FrostCloud Forums  

Go Back   FrostCloud Forums > Philosophy > Religion

Greetings!

Religion Discussions on religions, mysticism, and spirituality as well as opposing views such as agnosticism and atheism.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #226  
Old 06-16-2010, 01:07 AM
Negative Zero's Avatar
Negative Zero Negative Zero is offline
Adept
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amergain View Post
2. Jesus being conceived by a virgin girl and a Celestial being is pretty wild. Did the Celestial being have a human genome? Did the Celestial being have at least on Y chromosome? Mary did not have a Y chromosome, so where did she get the Y to make a male Jesus? Or was it parthenogenesis, therefore making Jesus a female? Why can't a female be the saviour?
As i understood it, the whole idea of the virgin birth is a result of a translation error. Originally the bible read: "Behold, a maiden shall bear the son of God". Maiden meaning an unmarried young woman, not necessarily a virgin. This was mistranslated into: "Behold, a virgin shall bear the son of God."

Whoops.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #227  
Old 06-16-2010, 06:57 AM
Dragon's Avatar
Dragon Dragon is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 29,365
Send a message via AIM to Dragon Send a message via MSN to Dragon Send a message via Yahoo to Dragon
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meme Virus View Post
Oh Amergain, you shouldn't make me do this kind of thing to you! I've got more important things to do, you know! But since you insist at the top of your voice, here goes:

It seems Graves wasn't all that reputable. I could post many debunkings of his work, but here's just one for now, focusing on just one of his claims. See how merciful I'm being? I haven't even ordered you to get down on your knees while I smack you down with it! Now be a good boy and say thank you.

From Was the story of Jesus stolen from Beddru of Japan?



There you go Amergain, a challenge for you.
What is ironic is you got this from a Christian site, how credible is THAT!
Seriously find better sources.
Reply With Quote
  #228  
Old 06-16-2010, 06:22 PM
Mister Agenda's Avatar
Mister Agenda Mister Agenda is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Columbia, South Carolina
Posts: 4,794
I think Meme may have a point here. Graves seems to suffer from bias-confirmation: he has a theory that the Jesus story has lots of parallels, but some of his examples seem shoe-horned to fit. More modest claims would have made better scholarship. There ARE some interesting parallels between the Jesus stories and other religous figures, but Graves overstates the connections, in the way that conspiracy theorists tend to do. A more neutral compare-and-contrast approach showing the differences as well as the similarities would have been more enlightening, IMHO.
__________________
http://www.godisimaginary.com/
Reply With Quote
  #229  
Old 06-16-2010, 06:24 PM
Mister Agenda's Avatar
Mister Agenda Mister Agenda is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Columbia, South Carolina
Posts: 4,794
Quote:
Originally Posted by Negative Zero View Post
As i understood it, the whole idea of the virgin birth is a result of a translation error. Originally the bible read: "Behold, a maiden shall bear the son of God". Maiden meaning an unmarried young woman, not necessarily a virgin. This was mistranslated into: "Behold, a virgin shall bear the son of God."

Whoops.
It makes a bit more sense if the Holy Spirit made a spriritual rather than genetic donation to the process.
__________________
http://www.godisimaginary.com/
Reply With Quote
  #230  
Old 06-16-2010, 06:42 PM
Mister Agenda's Avatar
Mister Agenda Mister Agenda is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Columbia, South Carolina
Posts: 4,794
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoseidonsNet View Post
Firstly there are 42 generations form Abraham to Jesus (Matt).
Those, plus the genealogy before Abraham are in Luke,
which is why its got more names listed in Luke. (Good News)
And thats all need be said about that.

Secondly, the genealogy, is not meant as proof of God,
and I never expressed it that way, so that you CHOOSE to read it thus,
shows you are either subconsciously or deliberately misreading what has been said.

It was to show that the Bible is the best recorded piece of history
we have. That its authors are more credible than any other from those times
by far. That these are the first record keepers. The first literates.

