Christian Apologetics

Handsome Bob

I brought this up in Christianity and I am interested to hear the views of A&A on Christian Apologetics. Are any of you familiar with it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsuczs8BJE8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TBBzTMSUC0

ChocolateSauce

LZ5by5 wrote: »

I brought this up in Christianity and I am interested to hear the views of A&A on Christian Apologetics. Are any of you familiar with it?

Well I hate to sound like I'm spouting the usual rabble, but....rabble rabble rabble!

But seriously, the resurrection, like the man says, is copied from earlier beliefs. It is also highly improbable. I didn't believe this story when I was a Christian, let alone now. I think Christian apologetics range from the very stupid to the very thoughtful but are, ultimately, incorrect.

Handsome Bob

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Well I hate to sound like I'm spouting the usual rabble, but....rabble rabble rabble!

But seriously, the resurrection, like the man says, is copied from earlier beliefs. It is also highly improbable. I didn't believe this story when I was a Christian, let alone now.

Gary Habermas pointed out there was no actual resurrection in the early beliefs that the skeptic mentioned.

Here's more on his work

http://www.garyhabermas.com/audio/audio.htm

ChocolateSauce

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Gary Habermas pointed out there was no actual resurrection in the early beliefs that the skeptic mentioned.

Here's more on his work

http://www.garyhabermas.com/audio/audio.htm

He's from Liberty University, easily one of the most laughable "educational" institutions in the world. He should get associated with a proper university (and if his degree or degrees are from there, he should get a degree worth the paper it is printed on).

But that is beside the point....if the above is true, then that is evidence that one of the core tenants of Christianity is false. I don't think a piece of evidence which seriously damages the credibility of its claims will be welcomed.

Fanny Cradock

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

He's from Liberty University, easily one of the most laughable "educational" institutions in the world. He should get associated with a proper university (and if his degree or degrees are from there, he should get a degree worth the paper it is printed on).

But that is beside the point....if the above is true, then that is evidence that one of the core tenants of Christianity is false. I don't think a piece of evidence which seriously damages the credibility of its claims will be welcomed.

Gotta love the intellectual snobbery. A quick read of his bio states that he also gained a Ph D from Michigan State and a Masters from University Detroit. Of course, even if the institution can not be so easily dismissed, the usual course of such intellectual snobbery leads one to pooh-pooh the very qualifications gained simply because of the field of study.

CerebralCortex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Gotta love the intellectual snobbery. A quick read of his bio states that he also gained a Ph D from Michigan State and a Masters from University Detroit. Of course, even if the institution can not be so easily dismissed, the usual course of such intellectual snobbery leads one to pooh-pooh the very qualifications gained simply because of the field of study.

Are you implying that we're not giving him a fair chance?

OP what is that show itself about? I watched the two videos and the other guy seemed like he was in from the street i.e I felt he was pwned by Habermas. Not sure what that has to do with anything?

robindch

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

He's from Liberty University, easily one of the most laughable "educational" institutions in the world.

Liberty University, run by Jerry Falwell up until his death, has provided Ken Ham, the world's most famous creationist who isn't in jail for fraud, with not one, but two honorary "doctorates".

Nothing further needs to be said about the educational standards at Liberty University.

pH

It's just laughable to say that there's no evidence that Egyptians believed that Osiris was raised from the dead, and that somehow it was "retrofitted" to the Osiris myth after it really happened to Jesus.

Scholars such as E.A. Wallis Budge have suggested possible connections or parallels of Osiris' resurrection story with those found in Christianity: "The Egyptians of every period in which they are known to us believed that Osiris was of divine origin, that he suffered death and mutilation at the hands of the powers of evil, that after a great struggle with these powers he rose again, that he became henceforth the king of the underworld and judge of the dead, and that because he had conquered death the righteous also might conquer death...In Osiris the Christian Egyptians found the prototype of Christ, and in the pictures and statues of Isis suckling her son Horus, they perceived the prototypes of the Virgin Mary and her child."[11]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osiris

Handsome Bob

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Are you implying that we're not giving him a fair chance?

OP what is that show itself about? I watched the two videos and the other guy seemed like he was in from the street i.e I felt he was pwned by Habermas. Not sure what that has to do with anything?

Sorry yeah the skeptic was not great at arguing his case. It was the only video I could find that best sums up Habermas's field of study; i.e. the Resurrection.

pH

LZ5by5 wrote: »

It was the only video I could find that best sums up Habermas's field of study; i.e. the Resurrection.

Don't confuse what he's doing with study and genuine academic research. He starts with his set of known Christian truths and then gathers evidence that supports his position, discarding that which doesn't.

Handsome Bob

pH wrote: »

Don't confuse what he's doing with study and genuine academic research. He starts with his set of known Christian truths and then gathers evidence that supports his position, discarding that which doesn't.

That's why it's called The Minimal Facts Approach; 5% is all he has to work with to argue his case.:pac: It's a decent argument but he loses it for me when he talks of the apostles willing to die for what they were convinced the saw; Jesus resurrected. I don't know the circumstances of them being put to death.

CerebralCortex

LZ5by5 wrote: »

That's why it's called The Minimal Facts Approach; 5% is all he has to work with to argue his case.:pac: It's a decent argument but he loses it for me when he talks of the apostles willing to die for what they were convinced the saw; Jesus resurrected. I don't know the circumstances of them being put to death.

That argument always reminds me of this argument for some reason.

ChocolateSauce

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Gotta love the intellectual snobbery. A quick read of his bio states that he also gained a Ph D from Michigan State and a Masters from University Detroit. Of course, even if the institution can not be so easily dismissed, the usual course of such intellectual snobbery leads one to pooh-pooh the very qualifications gained simply because of the field of study.

Except I didn't assume he got them there and the whole post was "if he is affliated". As my dinner was cooling I didn't have the time to read a bio, and also I said "even if, it's beside the point." I stand by my criticism of the university however.

I also reject your suggestion that I would dismiss out of hand a hard earned degree from a reputable university, even it it is a field I wouldn't find the most stimulating.

stevencarrwork

LZ5by5 wrote: »

That's why it's called The Minimal Facts Approach; 5% is all he has to work with to argue his case.:pac: It's a decent argument but he loses it for me when he talks of the apostles willing to die for what they were convinced the saw; Jesus resurrected. I don't know the circumstances of them being put to death.

Habermas 'minimum facts' approach.

Right from the start, Habermas tries to use 'minimum' facts, instead of *all* the facts.

His facts aren't really facts, but let us suppose that they were facts?

