@ shinyblurry

This had already turned into an essay and I didn't want to take up even more room by quoting you verbatim so I've tried to break it down to save space.



1. "Except that?"

There are no absolute logical principles <---- including that one.
This is simply another way of describing the problem of induction and under determination. Like so many philosophical arguments you have attacked my position based upon the language it was described in and not due to its underlying thought process. This has resulted in a fallacy. Language merely conveys knowledge, it does not in an of itself contain it (and excellent example incidentally of what I was talking about).

2. "Is that absolutely true?"

All principles (save the observation "thinking exists") can only ever derived by induction. This is the case because one can never know for certain if any or all of ones experiences are fabrications, and furthermore that they never encompass all possible variables/possibilities. To put it another way, you can't ever be certain about any judgement one makes about the universe or anything in it because one cannot observe an exhaustive perspective (i.e. all of time and space for the thing in question). Thus there may always exist an example that could falsify your assumption. e.g. if I inducted that all swans are white because I had only ever seen white swans I would ultimately be incorrect as black swans can be observed to exist. Unless you can verify the entirety of existence across time there might always exist and experience/example to falsify any objective assertion. (you could be a brain in a jar, you can't prove 100% that your not)


3. "Including not permitting..which means you have no further argument against Christianity."

^ Pardon me? Did you even read what I wrote by way of explanation for that? What part of "everything is permitted" even remotely precludes me (or anyone) from anything, let alone arguing against Christianity?!?!?

What I felt I'd explained fairly clearly was the idea that the only demonstrable moral authority was yourself, or to put it another way that there are no moral authorities to be found anywhere else but within peoples minds.
Even if God himself speaks to you directly, that is an experience reducible only to the mind because ALL EXPERIENCES WITHIN HUMAN CONCEPTION OCCUR IN or at best VIA THE MIND!

Nothing has ever happened to any human being anywhere that was not experienced entirely in the mind (notice I didn't say "brain" ). When you see a chair you don't see the photons of light hitting your retina, you see something your mind made up to be representative (at best) of whatever phenomenon your eyes detected.

With that in mind (<- mind lol), "everything is permitted". The universe will continue on, unmoved by our moralities (or lack of). Only other humans will cry or rejoice at your actions and only within the sovereignty of your own mind will you find an irrefutable and absolute moral judge...

As for the other bits

A. "The earliest records of Mithraism bear no similarity to Christianity at all....."

Apart from all the same major dates for festivals and holy days (25th dec etc.), the entire symbology of dieing on a cross for three days then being resurrected, the "last supper" with 12 disciples, 3 wise men from the east bearing gifts. etc. etc.

I'd have more time for the Christian counter argument that the Mithraists stole this stuff from them if the same themes, dates and symoblogy didn't pop up in ancient cultures going back a few 1000 years over and over and over. The list of Messianic figures with the above characteristics in western folklore & myth is so long its almost a joke! & naturally is no co-incidence as they are describing the movement of the heavens (specifically the sun) by way of allegory. Speaking of which............

Pagan & Gnostic traditions are deeply intertwined to the point where one could consider many examples to be one and the same. Mithraism would be one such example. Pagan just means many Gods/worship of nature & archetypes in the human psyche. Mithraism fulfils this definition but it also fulfils the Gnostic one i.e. it teaches that one finds god of and within oneself, not as an external force, or indeed a force which is separate from oneself.

But then the Catholic Church did it level best to suppress and destroy any trace of Gnosticism through the ages so its no surprise to me that you're not entirely familiar with it. (most people haven't even heard of it and those that do tend to be under the misapprehension that its a Christian thing (again understandable under the circumstances))


B. "Actually, they came from a progressive revelation of Judiasm which preceeded all of that."

I'll come with you a little on that one. Before Rex Mundi (Jehova) showed up to fk everything up for them the Kabbalistic (and essentially Pagan) Jews possessed great wisdom and insight. Naturally not all of this was lost! (though after Solomon passed it would appear a regrettably large amount was)


C. "What Jesus did not teach that came from Judiasm was wholly His and entirely unique, and they came from the mouth of God Himself."


I'm not sure I even want to grace that with a response. How could you possibly know what came from the mouth of God to a man 2000 years ago? If you say "because it says in the bible" please don't expect a sensible reply (I'm happy to fight non-sense with none-sense)


D. "The difference is Jesus Himself. You could take buddha out of buddhism, or zoroaster out of zoroastrianism and you would still have something. Without Jesus there is no Christianity."