No other people have kept their traditions as long,
and mental patients do no such thing at all. (not even remotely)

In fact, its people with the foresight that comes with honesty
who take the time to keep records for the future generations.

so you exclude all records of him and then conclude their are no records of him!!

>insert symptom 777 quote here<

~~~

my other point about the genealogy is thus :

it would have been impossible to fabricate the genealogy,
you little conspiracy theory is absolutely nothing more than
a thumb suck
made up
on the spur of the moment

where is the oh-so-desired evidence of the conspiracy to fake Jesus analogy?
you demand such, and yet you produce a thumb suck made up
on the spur of the moment as your evidence

~
now
~

contrast that with just about the only documented history
to go back 6000 years+
that comes from a family with a tradition of righteousness second to none,
who live by the most
hallowed morals in history

that have systematicaly provided the infrastructure
for the entire modern world

EVEN the Jesuits,
who gave us your idol : Science

without which
you would not even know
how to
read
or
write

in the beginning was the word....

;-j

so you exclude all records of him and then conclude their are no records of him!!

>insert symptom 777 quote here<
I am not excluding any records. I am observing there are no records that corroborate what is in the NT outside of the NT. That is what would support the NT, other documents from the time period with the same information. That we don't have any such documents doesn't mean they didn't exist at the time. It just means that we don't have them, and therefore are limited in what scholarly claims we can make for the content of the NT. We also have none of the original Biblical documents, everything is a copy of a copy of a copy, at least.

And what is so difficult about fabricating a geneology? I am the son of Adrian, son of Pearl, son of Jesse, son of Temperance, son of Mathias, son of Gomer, son of Cotton, son of Marian, son of Pleasant, son of Easely, son of Stone. You have no way of knowing whether any or all of that is true, or if it's partly true, which part. Why you think such a thing is impossible is beyond me. And again, I'm not even claiming Jesus wasn't descended from David, so all you're getting worked up about is the idea that it's possible the geneology isn't completely accurate.

What exactly is it that you think all this geneology proves?
__________________
http://www.godisimaginary.com/
Reply With Quote
  #231  
Old 06-16-2010, 07:43 PM
PoseidonsNet's Avatar
PoseidonsNet PoseidonsNet is offline
Supermarine
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Africa
Posts: 2,283
the genealogy is the most widespread there is,
so IF any genealogy is worth anything,
then this is worth the most

we may as well 'debunk' all of history if we follow your line of thinknig
as all historical records are copies of copies,
in fact all internet articles are also this,
so you cannot believe anything ! paranoia wot?

by analysing the universal moral truths in the text
we verify its authenticity : when people live by the biblical moral
code they thrive and survive better than any other,
thus we can trust its authors more than
any other authors

~~~

Quote:
1. There were many cases of miraculous birth of Gods BEFORE Christ.
2. Many earlier cases of Gods being born of human virgin mothers.
3. Many earlier gods (later including Christ) were born on the 25th of December.
4. Many earlier god-men were supposedly foretold by "inspired prophets."
5. Guiding Stars were featured in the birth of many of the earlier god-men.
6. Many of the earlier saviours were associated with angels, shepherds, and Magi (wise men).
7. Many saviours beside Christ were claimed to be of Royal or Princely descent.
8. Earlier myths had infants all threatened by the ruler of the country. (Herod)
9. Some earlier saviours showed signs of divinity early (as did Jesus).
10. All earlier saviours retired from the world and fasted.
11. Almost all earlier saviours declared, "my kingdom is not of this world."
12. Earlier saviours preached a "spiritual religion" like later Jesus.
13. Many earlier saviours were crucified for the "sins of the world."
14. Many earlier saviours were anointed with oil, like Jesus.
15. All earlier saviours were killed, then entombed for three days, then "rose from the dead."
16. Most of the earlier saviours like Jesus who followed, ascended into heaven.
17. Similar earthquakes, storms, darkness, occurred in after the man-god's death.
18. Most earlier saviours were called "saviours," "sons of God," "Messiahs," "Redeemers," "Lords," or "Lamb of God."
19. Each earlier god-man was the second member of a Trinity of "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."
20. Each of the 15 earlier Sin-atonement religions included the doctrines of "Original Sin," "Fall of Man," "The Atonement," "THE WORD," "The Trinity," "forgiveness," "an Angry God," and "Future Endless Punishment."