How does his approach differ from that of Holocaust-deniers who also pick and choose their facts?

They also love to use minimum facts, rather than all the facts.


It is a fact that no document signed or dictated by Hitler said to liqudate Jews in Europe in death camps.

It is a fact that 'Gas chamber 1' Auschwitz was an air raid shelter in 1944 and the building seen today dates largely from 1948.

These are undisputed facts. Even Wikipedia agrees these are facts, down to the building being an air-raid shelter in 1944.

Now using Habermas 'minimal facts' methodology, how can we best explain these undisputed facts?

Remember, we are only allowed to use these minimal facts, which nobody disputes, because we are using Habermas's methods.
We are also not allowed to use any other facts, such as the testimony of the commander of Auschwitz, because we are using Habermas's methods.

So now let us use more facts, and real facts, rather than Habermas's 'facts'.

Paul could not produce one single piece of eyewitness testimony as to what a resurrected body was like, even though the Gospel alleged that his Lord and Saviour had taught that a resurrected body was supposed to be made of flesh and bone, could be touched, ate, still had wounds etc.

The Gospels were written after Paul, and these stories did not exist when Paul was writing to people to tell them what a resurrected body was like.

Or else he would have used them, the way modern Christians do.


The earliest Christians believed Jesus was still alive, but that his body had been left behind.

The earliest reference to the resurrection is in 1 Cor. 15. There we learn that the Corinthians accepted the resurrection of Jesus, but still disbelieved that a dead body could rise.

This is impossible to explain, if they had been taught that Jesus dead body had risen. After all, modern Christians have no problem with the idea that God can raise dead bodies, because they have heard stories of how the body of Jesus was raised.

The Corinthians worry is easy to explain if they believed that Jesus was a god. Jesus had been a spirit before he became a human , and became a spirit again after he died. Gods can do that. However, we are not gods, and so the Corinthians wondered how we could follow Jesus , when our bodies , like the body of Jesus, would stay in the ground.

The Corinthians knew that God could breathe life into dead matter. God had breathed life into clay and created Adam as a living person. So if they believed God could make dead matter live, why did they believe God would choose not to make their dead bodies alive?

They must have had good evidence that God had not made dead matter alive in the case of the resurrection. They must have had good evidence that the dead body of Jesus had not been made alive. Only this explains their wondering how they would be resurrected, as it appeared to them that God did not want to make dead bodies live again.

So far this is speculation, although reasonable speculation. If the Corinthians believed God could make dead matter live, and had heard stories of the dead bodies of Jesus, Lazarus, the daughter of Jairus etc, being made alive, how could they doubt that God would make their dead bodies live again? Answer. They had not heard these stories, and had good evidence that a resurrection did *not* involve a dead body being made alive.

We have to turn to 1 Corinthians 15, where Paul answers the objections of the Corinthians.

Paul calls the Corinthians idiots for wondering how dead bodies would be raised. And he immediately stresses that dead bodies are dead. ‘You fools! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed.’

If Paul thought the Corinthians were idiots for wondering how dead bodies could be raised, when it was child’s play for God to raise dead bodies, he would have told them so. He could have used such passages as Ezekiel 37, or talked about how God breathed life into dead matter to make Adam.

Instead, he thinks the Corinthians are idiots for wondering how dead bodies could be raised, as they have totally missed the point about a resurrection.

Dead bodies will not be raised. Instead, we will get a new body, made of spirit.

The Corinthians were as idiotic for wondering how dead bodies would be raised in the resurrection, as somebody would be idiotic for wondering whether we still have to take our library books back after the resurrection.

Such questions were irrelevant, which is why Paul never answers the questions of how corpses could get back missing limbs, or how a corpse destroyed by fire could be reconstituted from smoke and ash etc.

Paul goes so far as to contrast , Adam, with Jesus. ‘The first Adam became a living being, the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.’

The Corinthians were idiots for not realising that we would follow Jesus and leave our dead bodies behind. We are made from the dust of the earth, but like the resurrected Jesus, we will be made from heavenly material.


The whole chapter only makes sense when we take seriously Paul’s view that it is idiotic to wonder how a dead body could be raised. It won’t be raised. It is a non-problem. Paul says clearly ‘You do not plant the body that will be’, and talks about different kinds of bodies. Paul says there is first the natural body and then the spiritual body. The Corinthians presently have their natural bodies, and then they will have spiritual bodies.

Here is an analogy for how Paul writes. If you wonder how a magician can produce an egg from your ear, after you have seen him crack the egg open, then you are an idiot for not realising that there are two eggs. Paul writes the same way.

Why wonder how a dead body can be transformed into a resurrected body, when there are two bodies? In 1 Cor. 15, Paul stresses how there are different bodies made of different materials. Why stress that there are different bodies, if he is trying to tell us how the magician put the egg back together again?

English translations of 1 Corinthians 15 often mask Paul’s idea that after our natural body has died, we will get a body made of spirit. Just like Jesus, we will become ‘a life-giving spirit.’ People of that time believed that celestial things were made of entirely different substances to earthly things. Paul shares that view and emphasises it in 1 Corinthians 15. This makes no sense if he is supposedly teaching the Corinthains that their resurrected bodies would be made from flesh and blood, which is what the Gospels claim Jesus resurrected body was made of.

It does make sense if Paul is teaching that the resurrected body would not be made from the flesh and blood of our earthly bodies.

Paul is very explicit in 2 Corinthians 5 that we will leave this present body behind and receive a heavenly body. A new body to replace the old body. He often uses a clothing analogy. At the resurrection we will get a new set of clothes.

This means that the old set of clothes will be discarded.

The earliest reference to the resurrection, Paul’s writings, clearly indicate that the earliest Christians did not believe Jesus flesh and blood body rose from the grave.

barfizz

For a better understanding of where the ressurection ideas have come from, see the following gods

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3i6UwVkP6M&eurl=http://confederator.org/2008/11/09/resurrection-gods-jesus-is-the-sun/&feature=player_embedded

barfizz

Also check out the Roman god Mithra who was born about 1300 BC in Persia and was still very popular in Rome up until the 4th Centuary AD when it was banned by the new Christian religion, Notice what they stole...

