| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
Rambo123UK |
|||
|
One ought never to turn one's back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double
the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half. Sir Winston
Churchill
--- Bible Babble
Last Edited By: Rambo123UK
04/08/09 23:15:22.
Edited 1 times.
|
|||
Elihu inspired |
|||
|
LOL, it's good to see you guys ain't got too bored.
John chapter 3
23: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24: Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: |
|||
RParade |
|||
|
Personally, I pray to the Olympian Pantheon (Athena, Zeus, Artemis, etc). I don't really believe in a "creator", but I do find it abit odd that names like Apollo still exist in today's world. I think most any logical person knows and believes the Bible to be a system of control, the idea being that you'll always get what you deserve in death,
etc. With that said, I don't really "despise" religion, I find myself rather comfortable knowing there are so many literal
"lambs" living amongst me. The more dumb people I'm around, the more opportunity I have to shine. Then again, though, I do get abit cranky over it myself at times. Afterall the Bible essentially condemns women on a universal scale, but when you look at history it was always men who created dark nameless eras, genocide, biological warfare and so on. The absurd thing about Christianity is that it's actually one of the youngest religions on the planet, and the only reason it ever really became popular was because of Constantine (the first Christian King - the western world can thank him for Christian dogma). If you get technical, all of America is going to hell, anyway. The King James version of the Bible as an example classifies as protestant religion, and this country was founded by those seeking to escape religion, not "conform" to it. Another interesting thing is that even though we write "In God we Trust" on our dollars, we also stamp each dollar with the Egyptian pyramids (which, as far as the Bible is concerned, is considered an Evil mark)... Personally I can't say that I believe in a creator. In order for a creator to exist you need a being who can not only survive the Big Bang, but also cause it to happen. If we assume that one day God really is returning to rebuild Earth into a Kingdom, why would he choose this planet of all of them? Sure, Earth is beautiful, but y'know there has to be planets out there somewhere that're just as beautiful if not even moreso, and if he indeed is the Almighty you'd think he'd simply build a new planet of his own. With that said, I'll continue offering lip service to Athena, Apollo, and Artemis - afterall they make more sense as a concept. They're much older historically as deities and there's alot more lore concerning them, not to mention the "cool" factor of the Olympian pantheon. The idea of Hell doesn't bother me, since if we assume that Hell is a place of lust and might then it fits me better anyway. |
|||
Macaroo |
|||
I do find it abit odd that names like Apollo still exist in today's world.Why? I'll continue offering lip service to Athena, Apollo, and Artemis - afterall they make more sense as a concept.Not that I begrudge you if it flips your switch, but how do they make more sense? The fact that they're older and that you think there is more "lore" about them doesn't appear to contribute significantly to reasons to believe in them. Just curious. Mac
"It's nice to see that look of alarm on the faces of the others." ~ Graham Chapman
Freethinkers Pub Boomer Bay (For those born 1946-1964) |
|||
Phill Phree |
|||
|
I dunno, it's not much different to the claim that because xianity has been around for 2000 years that it must be correct and anyone born since who
disagrees with it cannot be right at all. It's the exact same fallacious appeal to authority - authority that resists all attempts to be examined.
"Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence; Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear." - William E. Gladstone. "Hey Joe, where you goin' with that lawgiver in your hand?" - Max Normal, Wanted Dredd or Alive. |
|||
BostonDave |
|||
|
An excellent thread. Good job on most of the points that I perused. Some others I was frankly unaware of. Again, good job.