^This one amused be greatly. I would say Buddhism & Zoroastranism were clearly superior for exactly that reason but that's not what I think you were alluding to? I assume you were suggesting that certain parts of the whole Jesus shebang could only have come from Jesus/God/Holy spirit because he made himself the centre of attention?
This is why I make a very distinct separation between the "Jesus" and the "Christ". Christ (or anointed one) goes back at least to Egypt. Horus is clearly "Christ" by basically any sensible measure I can think of, and by "Christ" I mean the "Sun of God" i.e. the freaking Sun.
This also forms the basis for an "as above so below" parable/allegory for the spiritual journey to enlightenment. You can find your way to heaven and God via the "Sun of God's" wisdom. No Miracle performing hippie Jew's were required before and I fail to see how sprouting the same fundamental idea just with a figurehead for a disenfranchised Jewish noble family anchored to everything helps?

Are there some pearl's of Jesus's wisdom I missed? Thus far I have yet to come across anything that didn't strike me as either a rewording of things wise men had preached for 1000's of years previously, or a power play by an unscrupulous or deluded individual.


E. "The Jesus myth theory isn't taken seriously by even skeptical bible scholars. There is more evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ than for Alexander the Great."

I happen to know its hotly contested even to this day but lets for the sake of this just take it as a given. When I said "at best a fabrication" it was because I consider the historical figure to be an impostor and a fraud. If anyone was a "true" messiah then John the Baptist and moreover Simon Magus are far better contenders but then that's a colossal can of worms I'm not sure I can be bothered to open at the moment. I'll just say in summary that I am of the opinion that Mr. Ben Yosef and his crew were plotting to return the house of David to power but largely failed in the end as the Roman establishment usurped most of the legacy they tried to create (though not entirely).
Either way they worshiped and championed a being (Psychological archetype) which I feel I have little choice but to call Satan i.e. the God of Abraham. This alone is a pretty major indictment for me and any historic figure that puts said "being" at the center of their belief system will garner my suspicion.

How can the God that appeared to Abraham be anything but malevolent if the accounts in the Torah and Quran are accurate?

(I hope that made sense towards the end, getting very late & tired here...)

Nothing is true

Except that?

All concepts of truth are relative

Is that absolutely true?

Everything is permitted

Including not permitting..which means you have no further argument against Christianity.

Do some homework ;-).

I have. According to what you've written, you haven't.

Your religion (Christianity) is a bastardization of "Messianic Judaism" (the crazy old testament stuff) and Mithraism (a "Gnostic" religion which was highly (& most) prevalent among the roman legions around the time of the reformation).

The earliest records of Mithraism bear no similarity to Christianity at all. It is a pagan religion in every respect. The only records you find that bear similarity to Christianity are after the 2nd century, after Christian texts had been circulating for at least a hundred years. It's Mithraism which integrated Christianity not the other way around.

Virtually everything positive you allude to in the Christian teachings originally come from Hermeticism and other such ancient "Gnostic" traditions.

Actually, they came from a progressive revelation of Judiasm which preceeded all of that. What Jesus did not teach that came from Judiasm was wholly His and entirely unique, and they came from the mouth of God Himself. The difference is Jesus Himself. You could take buddha out of buddhism, or zoroaster out of zoroastrianism and you would still have something. Without Jesus there is no Christianity.

Jesus (that is to say "Yeshua ben Yosef") as portrayed as a mortal man is a fabrication at best (and outright fraud at worst).

The Jesus myth theory isn't taken seriously by even skeptical bible scholars. There is more evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ than for Alexander the Great.

etc

The hope for the Messiah is universal in human beings; that is revelation that God gives to every man, which is what it says in Romans 1:18-21. Whether there are messianic expectations in other religions is irrelevent. Buddha, Zoroaster, Lao Tzu are dead. Jesus is alive.

What "evidence" is this that you're speaking of? I've asked you to provide it before, but instead of providing any kind of empirical evidence you just link to newspaper articles of people behaving badly in the name of Islam (which I could just as easily do for Judiasm or Christianity).