1. Mithra was born of a virgin on December 25th in a cave, and his birth was attended by shepherds.
2. He was considered a great traveling teacher and master.
3. He had 12 companions or disciples.
4. Mithra's followers were promised immortality.
5. He performed miracles.
6. As the "great bull of the Sun," Mithra sacrificed himself for world peace.
7. He was buried in a tomb and after three days rose again.
8. His resurrection was celebrated every year.
9. He was called "the Good Shepherd" and identified with both the Lamb and the Lion.
10. He was considered the "Way, the Truth and the Light," and the "Logos," "Redeemer," "Savior" and "Messiah."
11. His sacred day was Sunday, the "Lord's Day," hundreds of years before the appearance of Christ.
12. Mithra had his principal festival of what was later to become Easter.
13. His religion had a eucharist or "Lord's Supper," at which Mithra said, "He who shall not eat of my body nor drink of my blood so that he may be one with me and I with him, shall not be saved."
14. "His annual sacrifice is the passover of the Magi, a symbolical atonement or pledge of moral and physical regeneration."
15. Shmuel Golding is quoted as saying that 1 Cor. 10:4 is "identical words to those found in the Mithraic scriptures, except that the name Mithra is used instead of Christ."
16. The Catholic Encyclopedia is quoted as saying that Mithraic services were conduced by "fathers" and that the "chief of the fathers, a sort of pope, who always lived at Rome, was called 'Pater Patratus.'"

Tim Robbins

LZ5by5 wrote: »

I brought this up in Christianity and I am interested to hear the views of A&A on Christian Apologetics. Are any of you familiar with it?

That's Lee Strobel. A very skilled sophist. He makes out as if his been very objective, but he's been anything but.

Fanny Cradock

barfizz wrote: »

Also check out the Roman god Mithra who was born about 1300 BC in Persia and was still very popular in Rome up until the 4th Centuary AD when it was banned by the new Christian religion, Notice what they stole...

1. Mithra was born of a virgin on December 25th in a cave, and his birth was attended by shepherds.
2. He was considered a great traveling teacher and master.
3. He had 12 companions or disciples.
4. Mithra's followers were promised immortality.
5. He performed miracles.
6. As the "great bull of the Sun," Mithra sacrificed himself for world peace.
7. He was buried in a tomb and after three days rose again.
8. His resurrection was celebrated every year.
9. He was called "the Good Shepherd" and identified with both the Lamb and the Lion.
10. He was considered the "Way, the Truth and the Light," and the "Logos," "Redeemer," "Savior" and "Messiah."
11. His sacred day was Sunday, the "Lord's Day," hundreds of years before the appearance of Christ.
12. Mithra had his principal festival of what was later to become Easter.
13. His religion had a eucharist or "Lord's Supper," at which Mithra said, "He who shall not eat of my body nor drink of my blood so that he may be one with me and I with him, shall not be saved."
14. "His annual sacrifice is the passover of the Magi, a symbolical atonement or pledge of moral and physical regeneration."
15. Shmuel Golding is quoted as saying that 1 Cor. 10:4 is "identical words to those found in the Mithraic scriptures, except that the name Mithra is used instead of Christ."
16. The Catholic Encyclopedia is quoted as saying that Mithraic services were conduced by "fathers" and that the "chief of the fathers, a sort of pope, who always lived at Rome, was called 'Pater Patratus.'"

Countless times have these been mentioned on the Christianity forum. And countless times have they been refuted. Like your post, the claims are inevitably just copied and pasted from other websites - like some sort of viral email.

For instance, nowhere in the Bible is the date of Jesus' birth mentioned. The 25th of December is merely a convention stretching back to the 4th Century and is completely ex-biblical in its origin. Mithra emerged as a fully formed adult from a rock, not a virgin. I believe that the fist references to the shepherds appear approximately 100 years after the Gospels.

http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/mithra.html

Fanny Cradock

Tim Robbins wrote: »

That's Lee Strobel. A very skilled sophist. He makes out as if his been very objective, but he's been anything but.

While I agree that The Case for Christ is not entirely objective - he was initially an unbeliever, and through his investigation, he became a believer. Any lack of objectivity arises because he is writing the book after this epiphany. It usually in the form of him saying something like: 'that made sense to me' or 'I couldn't disagree with that' after receiving a answer from an expert. However, the questions he asks are done so in an honest manner. Whatever you make of the answers he receives is an entirely personal matter.

The sophistry that Tim accuses Strobel of is a claim that is generally levelled at Christian authors. This vigilance extends to Tim's tireless patrolling for crimes against logic on the Christianity forum. Why, the merest mention of C.S. Lewis will inevitably see a post from Tim accusing Lewis of all manner of logical fallacies.

Tim Robbins

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

While I agree that The Case for Christ is not entirely objective - he was initially an unbeliever, and through his investigation, he became a believer.

Which is meaningless. Absolutely meaningless. All that matters is the validity of his arguments.

The sophistry that Tim accuses Strobel of is a claim that is generally levelled at Christian authors. This vigilance extends to Tim's tireless patrolling for crimes against logic on the Christianity forum. Why, the merest mention of C.S. Lewis will inevitably see a post from Tim accusing Lewis of all manner of logical fallacies.

It doesn't matter who I am, who they are or who used to be what. Believe it or not. When you desconstruct these arguments they are shown for the sophistry that they are. Any intelligent person who values truth will deconstruct arguments and examine them, so what's the problem Fanny?

I don't think the audience of Lee Strobel or C.S. Lewis have much of a clue about logic so to them the arguments sound reasonable. I just watched a youtube of Lee Strobel, explaining to his audience what a prime number is ffs? In Europe, a nine year old should know what a prime number is.

On another occasion, he thinks DNA is incredibly efficient. If he new anything at all about DNA, he'd know there's a huge amount of junk in DNA that is redundant.

Any intelligent person should be able to cut through Lewis or Strobel.
If you want a challenge, check out Fr. Peter McVerry. Instead of engaging in stupid sophistry he gets up of his backside and lives his life helping people. Not for money, not for greed but because of his Christian faith which he doesn't even bother forcing on people.

Fanny Cradock

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Which is meaningless. Absolutely meaningless. All that matters is the validity of his arguments.

I would argue that it is meaningful; it's what drove him to write the book that we are discussing. But, yes, the heart of the matter rests with validity of his arguments.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

It doesn't matter who I am, who they are or who used to be what. Believe it or not. When you desconstruct these arguments they are shown for the sophistry that they are. Any intelligent person who values truth will deconstruct arguments and examine them, so what's the problem Fanny?

It was unfair of me to make this personal, Tim. I apologise for this.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

On another occasion, he thinks DNA is incredibly efficient. If he new anything at all about DNA, he'd know there's a huge amount of junk in DNA that is redundant.

