'm sorry, but I'm out. First, you insist that the entire NT is made-up, despite the overwhelming historical evidence for the factuality of Christ's existance, then you discout any source you don't like by crying bias.
I could say the _exact_ same thing about religioustolerance.org, because they assume that all religions are funadamentally the same and pay no heed to the glaring historical and scriptural errors in, say, Islam. (IE, Mohammed saying Christ never died on the cross, him saying that the Christians believe the trinity is Mary, God, and Jesus, etc.)
So, in effect, you say what you want, and then put your fingers in your ears and ignore anyone who doesn't think exactly the same way you do.
Talk about close-minded.
I'm done here. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm going to go ahead and disagree again.
First off, relgious tolerance says nothing about all of them being the same, they simply list the similarties that most of the major religions share. Not once do they claim to have the answers in fact, many times they state there are conflicting views within each major religion as to how various members of each sect see that religion.
You go ahead and leave that is fine, everyone else who has argued for the new testament has left as well.
I'll update again if I have heard from the minneapolis disocese within a week. Or if anyone has any other questions I would be more then happy to entertain them as well.
~ DarkATi
It was possible for an entire humanity to accept that there were supernatural gods and beings that watched over us, and when we died we went to an afterlife or heaven. Yet people seem so driven to hold onto their hope, and not accept the facts of science, and that when you die, you may just die.
I originate parts of religion with the Greek Gods system, religion can often be called the "Noble Lie," and philosopher Plato played a major role in making religion what it is today.
Plato believed that people should be introduced to the idea of religion and an afterlife to give them meaning in life, it controls people, but for their own good, and makes them function better as a society. A hand picked group of intellects would watch over society, knowing the truth and the reasons behind this system, but eventually everyone bought into religion. Religion is now the cause of almost every war and conflict. I mean, the USA is going over to Iraq and attacking religiously patriotic militants who believe that blowing themselves up to take the enemy with them will make them friends with Allah, and grant them riches in heaven. All because most of the leaders of the USA are devout Christians, and many believe that the revelation and return of Jesus to earth as our saviour will happen soon.
I accept/don't even care that there was someone named "Jesus Christ," but that his adventures were based on mental disorders like schizophrenia, maybe he was a pawn of those all-knowing creators of religion, or maybe he just was fictitious, which wouldn't surprise me at all.
Down with religion. In todays society, it holds us back more than it allows us to take leaps forward. Imagine the billions of people who've died as a result of this "Noble Lie". Yet, in history and economic terms, fatalities mean nothing, (we learned this from communism) and it's all about how far you can advance in strength and power. In fact, we probably wouldn't be where we are today if it weren't 'thanks' to blind religion.
You guys must have learned something from Einstein. Read into his beliefs. Amazingly, the majority of people I know think he was devoted to Christianity. In fact, he was pagan, a praisier of the universe in all its awe, how things came to be as they are as if through some stroke of luck, love of life rather than waiting for death and heaven.
"Religion without science is blind. Science without religion is blind." - Einstein
"Buddhism would be an excellent religion for the future, as it promotes a personal connection to spirituality and nature." - Einstein
Missionaries? Although most people follow the religion of their parents, there is a significant minority that form their own views or are "convinced" into practicing another religion.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It was possible for an entire humanity to accept that there were supernatural gods and beings that watched over us, and when we died we went to an afterlife or heaven. Yet people seem so driven to hold onto their hope, and not accept the facts of science, and that when you die, you may just die.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Science doesn't say anything about what happens after death. There are many philosophical questions that are by definition inanswerable by science.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I originate parts of religion with the Greek Gods system, religion can often be called the "Noble Lie," and philosopher Plato played a major role in making religion what it is today.
Plato believed that people should be introduced to the idea of religion and an afterlife to give them meaning in life, it controls people, but for their own good, and makes them function better as a society. A hand picked group of intellects would watch over society, knowing the truth and the reasons behind this system, but eventually everyone bought into religion.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Religion is often used to control people, but I don't think that many religious leaders don't believe in what they are saying. Now, politicians...
Also, religion doesn't control society at the moment. Religion is an extremely important element in the lives of much of the population, but they aren't ruled over by people who act because of religions reasons, for the most part.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Religion is now the cause of almost every war and conflict. I mean, the USA is going over to Iraq and attacking religiously patriotic militants who believe that blowing themselves up to take the enemy with them will make them friends with Allah, and grant them riches in heaven. All because most of the leaders of the USA are devout Christians, and many believe that the revelation and return of Jesus to earth as our saviour will happen soon.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Religion is the cause of wars? I completely disagree. Islamic terrorists hate America because we are exporting our culture into their countries and exerting political and economic influence over their governments and economies. Popular dissent is what breeds terrorism. Without that, there would only be a few fanatics who hated America for religious reasons, but the rest of the population couldn't care less.
America did not go to war for religious reasons. America went to war because there was oil, to bring democracy to the Middle East, to reduce terrorism, because we thought that Saddam had WMDs, and to secure a long term strategic partner in the region. Out of all of Bush's advisors who were very important in the Iraq war (Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, etc), I can't think of any that agree with the policy for religious regions. Only Bush (and maybe Wolfowitz) is highly religious. However, he thankfully doesn't dictate foreign policy (and most of his domestic policy, too) according to his religious beliefs, although he is close to the religious right, who do hold apocalyptic views of the world.
There are few wars that are primarily religious. Most are for political, social, or economic reasons. I think you're massively overstating the role of religion in America and the world.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I accept/don't even care that there was someone named "Jesus Christ," but that his adventures were based on mental disorders like schizophrenia, maybe he was a pawn of those all-knowing creators of religion, or maybe he just was fictitious, which wouldn't surprise me at all.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have a question for someone. How do you differentiate between a prophet (i.e. someone who hears the words of God in his mind) and a schizophrenic?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Down with religion.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Down with applying your (not you specifically) religion to other people.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> In todays society, it holds us back more than it allows us to take leaps forward. Imagine the billions of people who've died as a result of this "Noble Lie".<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree.<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Yet, in history and economic terms, fatalities mean nothing, (<b>we learned this from communism</b>)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Huh?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You guys must have learned something from Einstein. Read into his beliefs. Amazingly, the majority of people I know think he was devoted to Christianity. In fact, he was pagan, a praisier of the universe in all its awe, how things came to be as they are as if through some stroke of luck, love of life rather than waiting for death and heaven.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He's agnostic.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.... I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. <b>You may call me an agnostic</b>, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Also, Paganism doesn't imply praising the universe and praising the universe doesn't imply paganism.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"Religion without science is blind. Science without religion is blind." - Einstein<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's actually, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." I think that science without religion isn't necessarily lame, but you shouldn't take science as the source of your personal philosophy on life.