|
|||
RParade |
|||
Macaroo wrote: Ah, I should've worded it more like this: "The Olympian Gods more fit [my] personal "Godmen" fantasy than Christianity." Of course, I say these things very loosely. The reason greek myths like Athena and Zeus make more sense is simply because the cultures they influenced actually had a basic understanding of how the universe worked; for example, the ancient greeks knew planets were round and they also knew that they revolved around stars almost 3,000 years ago, even though it wasn't until the 14th century (AD) that this theory became significant. Moreover, some of the technological achievements of the Ancient Greece (who were widely considered to be the elite few of the Olympian pantheon) in comparison to the rest of the world in that time are sometimes almost unbelievable. Athens and Sparta had "tanks" for example, sophisticated constructs that served as armored assault units in warfare - things like this weren't actually invented though until 400-500 AD. Even the Sumerians (a culture that is believed to be nearly 5,000 years old) drew diagrams of complex star systems in surprising detail. Even the mostly highly asteemed prophets of Christianity (Abraham, as an example) claimed the world to be flat in a literal sense. This alone makes me personally believe the Olympian deities to be more "true" than those of Judeo-Christianity. Furthermore, ancient Greece used a 13 month lunar calendar to monitor the time on Earth, but they also had other calendars to measure time in different ways (no one knows why - the Mayans did this aswell), whereas the Christian calender (also known as the Gregorian calender, the 12 month calender we use today) is entirely inaccurate when it comes to measuring time in our solar system. There are actually 13 months in a lunar (earth) year, not 12 - the 12 month calender is the result of Christianity's chokehold over the world after the crucifixition, and it was reinvented by Pope Gregory in 1582. It's basically a reformed copy of the incorrect Roman calendar and it's incorrect when speaking of actual astrology and our movement around the star. The fact that ancient Greece and other cultures like the Mayans make them more proper as "divine" candidates for this (and many other) reasons. Do these semantics mean they were "touched" by the divine, though? 'Course not. Although it could mean that they were visited by beings from other worlds, sure. When someone says "Creator" in the divine sense, I can't help but consider something along the lines of a pantheon comparable to those of old Greece's religions - it's difficult to believe that the universe was forge by a single "living" God, but then again such a topic is far beyond anything my mind will ever be able to fathom. So, what I meant to say was, "if there is a creator or a judge in death, then I hope it is someone like Athena or Isis rather than the petty, bloody thing we read about in the Bible." It's also interesting to note that even though this entire "pagan" pantheon was deemed evil and vile by all Christian societies, we still build statues of them commonly. The statue of liberty for example is actually a representation of the Olympian Goddess Isis, and the Congressional Medal of Honor (aswell as many, MANY other notable seals of significance) bears the face of Athena. The torch that Lady Liberty (Isis) holds is a tribute to Helios the Sun God, and the base she stands upon is one of his symbols. Athena and Artemis also serve as mascots for American women serving in the Navy and the Air Force, whereas Apollo and Ares continue to act as symbols of perserverence for groups like NASA. It's interesting that even though these deities truly are the Roman "false" Gods spoken of in the Bible that they still remain widely accepted and popular today in most cultures everywhere. It seems that the Olympian deities tend to serve as a beacon of light for skeptics and non-believers everywhere. These deities are as widely cherished as Jesus Christ, afterall the faces of Athena and Isis aren't hard to find at all even in today's society if you care to look. To be honest the Olympian deities are as glorified as Jesus Christ and Moses, the only difference is you don't hear everyone saying their names all of the time or using their myths for political manuevering. I simply find these things interesting and worth pointing out, is all. Moreover, I recently watched a documentary sponsored by Bill Maher called "Religulous." If you haven't seen it I'd suggest it to anyone, 'specially skeptics and those who admire idle humor. I'd also suggest reading into Olympian mythology sometime, even if only for a fun read - Pandora and Prometheus are essentially the same story as Adam and Eve, except ancient in comparison and in Olympian mythology Prometheus was portrayed as being more of a traitor than Pandora.
Last Edited By: RParade
08/05/09 06:32:58.
Edited 9 times.
|
|||
Rambo123UK |
|||
|
You might try checking this other thread out - Lucifer
Drugs eh? What's the point. They make you forget, make you talk funny, make you see things that aren't there. My old
grandma got all of that for free when she had a stroke. - Gene Hunt
Bible Babble
|
|||
rcscwc |
|||
|
Let me clear some misconceptions.
Crishna and Jesus Similarities Both were preceded by a "forerunner" born a short time before them (Maurice, Hindostan, vol. 2, p. 316; Luke 1:57.). Krishna is the 8th Incarnation of Vishnu. Say there were seven before Him.
Each was born in a city away from home where his father was on tax business (H. H. Wilson, trans., The Vishnu Purana, A System of Hindoo Mythology and Tradition (London, 1840), book 5, chap. 3; Luke 2:1-7). Krishna was born in PRISON. Either Wilson or the one quoting him got it wrong.
In infancy, both Krishna and Jesus were sentenced to death by kings who viewed them as pretenders to the throne. Due to this threat: His maternal uncle Kamsa did order the slaying of babies. Later he tried to kill Krishna too. But when He was 16, He killed Kamsa in single, unarmed combat.
Krishna's father was warned by a heavenly voice "to fly with the child to Gacool, across the river Jumna (Mons Dupuis, trans., The Origin of All Religious Worship (New Orleans, 1872), p. 134). Seven children were born to His parents parents IN PRISON. Each was killed by Kamsa. Kamsa had a warning that Devaki's 8th son would kill him. So he
vowed to kill her children. Vasudeva, Krishna's biological father spirited Him away to Gokul, to be raised by Nanda and his wife Yashoda. Both were unaware
of this.