It's possible, like all of us, that he should stay away from pursuing certain arguments - we all have our areas of knowledge. However, not one to take my own advice, I have heard that term 'junk' in junk DNA is really a misnomer. Simply because the function of the DNA is not yet known, it doesn't seem appropriate to consider it redundant, and there seems to be a growing acceptance that this is the case. It's like saying that the 'spare' nuts and bolts that are left over after assembling a piece of Ikea furniture are 'junk'. When the reality is that they are essential in holding the stylish piece of crap together.

Tim Robbins

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I would argue that it is meaningful; it's what drove him to write the book that we are discussing. But, yes, the heart of the matter rests with validity of his arguments.

You believe that? Me thinks it was the dollar that drove him to write those books. Me believes the dollar drives most of those "apologetics". Again, I refer you to Fr. Peter. Imagine the amount of money his brain could make selling books and he chooses to put all his time and energy into helping people.
This is agape.

It's possible, like all of us, that he should stay away from pursuing certain arguments - we all have our areas of knowledge.

Any intelligent person, should research their opinions. This is why you don't hear Jesuits or Rowan Williams make wacky arguments the wacky Evangelicals make.

However, not one to take my own advice, I have heard that term 'junk' in junk DNA is really a misnomer.

There's tonnes of DNA that is just junk. Not in used in creating amino acids to create cells. So what else could its function be?

Besides, my point was that Stroble was trying to make an argument for a creater since DNA was so efficient. He clearly doesn't understand DNA nor does his audience. So to an atheist, it just looks like a case of 'ignorance is bliss' and it's hard to take any of this seriously.

Fanny Cradock

Tim Robbins wrote: »

You believe that? Me thinks it was the dollar that drove him to write those books. Me believes the dollar drives most of those "apologetics". Again, I refer you to Fr. Peter. Imagine the amount of money his brain could make selling books and he chooses to put all his time and energy into helping people.
This is agape.

Lamentably, as I don't have your ability to read minds, it would be foolish of me to defend the motives of these Christians you speak of. Also, shame on these apologists for daring to make money from their books!

Tim Robbins wrote: »

There's tonnes of DNA that is just junk. Not in used in creating amino acids to create cells. So what else could its function be?

I'm no scientist, but your definition of there being 'tonnes of DNA that is just junk' doesn't sound very exacting. Also, when junk DNA clearly isn't useless there is no point in pressing your opinion that it is. Would this count as your Strobel of the gaps? Anyway, if you really want to know what else this 'junk' could do, I'm not the man to ask.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080904145056.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3703935.stm
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-11/afst-d110408.php

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Besides, my point was that Stroble was trying to make an argument for a creater since DNA was so efficient. He clearly doesn't understand DNA nor does his audience. So to an atheist, it just looks like a case of 'ignorance is bliss' and it's hard to take any of this seriously.

I'm sorry, Tim, but given that I've already admitted that I don't posses precognitive ability, you must forgive me for not being able to see the real meaning of your posts when you don't type it. Also, because of this deficiency, be warned that I may experience shock and bewilderment when I arrive at the park only to find the goal post have been shifted.

barfizz

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Countless times have these been mentioned on the Christianity forum. And countless times have they been refuted. Like your post, the claims are inevitably just copied and pasted from other websites - like some sort of viral email.

For instance, nowhere in the Bible is the date of Jesus' birth mentioned. The 25th of December is merely a convention stretching back to the 4th Century and is completely ex-biblical in its origin. Mithra emerged as a fully formed adult from a rock, not a virgin. I believe that the fist references to the shepherds appear approximately 100 years after the Gospels.

http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/mithra.html

Fanny you are missing the point, Christianity is just a pick and choose collection of old myths repackaged and sold as new.

When are you going to wake up and realise that you are just wasting your time/life arguing (as fact) about a group of old stories thrown together to give people direction in there life.

The Old Testament comes from old oral traditions and was written for a people that were just coming out of the caves and beginning to come to terms with a society that was larger than the traditional family group they were used to. The progression from a nomadic to a agricultural society was a big leap (and I’m sure very scary). This also enabled them time to begin to study and witness what was around them, so between the awe of the planet we live on and the need for a set of guidelines to help them to live in this new larger society they developed stories that would give them some sense of place that was easy and simple for their primitive mind. Hence the old vengeful God; always watching them and ready to punish them severely for the smallest crime.

The new testament was a collection of the more modern thinking of that time, people/society had evolved into a more caring and nurturing society and there was a need for this to be reflected in a new set of guidelines, hence people like Paul took from his experience of Mithras in Tarsus (centre of the Mithras religion), took a bit of that, picked a bit of Horus, Apollo etc.. And came up with what he believed to be a collection of the best bits.

Unfortunately for you that’s all that happened, so yes I agree, there was no virgin birth, there was no birthday on Dec 25th, there was no resurrection for any of them.

All we have are a collection of stories that aim to provide a set of moral guidelines to help people live a better life but unfortunately some people for generations since have decided to take these stories as fact.

And before you go on about Jesus being a real person, lets not bother getting into the argument about there being no such person. I have my opinion based on the lack of him even being mentioned once in contemporary records, and you are going to say the bible is proof, ya da, ya da, ya…

Fanny Cradock

barfizz wrote: »

Fanny you are missing the point, Christianity is just a pick and choose collection of old myths repackaged and sold as new.

When are you going to wake up and realise that you are just wasting your time/life arguing (as fact) about a group of old stories thrown together to give people direction in there life.

The Old Testament comes from old oral traditions and was written for a people that were just coming out of the caves and beginning to come to terms with a society that was larger than the traditional family group they were used to. The progression from a nomadic to a agricultural society was a big leap (and I’m sure very scary). This also enabled them time to begin to study and witness what was around them, so between the awe of the planet we live on and the need for a set of guidelines to help them to live in this new larger society they developed stories that would give them some sense of place that was easy and simple for their primitive mind. Hence the old vengeful God; always watching them and ready to punish them severely for the smallest crime.

The new testament was a collection of the more modern thinking of that time, people/society had evolved into a more caring and nurturing society and there was a need for this to be reflected in a new set of guidelines, hence people like Paul took from his experience of Mithras in Tarsus (centre of the Mithras religion), took a bit of that, picked a bit of Horus, Apollo etc.. And came up with what he believed to be a collection of the best bits.

Unfortunately for you that’s all that happened, so yes I agree, there was no virgin birth, there was no birthday on Dec 25th, there was no resurrection for any of them.

All we have are a collection of stories that aim to provide a set of moral guidelines to help people live a better life but unfortunately some people for generations since have decided to take these stories as fact.