As we've discussed extensively together before, you keep implying there is one "Islam" out there that is practiced uniformly by all adherents as opposed to the reality--multiple incredibly diverse groups of people who believe in one god that sent a prophet named Mohammad to write the Qua-ran in that god's name. They disagree a great deal, however, about how the Qua-ran is to be interpreted in practice, in particular about the parts that reference violence.

I have no problem with people pointing out that certain interpretations of Islam can be dangerous. I do have a problem with people painting a broad brush and equating Islam with danger.

Unfortunately, this is something i utterly reject. It doesn't just border on ignorance for you to tell anyone their own desires and thoughts and their sincerity to themselves, it goes over the border and keeps on going. I find it insulting to the highest degree for you to try and impose upon me a lack of sincerity in the things that i do in order to cover the truth of the matter - that i have not felt god, and that is no fault of my own. I will not accept the guilt that the church tries to lay at my door and it only pushes me away by attempting to do so.

I'm sorry if I offended you, but you might not be seeing this from my perspective. From my perspective, I know God exists, therefore, if you don't know God, it means that you haven't truly sought Him out. You've also spent many of your replies telling me all of the reasons why you don't seek Him out and aren't interested in seeking Him out, which lends credence to that theory. You say it's no fault of your own, but scripture says He gives everyone sufficient evidence, which people suppress, and in the end no one is going to have an excuses. I am not trying to offend you by saying that, I just believe scripture and my own experience.

If i were to tell you that if you really really wanted to, you could just admit that god isn't real, and you'll stop believing in an outdated superstition caused by the fear of the unknown - death. Would you like that? No, and you'd be right to be put out. I have no position to tell you your mind or thoughts or sincerity to yourself.

My position is if you do what scripture says, you will know God. That's always been my position.

By saying something like that, you lower yourself to be no better than a crusading atheist - do you not see that? I hope i have not misjudged you; afford me the same respect i afford you, please. If we both decide to dictate to each other our own minds and sincerities, this would be me and you telling each other we're wrong, ignorant, stupid etc., i hope god helps you to find a way of talking to an agnostic atheist without accusing them of ignorance and insincerity, because you did the same thing last time when you reinforced my understanding that theists cannot discuss religion in a fair and balanced manner, and therefore their argument must be weak.

I don't know anything about you other than what you post on this website. I don't assume anything other than you're a person worthy of respect.

It is utterly facile of you to tell me that 2 religions are taken from christianity. You know as well as anyone else that there are thousands of religions and thousands of "gods" i could choose. Why did you cherry pick two religions post christ? You understood my point, yet you decided to avoid it. Regardless, if i got a mormon or muslim in here, they would offer similarly vehement defenses of their own religion followed by casting dispersions on yours; do not skip the underlying point, the religion in question is irrelevant. Your religion is not the oldest religion on the planet, not by a long way; so no, not all revolves around christ.

There are 1000s of religions, most of them in antiquity. If God has revealed Himself to the world, do you think it is going to be through some obscure religion no one has ever heard of? Do you think He is only going to have a handful of adherants? All religions are not the same, and they don't make the same claims. For most of the believers on the planet, Jesus is the central question. Also, Judiasm is the oldest religion on the planet, and that is where Christianity comes from.

Finally, why do you assume that i have not investigated logic and the scientific method? In the past and now, you have occasionally had a negligent way of speaking to me that i don't feel i've deserved.. There are ALWAYS many people out there who are more educated than you are, and i could be one of them.

Maybe you have, and maybe you are. However, we cannot examine the comments you made about mathematics without examining the laws of logic and the uniformity of nature.

I put a lot of time and effort into these posts for you and it's unrewarding.

I have put in some time as well, as thus far I find you addressing the last paragraph or line of my replies and ignoring everything else.

Edit:
Actually, i imagine with all the people you have to reply to it's probably hard to editorialise everything you want to say.

It can be, especially because of the limitations of the medium.



>> ^dannym3141:

Your conflation of islam with judiasm and christianity not-withstanding, the explanatory power therein describes no less than, the condition of man, the nature of truth, world history, the natural world, all of the fundemental questions of life, and how to know God personally. Quite a lot of explanatory power, I would say.

But I'm not going to waste my time/energy on you

Or perhaps you just don't have anything intelligent to say because you don't understand the subject matter as well as you portray yourself to, so you weakly justify your cop-out by attacking me instead of the argument.