Krishna said: "I am the sustainer of the world, its friend and Lord. I am its way and refuge" (Ibid., p. 213). I am the beginning, MIDDLE and end of all.
Both "ascended" to heaven before witnesses (Higgins., p. 131; Acts 1:9). Krishna "died" of an arrow shot into His foot by a hunter named Jara. Jara was the only witness when Krishna's mortal body disappeared. Jara
was rewarded with heaven.
Both were crucified: Krishna was not, as explained above.
John P. Lundy, Nineteenth-Century Reverend: "I object to the crucifix because it is an image, and liable to gross abuse, just as the old Hindoo crucifix was an idol" (Lundy, p. 128). There is nothing like a Hindu crucifix.
Thomas Inman, Nineteenth Century Physician: "Crishna, whose history so closely resembles our Lord's, was also like him in his being crucified" (Inman, Ancient Faiths and Modern (London, 1868), p. 411). Krishna was not crucified, as explained above.
Both were "resurrected" (Dupuis, p. 240; Matthew 28:6). Krishna, like previous Incarnates Returned. He is not held to have died. Incarnates do not die, hence no resurrection.
"Krishna will return in the end days as an armed warrior, riding on a winged white horse. He will destroy the wicked then living. The sun and the moon will be darkened, the earth will tremble, and the stars will fall" (Chad ,vol. 1,p.75; Williams, Hinduism, p. 108). Leave aside sun and moon business. He is to return as Lord Kalki. No end of world even, as the world will continue on its path.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -Mahatma Gandhi
Last Edited By: rcscwc
31/05/09 06:53:08.
Edited 1 times.
|
|||
Rambo123UK |
|||
|
Well as I've said before (above, in fact) there are some very poorly researched or false claims made in support of the mythicist position. However, as I
also pointed out, complaining that similarities in stories are not exactly identical in no way detracts from the idea that the story of Jesus
deliberately plays on these themes that are repeated over and over in slightly different forms with each retelling. I could compare Orion to Krishna, if you
like.
"I tend to think that cricket is the greatest thing that God ever created on earth - certainly greater than sex, although sex isn`t too bad either" Harold Pinter Bible Babble
|
|||
rcscwc |
|||
|
I will welcome comparisons between Krishna and Orion, provided Krishna is taken as I outlined as above.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -Mahatma Gandhi
|
|||
Rambo123UK |
|||
|
Certainly. Do you know how Orion is supposed to have died?
"I tend to think that cricket is the greatest thing that God ever created on earth - certainly greater than sex, although sex isn`t too bad either" Harold Pinter Bible Babble
|
|||
Invunche |
|||
|
Anal sex with a horse??
Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings. - Victor Stenger
|
|||
Rambo123UK |
|||
|
There's some weird and disgusting stuff in Greek mythology but I don't recall that one in Herodutus. Perhaps you're thinking of something from your
adult film selection?
"I tend to think that cricket is the greatest thing that God ever created on earth - certainly greater than sex, although sex isn`t too bad either" Harold Pinter Bible Babble
|
|||
Invunche |
|||
|
You've never heard of Mr. Hands?
The faint of heart should not google him.
Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings. - Victor Stenger
|
|||
Rambo123UK |
|||
|
You know that now of course I'll have to.
"I tend to think that cricket is the greatest thing that God ever created on earth - certainly greater than sex, although sex isn`t too bad either" Harold Pinter Bible Babble
|
|||
rcscwc |
|||
Rambo123UK wrote: Verily, NO. Krishna shed His human body after being shot into the sole of His foot. "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -Mahatma Gandhi
Last Edited By: rcscwc
04/06/09 04:50:34.
Edited 1 times.