And before you go on about Jesus being a real person, lets not bother getting into the argument about there being no such person. I have my opinion based on the lack of him even being mentioned once in contemporary records, and you are going to say the bible is proof, ya da, ya da, ya…

Great, you managed to type all that and accuse me of missing the point.

You go on to make specific claims regarding the similarities between Jesus and Mithra. The upshot of your argument is that Christianity is just a heterogeneous repackaging of a number religions. OK?

Well, off the top of my head, I've refuted a few choice points from your copy and paste job and also provided a link that goes on to dismantle all 16 claims in detail. None of which you have bothered to counter-challenge, btw. (The same claims have been made of Horus on the Christianity forum. They, too, have been refuted. Do a search if you are interested.)

However, in providing evidence that unambiguously oppose your claims - or despite it - I somehow have missed the point that Jesus is just a repackaged version of Mithra (as you have only laid specific claims to this end it is the only charge I can answer), right

But you are correct, I probably am wasting my time arguing with you - neither of us are going to agree. As I'm ducking out now, the floor is all yours!

P.S. if you want to believe that there was no Jesus - dismissing documents like the bible in the process - then you best begin to re-evaluate who you believe existed in antiquity.

barfizz

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Great, you managed to type all that and accuse me of missing the point.

Yes it took ages...:)

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You go on to make specific claims regarding the similarities between Jesus and Mithra. The upshot of your argument is that Christianity is just a heterogeneous repackaging of a number religions. OK?

Yes to provide a point about christ not being original in regards to the ressurection. did you not get that ???

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Well, off the top of my head, I've refuted a few choice points from your copy and paste job and also provided a link that goes on to dismantle all 16 claims in detail. None of which you have bothered to counter-challenge, btw. (The same claims have been made of Horus on the Christianity forum. They, too, have been refuted. Do a search if you are interested.)

Well actually only the one, the Virgin birth,
The point about Dec 25 if you read my post was that it was taken from the Mithra religion (and others) i never said it was real that’s the point

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

However, in providing evidence that unambiguously oppose your claims - or despite it - I somehow have missed the point that Jesus is just a repackaged version of Mithra (as you have only laid specific claims to this end it is the only charge I can answer), right

The link you provide is from a christian site, i don't count it as an independant opinion.
Paul, the founder of the Christian church was from Tarsus where the Mithra religion was predominant (that’s why I chose it as an example) that is why there are so many similarities. He chose the bit that would fit into a good story.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

But you are correct, I probably am wasting my time arguing with you - neither of us are going to agree. As I'm ducking out now, the floor is all yours!

pity about that, i like to have honest, open, exchanges of opinion

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

P.S. if you want to believe that there was no Jesus - dismissing documents like the bible in the process - then you best begin to re-evaluate who you believe existed in antiquity.

I believe many people existed in antiquity or else there would be no one here, we all had to have ancestors. I don't believe that Mithra was a god either just another fable...

Tim Robbins

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Lamentably, as I don't have your ability to read minds, it would be foolish of me to defend the motives of these Christians you speak of. Also, shame on these apologists for daring to make money from their books!

Now, now, Fanny - you just proferred a reason for his motivation. I hope you're not saying I can't do that.

Also, when junk DNA clearly isn't useless there is no point in pressing your opinion that it is.

Well how about you explain why junk DNA clearly isn't useless?
Are you saying that some parts of junk DNA may not be useless or all of it has a use?

Again, I bring you back to what Strobel was saying. He was saying DNA was exceptionally efficient. That would imply all of does something. Any redundancy would rebutt his claim. Does he have conclusive evidence all of it has a use? No.

I'm sorry, Tim, but given that I've already admitted that I don't posses precognitive ability, you must forgive me for not being able to see the real meaning of your posts when you don't type it. Also, because of this deficiency, be warned that I may experience shock and bewilderment when I arrive at the park only to find the goal post have been shifted.

Goalposts haven't shifted. So there's no need for that rhetoric. My point is the sophistry of apologetics is meaningless when you deconstruct and loook at their arguments logically. Are you seriously trying to suggest there's no sophistry with Strobel's DNA arguments? If not, what are you trying to do?

Fanny Cradock

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Now, now, Fanny - you just proferred a reason for his motivation. I hope you're not saying I can't do that.

Proffered a reason? I merely gave a brief outline of the thesis of Strobel's book - a non-believer embarks on the 'Case for Christ', finds most of the answers to his liking and later becomes a Christian. It's you who are concocting reasons beyond this for his motivation.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Well how about you explain why junk DNA clearly isn't useless?
Are you saying that some parts of junk DNA may not be useless or all of it has a use?

I'm not a scientist, Tim. But I've already provided several links that discuss the usefulness of 'junk' DNA.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Again, I bring you back to what Strobel was saying. He was saying DNA was exceptionally efficient. That would imply all of does something. Any redundancy would rebutt his claim. Does he have conclusive evidence all of it has a use? No.

Can you think of any system that doesn't have waste? Maybe Strobel was being as loose in his use of the words 'incredibly efficient' as you are when you say there are 'tonnes of DNA that is just junk'. I'm not particularly interested in debating DNA with you. However, if you can think of a method that clearly surpasses DNA's ability to store genetic information in the long-term and amongst all known living organisms, well, you better pipe up and inform the scientific community.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Goalposts haven't shifted. So there's no need for that rhetoric. My point is the sophistry of apologetics is meaningless when you deconstruct and loook at their arguments logically. Are you seriously trying to suggest there's no sophistry with Strobel's DNA arguments? If not, what are you trying to do?

You take pedantically take umbrage to Strobel using the term 'efficient' in relation to DNA (again, I'm wondering what biological method has been more successful at passing along staggering amounts of genetic information over vast periods of time for all known living organisms, including the odd virus) and then dismiss him on this basis of this - a non-scientist using non-scientific terminology. Who is really the sophist hiding behind words like 'logic', Tim?*

*Hint: it's you

Tim Robbins

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Proffered a reason? I merely gave a brief outline of the thesis of Strobel's book - a non-believer embarks on the 'Case for Christ', finds most of the answers to his liking and later becomes a Christian. It's you who are concocting reasons beyond this for his motivation.

You said:
"it's what drove him to write the book that we are discussing."

I'm not a scientist, Tim. But I've already provided several links that discuss the usefulness of 'junk' DNA.
[/QUOTE
Is DNA unambiguosly efficient? No.