What is amazing about what eventually became Christianity in the 4th Century, is not just it's similarity to its Pagan precursors. What is odd the failure to invent a single original myth in the whole story. It is all recycled myths.

When I ask for an ORIGINAL Christian Idea, I don't mean different names for the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit from Ahura Mazda, Mithra, and Spenta Maingu.

Allowing for Greco-Roman names and Pre-Christian themes, what is original in Christianity?

Amiable, Amicable, Amorous, and Amazing Amergain
That is a good quote,
very impressive, and no I won't let his over enthusiasism
for his points, obsucure the fact that it raises many very
very good arguments. (That would be evading the question)

That so much of Christ's story is universal,
is what gives it such locutive value.

umm... 1 in 365 people are
obviously going to share birthdays with JC.
And there have been FAR more prophets in all of history than 365!
Thats the funniest bit.

I would say that the notions of universality underscore its authenticity;
and as to what makes it special for the individual,
well thats going to depend on PERSONAL SPIRITUAL EXPERIENCE
as well as the PERSONAL SPIRITUAL EXPERIENCE of ones forbears.

I see a group of horses, and one is the mightiest stallion,
with a mane mightier than the rest,
I see a pride of lions, and one is the King,
with a mane mightier than the rest,
and you ask,
what is the difference between the mightiest and the rest?
__________________
The Principles of Flight (in full)
http://www.poseidons.net/flight/Principlesofflight.htm
Reply With Quote
  #232  
Old 06-16-2010, 09:55 PM
Meme Virus's Avatar
Meme Virus Meme Virus is offline
Advanced toddler
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sitting here with my foot forever in my mouth
Posts: 2,768
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon View Post
What is ironic is you got this from a Christian site, how credible is THAT!
Seriously find better sources.
You can't rubbish something's credibility just because the authors take a certain position on something. It might make you want to double-check their information, but you can't just dismiss it. That would be like someone dismissing everything you say just because you're a rabid Bush-fan-turned-Birther ... or something. ... No hang on, that's wrong somewhere.

... Well you know what I mean.

I'll respond to other points in this thread later or tomorrow or the day after. So big has my ego become that I am now loath to discuss such matters unless I have an audience of at least 2950. But I may stoop to do so for the sake of old times.
__________________
My best JREF threads: GM food
Alzheimers research
Vegetarianism
Modern witch killing
Posts: Dyslexia
Praise
Reply With Quote
  #233  
Old 06-16-2010, 11:05 PM
Mister Agenda's Avatar
Mister Agenda Mister Agenda is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Columbia, South Carolina
Posts: 4,794
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoseidonsNet View Post
the genealogy is the most widespread there is,
so IF any genealogy is worth anything,
then this is worth the most

we may as well 'debunk' all of history if we follow your line of thinknig
as all historical records are copies of copies,
in fact all internet articles are also this,
so you cannot believe anything ! paranoia wot?