|
|||
phe8zero |
|||
I assume you have stated what the sign above Jesus' head says is an abbreviation to remove the contradiction of what the sign is supposed to have said: There is no contradiction here. Mark 15:26 can be dismissed. It says nothing about a "title" being placed on the cross or anyplace else. This was simply a writing of his accusation. John 19:19 speaks of a "title" written by Pilate, before it left Pilate's presence. This was the one which gave rise to the argument between the Chief Priests and Pilate (John 19:21, 22); and this argument took place before the parting of the garments (verses 23, 24). The inscription in Matthew 27:37 was the result of that discussion; for another "title" was brought and "set up over his head", after they had "parted His garments," and having sat down, they watched Him there (Verses 35, 36). If one title is placed before the other one, how can there be a contradiction? Is that logical? I wot not. In Luke 23:38 another was brought much later, close upon "the sixth hour" (verse 44), when the darkness fell. It was written with the languages in a different order" (1) Greek, (2) Latin, and (3) Hebrew (verse 38).1 It was put up "over Him" (Greek ep' auto, verse 38), "after the revilings of the People" (compare verses 35 - 37, with verse 38); whereas Matthew's was set up before the revilings (compare Matthew 27:37 with verse 39). Again, if we pay attention to when, and by whom, each title was placed, the contradiction dissolves. |
|||
Rambo123UK |
|||
Mark 15:26 can be dismissed. It says nothing about a "title" being placed on the cross or anyplace else. This was simply a writing of his accusation. Untrue: it says "superscription", literally, written above. This is the sign above his head with the crime he is supposed to have been guilty of. The placing of the verse in sequence shows that this refers to the events of the crucifixion and thus the cross itself. John 19:19 speaks of a "title" written by Pilate, before it left Pilate's presence. This was the one which gave rise to the argument between the Chief Priests and Pilate (John 19:21, 22); and this argument took place before the parting of the garments (verses 23, 24). Untrue: 19:16 Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away. 19:17 And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha: 19:18 Where they crucified him, and two other with him, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst. 19:19 And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS. 19:20 This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin. 19:21 Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews. 19:22 Pilate answered, What I have written I have written. 19:23 Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also his coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout. 19:24 They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast lots. These things therefore the soldiers did. Mark 15:24 And when they had crucified him, they parted his garments, casting lots upon them, what every man should take. 15:25 And it was the third hour, and they crucified him. 15:26 And the superscription of his accusation was written over, THE KING OF THE JEWS. Mark does not say that the title was placed there after the casting of lots, it says they crucified him and then cast lots while he was on the cross, whereupon it mentions the superscription. The inscription in Matthew 27:37 was the result of that discussion; for another "title" was brought and "set up over his head", after they had "parted His garments," and having sat down, they watched Him there (Verses 35, 36). Seen this argument before with the ridiculous explanation that there were several different signs. It says nothing of the sort, or that it was ANOTHER sign. Mt just mentions one sign, same as Mark and John. In Luke 23:38 another was brought much later, close upon "the sixth hour" (verse 44), when the darkness fell. It was written with the languages in a different order" (1) Greek, (2) Latin, and (3) Hebrew (verse 38).1 It was put up "over Him" (Greek ep' auto, verse 38), "after the revilings of the People" (compare verses 35 - 37, with verse 38); whereas Matthew's was set up before the revilings (compare Matthew 27:37 with verse 39). 23:38 And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS. 23:44 And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour. 23:45 And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst. So again we see the idiotic comment that there were multiple signs, despite Pilate refusing to change what was written. Firstly, this is NOT "much later", since John has Pilate address the crowd at the 6th hour: 19:14 And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! This is a miraculous darkness, not the onset of nightfall late in the day. Secondly, as with Mt and Mk, no mention of the sign being set up at that point, simply a description of the sign that was set up. The "order" of the languages is no discrepancy at all since it is merely a list, it specifies no order. Only the strange mindset of a believer in an inerrant bible could come up with such a scenario. "I tend to think that cricket is the greatest thing that God ever created on earth - certainly greater than sex, although sex isn`t too bad either" Harold Pinter Bible Babble
|
|||
phe8zero |
|||
Mark 15:26 can be dismissed. It says nothing about a "title" being placed on the cross or anyplace else. This was simply a writing of his accusation.True. Mark speaks of a "superscription (ep-ig-raf-ay') of his accusation". Not a "title" (tit'-los) as in John 19:19.
Joh 19:19 And Pilate also wrote a title and put it on the cross. And having been written, it was: JESUS THE NAZARENE, THE KING OF THE JEWS.
When did he do that? Who said that Pilate followed them to the scene of the execution? Mark does not say that the title was placed there after the casting of lots, it says they crucified him and then cast lots while he was on the cross, whereupon it mentions the superscription.Where did I say that Mark said that? Seen this argument before with the ridiculous explanation that there were several different signs. It says nothing of the sort, or that it was ANOTHER sign. Mt just mentions one sign, same as Mark and John.That's because you're seeing things I didn't say. Firstly, this is NOT "much later", since John has Pilate address the crowd at the 6th hour: 19:14 And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!You are confusing Tuesday midnight with Wednesday noon. It would appear that, as with the two anointings, whenever the text shows why it is not in disagreement, your main counter-argument is: it is easier and more sensible to assume identity. I'm sorry, I can't follow that line of reasoning. It is not logical. Evidence and fact cannot be ignored, and it is intellectual dishonesty to take a fact and say, "I will ignore it". Bye. |
|||