Can you think of any system that doesn't have waste? Maybe Strobel was being as loose in his use of the words 'incredibly efficient' as you are when you say there are 'tonnes of DNA that is just junk'. I'm not particularly interested in debating DNA with you. However, if you can think of a method that clearly surpasses DNA's ability to store genetic information in the long-term and amongst all known living organisms, well, you better pipe up and inform the scientific community.

He speaking scientific nonsense to people who were scientifically illiterate.
What's interesting is the techniques he uses to make his arguments sound impressive.

There are tonnes of way you could encode better than DNA. It's simple mathematics. Ever used winzip? That compresses information and hence stores it more efficiently.

A designer doesn't explain redundant DNA. Evolution does.

You take pedantically take umbrage to Strobel using the term 'efficient' in relation to DNA (again, I'm wondering what biological method has been more successful at passing along staggering amounts of genetic information over vast periods of time for all known living organisms, including the odd virus) and then dismiss him on this basis of this - a non-scientist using non-scientific terminology. Who is really the sophist hiding behind words like 'logic', Tim?*

*Hint: it's you

Efficient can be used in a scientifc context. DNA is just not efficient.

It doesn't matter if nothing in Biology is more efficient than DNA.

Stroble was arguing:
Premise: DNA is very efficient
Conclusion: There must be a designer.

The truth is:
1. DNA is not efficient. Any information storing mechanism that has a lot of redundancy is not efficient. This is basic engineering. A lot of the biology is not well engineered. The eye, for example is not well engineered. Evolution explains exactly why nature is not well engineered. A creater (unless he's a bad Engineer) does not.
2. Even if DNA was efficient that means absolutely nothing in deducing if there is a designer or not. Nothing.

Perhaps you'd like to explain what words I am hiding behind?

Sonderval

Fanny, surely you cannot be so dismissive of the syncretism inherent in Christianity? - there is a non-trivial amount of plagarism going on there.

I am aware of more specific Mithras, Horus and Isis claims that are not mentioned in that list, I'll see if I can drag up some good references.

Fanny Cradock

Tim, I'm not interested in discussing the merrits of DNA with you. I have already provided evidence to the function of some of the 'junk' DNA that you otherwise dismiss as usless. Talk to somebody with a professed interest in genetics if you really want to know more.

As for the words you hide behind, well, it's more a set pattern whereby you accuse people of failing to adhere to logic and then go on to present a number of your 'logical' deductions.

These usually take the form of a list of possible reductions. The results of which are either:
1) People who agree with you are deemed to be logical.
2) People who disagree with your reasoning are deemed to illogical.

I don't believe we will ever find common ground on this matter. You are happy to pedanticly nit-pick at two words Strobel uses (brazenly questioning his intentions in the process) and yet see no irony when you continually use a throw away term like 'tonnes' in relation to DNA. Besides, I see that you are stuck in a near endless 'logical' loop of your own making.

I'm out, Tim. Your dogged determination has claimed yet another scalp.

Tim Robbins

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Tim, I'm not interested in discussing the merrits of DNA with you. I have already provided evidence to the function of the 'junk' DNA that you dismiss as usless. Talk to somebody with a professed interest in genetics if you really want to know more.

No you haven't.
It's not binary:
1. Junk DNA is useless.
2. Junk DNA is not useless.

That's just more sophistry.
It's Ternary.
1. Junk DNA is uselss.
2. Junk DNA is not useless.
3. Some Junk DNA is uselss, some is not.

I don't believe we will ever find common ground on this matter. You are happy to pedanticly nit-pick Strobel (brazenly questioning his intentions in the process) and yet see no irony in continually using a throw away term like 'tonnes' in relation to DNA.

The hole point of sophistry is that it's sounds good unless you
deconstruct it or "nit - pick" (as you call it) it. As for using loaded terms such as "tonnes" well you trying to tell me "nit - pick" isn't loaded?

Besides, I see that you are stuck in a near endless 'logical' loop of your own making.

"near endless 'logical' loop" - more rhetoric. . Again, I point out this is nothing to do with me. It's do the arguments Strobel, an apologetic, is using. They are either sophistry or they are not. Now, they only way I see you can argue they are not is to show they are not. Forget about me.

I'm out, Tim. Your dogged determination has claimed yet another scalp.

Well if Strobel, or any Evangelical came up with an argument that was logical, I'd happily change my opinions.

However, what's annoying is they act as if they are using logic because you actually examine their points - even with a modicum of logic, they come up for what they are: sophistry.

PDN

Sonderval wrote: »

Fanny, surely you cannot be so dismissive of the syncretism inherent in Christianity? - there is a non-trivial amount of plagarism going on there.

I am aware of more specific Mithras, Horus and Isis claims that are not mentioned in that list, I'll see if I can drag up some good references.

Fanny is spot on. This Mithras urban legend is based on no real evidence.

There are plenty of claims made about elements of Mithraism that are similar to Christianity, but here is the rub - the claimants, when challenged, never produce any sources for these elements which predate Christianity.

All we ever have are references to a form of pagan worship with sources quoted that date after the advent of Christianity. I have issued this challenge in a number of posts in different fora, but no-one ever produces a manuscript, a temple inscription, anything at all which provides evidence for any pre-Christian existence of these so-called borrowings. (I am deliberately ignoring the 25th Dec nonsense as that is a smokescreen. Christians do not believe that Jesus was born on that date & it has never been an article of Christian faith).

Now Catholicism certainly is syncretistic - having borrowed stuff from the Romand Empire, Babylon & God knows where else. But this guff about Christianity pinching basic beliefs from Mithraism is unhistorical nonsense with zero evidence.

Sonderval

Well, its a hard thing to prove PDN - I mean, how do you prove that someone didn't steal an idea 2000 years after the event? It is suspected that Mithraism does predate Christianity - its small initial following and its nature (fraternity like) did not lend it to producing much evidence.

I have a good reference for you, from the journal of Roman Studies, I can forward you the pdf if you want it (or don't have access to scientific libraries). http://www.jstor.org/stable/300205?origin=crossref

Considering that both religions were competing in Rome at the same time, your statement that

But this guff about Christianity pinching basic beliefs from Mithraism is unhistorical nonsense with zero evidence

is a very dangerous one to make especially when you seem to be bereft of primary evidence to the contrary.

As a scientist, this has piqued my interest now - I'll go do some secondary research and see what I can trawl up.

Tim Robbins

Sonderval wrote: »

As a scientist, this has piqued my interest now - I'll go do some secondary research and see what I can trawl up.

There's an Anglican Theologian by the name of Dr. Roberd Beckford who did a documentary about this on BBC. It was on last Christmas day and his conclusion was that many aspects of other religions could have been adopted by Christianity. I'm sure if you'll get it on the internet somewhere.