by analysing the universal moral truths in the text
we verify its authenticity : when people live by the biblical moral
code they thrive and survive better than any other,
thus we can trust its authors more than
any other authors

~~~
Acknowledging our limitations isn't the same as debunking. I have not tried to disprove the geneology of Jesus, only pointed out there is reason for uncertainty.

The study of history has methods that let us say 'this is probably true', 'this is probably not true', and 'we have no way of knowing if this is true'; and various gradations in between. Some events have so much evidence from so many diverse sources that it would be perverse not to believe they happened, although there are ALWAYS details that are missing or obscured.

With the only source being the religous texts of believers, historical claims have to be more tentative. Outside corroboration of events makes a vital difference in how much weight can be assigned to the probability that events in a document actually occurred as described. Without that, all we have are the very texts whose veracity is what we're trying to determine, and what we know of the the cultural context they were written in.

I don't know exactly what happened in Jerusalem 2,000 years ago. Neither do you. There isn't enough surviving evidence for anyone to know. What I've been able to study has convinced me that it is more likely that a rabbi named Yeshua founded a new religion that became Christianity than that such a person didn't exist at all. I understand why you're certain. You're a true believer. What I don't understand is why you expect someone who isn't a co-religionist to be as convinced as you are.

I don't buy that Christians currently making up a third of the world's population has anything to do with the truth of Christianity's supernatural claims, and it won't make the Muslims right if they supplant Christianity, and it won't make the atheists right either if we do. How many people believe something has nothing to do with whether something is true (fallacy of argument from popularity). Whether something would have desireable consequences if true or undesireable consequences if not true has nothing to do with whether it actually is true (fallacy of argument from consequence). Even if I agreed that the biblical moral code contributes to thriving and surviving (I do believe a decent moral code can be extracted from the Bible if you're selective enough), it doesn't make any of the other parts of the Bible true. It isn't relevant. A book can have great moral teachings and still contain many errors. If I wrote a book with brilliant new moral principles that caught on and caused cultures that adopted it to eclipse Christianity, that wouldn't make my book true or Christianity's book false.

Here's what I would ask myself, were I in your shoes: can I argue my position without committing a logical fallacy? If the answer is no, I would either revise my position to one I can defend logically, or recognize that my position is based primarily on faith and that I didn't arrive at the truth of what I believe through logic in the first place, so why am I trying to use it to convince others?

Remember, I was in your shoes. I chose to revise my position. If I had chosen differently I like to think that I would have been wise enough to share my faith by demonstrating courage, integrity and love that can't come by any other means than having Christ in my life. Christianity is a non-starter to someone who doesn't buy into its assumptions unless you can show that it really does make you a better person. The only way to do that is by example.

Very hard to do on the intertubez, I know.
__________________
http://www.godisimaginary.com/

Last edited by Mister Agenda; 06-16-2010 at 11:07 PM. Reason: italics
Reply With Quote
  #234  
Old 06-17-2010, 09:18 AM
TruthInArt's Avatar
TruthInArt TruthInArt is offline
ACT Art Reform Tourist
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ZION
Posts: 5,016
Blog Entries: 3
33 Generations ago

[quote=Mister Agenda;452094]And what is so difficult about fabricating a genealogy? I am the son of Adrian, son of Pearl, son of Jesse, son of Temperance, son of Mathias, son of Gomer, son of Cotton, son of Marian, son of Pleasant, son of Easely, son of Stone. [quote]

You had more grandparents than their are people now living on earth.
If the average age of reproduction were 28 then that is 1000 years ago.
You have two parents like everyone else does and that is a fact not an opinion.
They had four parents who had eight parents and that is called period doubling.
The accountant said to the banker after a mere three halfway steps to the beer.

Near enough is good enough! Remember Zeno's paradox?
Rather than retract Zeno is reported to of spat his own tongue at the KING.

PEAT
__________________
Love knowledge of the truth to trust for all eternity that is the BIBLE.
Power to be learning the ways of reason and not the ways of violence.
Wisdom to be acheiving the objective of the predicate of all sentences.
Justice to the poverty stricken nescience the poor children's innocence
Reply With Quote
  #235  
Old 06-17-2010, 08:21 PM
PoseidonsNet's Avatar
PoseidonsNet PoseidonsNet is offline
Supermarine
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Africa
Posts: 2,283
Quote:
With the only source being the religous texts of believers
Perhaps you are confusing my points of view with someone else.
Have you witnessed God in a way which you cannot refute to yourself?
If so what made you refute your direct spiritual experiences?

Well thats my position.
The religious study came AFTER the religious experiences.

Before, I openly said 'I am not a Christian'
Although I did believe in a non-personal Creator Deity,
this was a belief based on my studies in philosophy, especially
Descartes proof which I feel cannot be refuted.

To actually witness, is to know.
Let me try and explain the difference in local terms.

As a kid I believed that the solar system model made more sense
than a flat earth. But until I actually observed the orbit of Mars
doubling back in the sky; and until I compared that to the solar system model,
and positioned myself as if i were within the model,

until then,
it was just a belief;

after that, I became certain that now I KNOW the solar system model is accurate.

So when I say I KNOW God,
I am not expressing a belief, but 1st hand direct experience:
IE knowledge NOT belief.

I have also offered proof of this, as my discoveries came about in the midst
of this experience.

~~~

I do not expect people who have not had this experience to just agree.
All I can do is tell you what I have experienced, and implore you
for your own sake,
not to cut yourself off from it.

Do not live your life as if you are an animal,
and that morality does not exist.

Doing this WILL cut you off from this religious experience.

~~~

Christ was either the greatest moral teacher ever,
or he was the most deceptive fraudster ever; a blasphemer.

How is it possible that the greatest moral teacher ever,
could teach the highest morals we know of,
if he were a total fraud?
__________________
The Principles of Flight (in full)
http://www.poseidons.net/flight/Principlesofflight.htm
Reply With Quote
  #236  
Old 06-18-2010, 08:16 AM
TruthInArt's Avatar
TruthInArt TruthInArt is offline
ACT Art Reform Tourist
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ZION
Posts: 5,016
Blog Entries: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister Agenda View Post
Your math has a fatal flaw, it's going in the wrong direction. You do know it's not that uncommon for 20-30 people to share the same grandparents, right? Think this through: in the 1920s there were fewer than 2 B humans on earth, now there are more than 6 B. If your backwards math tells you there were more people then than there are now, it has to be wrong.
You got me wrong!

Make up a spreadsheet and show me where the numbers do not add up!
What I said is a fact and the fact is true in that it means we are all relatives.
There were not over seven billion people living 1000 years ago but there are that many relationships that did occur sometime around 1000 C.E.!

2x2=4 Grand Parents the same for every member of the family of MAN.
2x4=8x8=16x16= Period doubling except in this case the period is one generation from birth to age when first child is born.

Do your homework!

PEAT
__________________
Love knowledge of the truth to trust for all eternity that is the BIBLE.
Power to be learning the ways of reason and not the ways of violence.
Wisdom to be acheiving the objective of the predicate of all sentences.
Justice to the poverty stricken nescience the poor children's innocence
Reply With Quote
  #237  
Old 06-21-2010, 06:02 PM
Mister Agenda's Avatar
Mister Agenda Mister Agenda is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Columbia, South Carolina
Posts: 4,794
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoseidonsNet View Post
Christ was either the greatest moral teacher ever,
or he was the most deceptive fraudster ever; a blasphemer.

How is it possible that the greatest moral teacher ever,
could teach the highest morals we know of,
if he were a total fraud?
It's a false dichotomy. There are more than two possibilities. For example, Jesus could have been a completely sincere and truthful man with profound teachings whose deeds have been exagerrated and who has had words he didn't speak put into his mouth by followers with a vested interest in getting people to believe that Jesus was not only the messiah, but the incarnation of God.

Some would argue that Mahavira taught the highest morals over 500 years earlier:

Nonviolence (Ahimsa) - to cause no harm to any living being;
Truthfulness (Satya) - to speak the harmless truth only;
Non-stealing (Asteya) - to take nothing not properly given;
Chastity (Brahmacharya) - to indulge in no sensual pleasure;
Non-possession/Non-attachment (Aparigraha) - to detach completely from people, places, and material things.

Mahavira holds the distinction of being the earliest known moral teacher to condemn slavery, a sin that managed to escape specific condemntation in the Bible.
__________________
http://www.godisimaginary.com/
Reply With Quote
  #238  
Old 06-21-2010, 06:06 PM
Mister Agenda's Avatar
Mister Agenda Mister Agenda is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Columbia, South Carolina
Posts: 4,794