PDN

Sonderval wrote: »

Well, its a hard thing to prove PDN - I mean, how do you prove that someone didn't steal an idea 2000 years after the event?

Exactly, how can you prove someone didn't steal something? All you can point out is that there is no evidence of anything being stolen and insist that the burden of proof rests on the accuser. Which is exactly what I am doing.

It is indeed true that a religion called Mithraism predates Christianity. However, there is no evidence to indicate that, in its pre-Christian form, it had any of the elements listed in Barfizz's urban legend.

There are one or two indications of Mithraism being practiced in the Roman Empire at the end of the 1st Century AD (ie several decades after Paul wrote his first epistles and over 50 years after the Resurrection of Christ). But Mithraism did not become popular in Rome until the Third Century - and that is when we get to here all the kind of stuff mention in Barfizz's cut and pasted bit of guff. So a new religion arrives in Rome - sees a fast growing faith called Christianity and says, "Actually guys - our religion thought of this stuff first (even though we have no evidence for that) but the Christians stole it from us."

As for Tarsus being the centre of Mithraism, as Barfizz claims, that is also bunk. There are only two pieces of genuine historical evidence linking Tarsus with Mithraism. One is a coin from the reign Gordion III (AD 238-244) - so almost 200 years after Paul was in Tarsus. The other is vague reference in Plutarch to pirates from Tarsus who practiced Mithraic rites on Mount Olympus. However, Plutarch wrote this after the death of Paul! So the only two historical links between Tarsus and Mithraism are both dated much later than Paul's epistles.

We have plenty of documentation and evidence to attest that Christians were propagating their doctrines throughout the Roman Empire during the First Century - no serious historian disputes that fact. We have no such documentation or evidence to support similar doctrines being propagated by Mithraism until nearly 200 years later.

The whole thing about Christianity pinching all that stuff from Mithraism is on a par with UFO conspiracies or the Davinci Code.

Sonderval

Cool, already having read that article I linked, I can see that many statements on that list are indeed incorrect. Once I get more familiar with the area I'll go through that list blow by blow.

In the interest of helping me out, could you please provide your references for the following statements?

There are one or two indications of Mithraism being practiced in the Roman Empire at the end of the 1st Centur

We have no such documentation or evidence to support similar doctrines being propagated by Mithraism until nearly 200 years later

PDN

Sonderval wrote: »

In the interest of helping me out, could you please provide your references for the following statements?

A lot of what I'm saying has been gathered by reading up on this over the years, rather than one source - so I apologise for having to resort to our friend wikipedia:

wiki wrote:

Mithraism began to attract attention in Rome around the end of the first century. Statius mentions the typical Mithraic relief in his Thebaid (Book i. 719,720), around 80 CE. The earliest material evidence for the Roman worship of Mithras dates from that period, in a record of Roman soldiers who came from the military garrison at Carnuntum in the Roman province of Upper Pannonia (near the Danube River in modern Austria, near the Hungarian border). Other legionaries fought the Parthians and were involved in the suppression of the revolts in Jerusalem from 60 CE to about 70 CE When they returned home, they made Mithraic dedications, probably in the year 71 or 72.

wiki wrote:

No Mithraic scripture or first-hand account of its highly secret rituals survives, with the possible exception of a liturgy recorded in a 4th century papyrus, thought to be an atypical representation of the cult at best. Current knowledge of the mysteries is almost entirely limited to what can be deduced from the iconography in the mithraea that have survived

wiki wrote:

Evaluation of the relationship of early Christianity with Mithraism has traditionally been based on the polemical testimonies of the 2nd century Church fathers, such as Justin's accusations that the Mithraists were diabolically imitating the Christians

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithraic_Mysteries

barfizz

Hi PDN,

maybe you would have liked to have finished your quote, it gives a very different slant

PDN
Originally Posted by wiki
Evaluation of the relationship of early Christianity with Mithraism has traditionally been based on the polemical testimonies of the 2nd century Church fathers, such as Justin's accusations that the Mithraists were diabolically imitating the Christians

Evaluation of the relationship of early Christianity with Mithraism has traditionally been based on the polemical testimonies of the 2nd century Church fathers, such as Justin's accusations that the Mithraists were diabolically imitating the Christians.[21] This led to a picture of rivalry between the two religions, which Ernest Renan set forth in his 1882 The Origins of Christianity by saying "if the growth of Christianity had been arrested by some mortal malady, the world would have been Mithraic,"[22] Although as remarked above, little was actually known about Mithras in 1882.

Martin (1989) characterizes the rivalry between 3rd century Mithraism and Christianity in Rome as primarily one for real estate in the public areas of urban Rome.[23]

Sonderval

Martin (1989) characterizes the rivalry between 3rd century Mithraism and Christianity in Rome as primarily one for real estate in the public areas of urban Rome.

Indeed, this is something I keep seeing in the 4 papers I've acquired since yesterday on this subject. It seems that, contrary to what PDN was saying about Mithraism, it is Christianity that was the upstart cult that arrived at Rome. Mithraeum's (temples to Mithras) were present in Rome during the second century, at a minimum. Indeed, not only were they present, but they far, far outnumbered Christian temples.

To quote:
"...based upon Coreielli's estimates, that just under 700 Mithraea should exist in Rome" [1]. Interestingly, these temples existed in the heavy urban areas of Rome, and were frequently based near public venues, barracks and baths. This gels well with what I understand of the cult, being a top down hierarchy system that promoted a sense of loyalty - you'd want to have your temples near places that had high population density. Also, this is the lowball figure - Coarelli's high estimate puts there in excess of 2,000 mithraea in rome by the second century.

Further in, Martin states:
"By contrast, only 25 Christian tituli are known in Rome by the fourth century, while the first Christian bascilae were pointedly built outside the walls of the city". This is where the whole deal about real estate pops up. As we know, Christians had no problem taking over previous temples for their own use. This undoubtedly happened as their religion grew.

As for the relative size, consider also:
"The population of Roman Mithraists would have been approximately 41,000, or more"

For christian demographics:
"Cornelius, bishop of rome, in the mid-third century (251-253), provides the only statistic for estimating the number of Roman Christians. In a letter which is cited by Eusebius, he reports that there are 154 Christian officials in Rome: 46 presbyters, 7 deacons, 7 sub-deacons, 42 acolytes and 52 exorcists, readers and door keepers".