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoseidonsNet View Post
Perhaps you are confusing my points of view with someone else.
Have you witnessed God in a way which you cannot refute to yourself?
If so what made you refute your direct spiritual experiences?

Well thats my position.
The religious study came AFTER the religious experiences.
I have no beef with a faith- or revelation-based position. I was specifically addressing the issue of geneology as objective evidence for something besides who someone's ancestors were.
__________________
http://www.godisimaginary.com/
Reply With Quote
  #239  
Old 06-21-2010, 06:16 PM
Mister Agenda's Avatar
Mister Agenda Mister Agenda is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Columbia, South Carolina
Posts: 4,794
Quote:
Originally Posted by TruthInArt View Post
You got me wrong!

Make up a spreadsheet and show me where the numbers do not add up!
What I said is a fact and the fact is true in that it means we are all relatives.
There were not over seven billion people living 1000 years ago but there are that many relationships that did occur sometime around 1000 C.E.!

2x2=4 Grand Parents the same for every member of the family of MAN.
2x4=8x8=16x16= Period doubling except in this case the period is one generation from birth to age when first child is born.

Do your homework!

PEAT
It's certainly possible I have you wrong, since I rarely have any idea what you're on about. We are all related and have one common male ancestor 60-90 thousand years ago and one female ancestor in common about 200 thousand years ago.

Are you saying there were more relationships 1000 C.E. than there are now?
__________________
http://www.godisimaginary.com/
Reply With Quote
  #240  
Old 07-29-2010, 05:34 AM
TruthInArt's Avatar
TruthInArt TruthInArt is offline
ACT Art Reform Tourist
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ZION
Posts: 5,016
Blog Entries: 3
Cool Try this riddle

Quote:
Originally Posted by StillPond View Post
well?

Try or try to type a word and not know how it is spelt.
Rye or fry a fish in oil and not know how it is crooked.
Eye or buy one thing and not know how it was made.
Pry or sell everything and know how it is you who trade.

Beleif is like that in that without it no conversation.
Releif is like that in that without it no conservation.
A leaf is like that in that without it know no sensation.
Tea leaf is like that in that with it out know reservation.

Nonsense it is to assume that all of the above makes which.
Off and On are the only two positions that denote a switch.
Unless of course the switch is broken then is it off or is it on?
Nouns are but mere labels for objects or subjects I beleive son.

Very verbal it is the notion that we were formed from monkies.
Everybody knows there is a thing labeled D.N.A. like monks keys.
Rebels without a case to stand on at the podium speiling onions.
Bastard files to grind would oops excuse me miss spelling opinions.
PEAT TRIP BRAT NOUN VERB
__________________
Love knowledge of the truth to trust for all eternity that is the BIBLE.
Power to be learning the ways of reason and not the ways of violence.
Wisdom to be acheiving the objective of the predicate of all sentences.
Justice to the poverty stricken nescience the poor children's innocence
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Religion and science...Together????? Ramanand Religion 6 05-06-2010 09:50 PM
Who wrote the bible? Galphanore Religion 74 05-26-2008 03:44 PM
Origin of Religions New Science Religion 63 01-28-2007 07:08 PM
On Religion samay Religion 3 04-08-2006 10:01 AM
Organized Religion Robot314159 Religion 5 03-19-2006 09:21 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:35 AM.



Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2008 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
Hosted and Maintained by The IceStorm Network