The estimate arrived at is 50,000, but this has been dismissed as too high by other references (I can't get them, so I don't know why that is the case). Depending on where you want to put your statistical bias, it would seem that the low ball of Mithrais followers of 41,000 may well exceed the high ball value of Christians in this time frame (based on the 50,000 value being debunked).

Now for some op-ed conclusions on my part It would, in my estimation, seem acceptable to assume that Mithraic worship far exceeded Christian worship in Rome during the 1st to 3rd century. If the 700 temples was in fact 2000 (or higher), the population of cultists sky rockets. Barring reconsecration of existing temples in Rome during the rise of this cult, it seems plausible to suggest that Mithraic tradition in Rome was not an overnight phenomenon and that it may have well been a part of life by the time Christianity reacher Rome in the 1st century.

But Mithraism did not become popular in Rome until the Third Century

One could argue that, but from what I am reading, it seems to have been prominent and far more populous a movement then you've been led to believe. Certainly the fact that mithraeums were almost entirely found in the urban areas while christian temples were not found there at all until much later, implies that it was certainly a much more established cult.

More to follow!

References Found so far:

[1] Roman Mithraism and Christianity
Luther H. Martin
Numen, Vol. 36, Fasc. 1 (Jun., 1989), pp. 2-15
[2]Review: Mithras
S. R. F. Price
The Classical Review
[3]The Mysteries of Mithras: A New Account of Their Genesis
Roger Beck
The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 88, (1998), pp. 115-128
[4]The Mysteries of Mithra By Franz Cumont, Thomas J. McCormack (online)

pH

The specific claims that Christianity was a copy cat religion, just invented to ride on the popularity of the Mithraism, may not be true in a literal sense, but are true in an allegorical sense. That's what I believe anyway.

Sonderval

The specific claims that Christianity was a copy cat religion, just invented to ride on the popularity of the Mithraism, may not be true in a literal sense, but are true in an allegorical sense. That's what I believe anyway.

Christianity existed as and part of its own prior to reaching Rome. This is pretty much undeniable. In what form of belief that was, we we can't be certain.

In no way am I suggesting that Christianity is a knock off of Mithraism. What I am suggesting though is that through syncretism, what arrived in Rome back in the 1st century may have been considerably re-interpreted to appeal to religious folk of existing religions in Rome. Thereby, a large amount of mithraic beliefs would have filtered into the early chrisitian belief system.

Its not that hard to believe. When you consider the early church and its struggle for identity, the gnostics, the apocrypha and the summation of creed as defined by Constantine during the Council of Nicea, it becomes very hard to figure out where the truth of Jesus message lies.

Tim Robbins

Sonderval wrote: »

Its not that hard to believe. When you consider the early church and its struggle for identity, the gnostics, the apocrypha and the summation of creed as defined by Constantine during the Council of Nicea, it becomes very hard to figure out where the truth of Jesus message lies.

Exactly. In ther very early days of Christianity there were three at least sects:
1. Jewish only sect
2. Pauline sect
3. Gnostics.

How many are there now?

Goduznt Xzst

Sonderval wrote: »

it becomes very hard to figure out where the truth of Jesus message lies.

Simple! :rolleyes: Just ask anyone over in the Christianity forum, I'm sure they'll all be happy to express to you how the Christian sect that they, personally, are a member of is where Jesus' true message lies.

It becomes pathethic listening to them after a while, it's like watching people argue over how many grains of sand are in a jar, while nobody thinks that maybe they should wait, count the grains of sand and then there wouldn't be a need for the argument at all. What makes it even sadder though is that at least the number of grains of sand in that jar is tenable, their opinions on God and how the bible should be "properly" understood is not

JimiTime

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Simple! :rolleyes: Just ask anyone over in the Christianity forum, I'm sure they'll all be happy to express to you how the Christian sect that they, personally, are a member of is where Jesus' true message lies.

It becomes pathethic listening to them after a while, it's like watching people argue over how many grains of sand are in a jar, while nobody thinks that maybe they should wait, count the grains of sand and then there wouldn't be a need for the argument at all. What makes it even sadder though is that at least the number of grains of sand in that jar is tenable, their opinions on God and how the bible should be "properly" understood is not

LOL:D Your posts rarely fail to entertain. Be careful you don't fall from that horse now, seems quite high.

CerebralCortex

JimiTime wrote: »

LOL:D Your posts rarely fail to entertain. Be careful you don't fall from that horse now, seems quite high.

In defense of my fellow non believer that is such a typical response. We could accuse each other all day of being on high horses all day it still doesn't change the truth of things.

Sonderval

Many sects alright - makes you wonder, does it not?

JimiTime

CerebralCortex wrote: »

In defense of my fellow non believer that is such a typical response. We could accuse each other all day of being on high horses all day it still doesn't change the truth of things.

Ahh but so few do it with such glorious Rhetoric:) Also, some horses are higher than others.....Whats the weather like down there:)

Tim Robbins

Sonderval wrote: »

Many sects alright - makes you wonder, does it not?

I remember when I was 12, a Priest came into our religion class and wrote down all the religions of the World. I asked:
"Are all these people convinced they're right, just like they Christians are convinced they are right?"
"Yes"
"But they all believe different things so how can they all be right?".

At that point, I realise it was possible for humans to be absolutely convinced they are right when they could be actually wrong.

If you're a religious person and you are anyway at all intelligent, objective and educated. You have two options:
1. Accept your religion is just one of many ways to God - like the Unitarians do.
2. Have gone through every single religion in the world and give them all equal about of time and treat all as fairly in your research so that you are in a position to say, I've picked the correct one.

What I feel Christians who are convinced they are right do, is they just read a few apologetic books (for the parts of the Bible that don't make sense) and they then get a load of sophistry which they are happy to accept.

This allied with the fact that they the majority of people in their lives believe a particular religion just make believable.

"Look what happend to my good friend Billy who used to be an alco"

Then they think they've thought about it and experienced it at 1st hand.
(Throw in some nice hymns and probably all the benefits you get from the placebo and it gets even more believable).

But IMO they haven't really thought about it objectively unless they have gone through Islamic apologetics and Buddhist apologetics and all other apologetics to the same degree unless they have a very good reason why they didn't.

Of course the reason why they don't is because of cultural and societal biases which completly cloud any sort of objective thinking.

Incredible, really.

Fanny Cradock

Sonderval, you may be interested in reading The Roman Cult of Mithras.

Sonderval

Nice find there Fanny, didnt see that one on google books oddly enough.

Shame some of the best chapters are restricted.

I'll see if I can track it down in dead-tree form.