>> ^hpqp:
@shinyblurry said: blah blah blah same old non-arguments blah blah blah
It is rather hilarious that you go on about "explanatory power", of which the Abrahamic faiths have none. But I'm not going to waste my time/energy on you.

hey look..you are poorly informed here..you said my response was very unsatisfying and also inaccurate to boot? you stated that zoroasterism is older than judiasm as if it were an undisputed fact; well sorry but that is not the prevailing viewpoint. there is a lot of misinformation out there on this subject. if you just want to look at the merits of the case the Zoroaster belief is primitive by comparison, if one could be identified as a crude copy, that would be it.

The Christ Conspiracy is the main source of information in Zeitgeist].
http://www.answeringinfidels.com/answering-skeptics/answering-acharya-s/a-refutation-of-archary-ss-book-the-christ-conspiracy-pt-1.html

Was the New Testament Influenced by Pagan Religions
http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2007/12/zeitgeist-of-zeitgeist-movie.html

The Death of the Mystery Gods and the Death of Jesus

The best way to evaluate the alleged dependence of early Christian beliefs about Christ's death and resurrection on the pagan myths of a dying and rising savior-god is to examine carefully the supposed parallels. The death of Jesus differs from the deaths of the pagan gods in at least six ways:

(1) None of the so-called savior-gods died for someone else. The notion of the Son of God dying in place of His creatures is unique to Christianity.[13]

(2) Only Jesus died for sin. As Gunter Wagner observes, to none of the pagan gods "has the intention of helping men been attributed. The sort of death that they died is quite different (hunting accident, self-emasculation, etc.)."[14]

(3) Jesus died once and for all (Heb. 7:27; 9:25-28; 10:10-14). In contrast, the mystery gods were vegetation deities whose repeated deaths and resuscitations depict the annual cycle of nature.

(4) Jesus' death was an actual event in history. The death of the mystery god appears in a mythical drama with no historical ties; its continued rehearsal celebrates the recurring death and rebirth of nature. The incontestable fact that the early church believed that its proclamation of Jesus' death and resurrection was grounded in an actual historical event makes absurd any attempt to derive this belief from the mythical, nonhistorical stories of the pagan cults.[15]

(5) Unlike the mystery gods, Jesus died voluntarily. Nothing like this appears even implicitly in the mysteries.

(6) And finally, Jesus' death was not a defeat but a triumph. Christianity stands entirely apart from the pagan mysteries in that its report of Jesus' death is a message of triumph. Even as Jesus was experiencing the pain and humiliation of the cross, He was the victor. The New Testament's mood of exultation contrasts sharply with that of the mystery religions, whose followers wept and mourned for the terrible fate that overtook their gods.[16]


>> ^enoch:
a whole page concerning zarathustra?
didnt you already answer this question?
and how does this page you link conflict with zoroastrian influence in the bible?
it confirms the influence on early biblical scribes.
/confused
and i notice still no answer on my other queries.
if you are unable to i understand.
again.i thank you for your prompt reply.

And well I used to steady these things quite deeply..I investigated all of the resurrection accounts..it was surprising how far away it was from factual..none of it held up..i never investigated gilgamesh, but ive heard of it...zorotorism for example.. thats easy, it is a blatant copy of judiasm, mixed in with a reading of the messiah prophecies. there are critical differences however. they say the spirit of God is bad and good and He is only good. They worship the creation rather than the one who created it. there is no atonement, and salvation is by works. it is just like any other pagan religion, but with an idea of good and evil gained from judiasm and the prophecies of the messiah. zorro is a crude copy of christ, not the other way around as it turns out. Remember Satan is the accuser ie the prosecuting attorney. He understands the law down to the letter, he understood a messiah was to come..he always knows his rights.. >> ^enoch:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Is there a point where you're actually going to contribute something to the conversation, or are you just going to stay in the peanut gallery and snipe at me?
No one is out. Just because different Christians believe different things doesn't make them unchristian. Misled, perhaps, but anyone who believes on Christ is saved. Personally, I am non-denominational.
How is the book of John ruled out? What on earth are you talking about? The passages referring to what people call the rapture could be interperted a few different ways..I accept them, I just read them differently.
Look, it's clear you don't know anything about scripture. Why don't you do some research before you toss around these ignorant statements.
>> ^enoch:
>> ^shinyblurry:
No, I don't believe in the rapture..I don't think it is biblical. I know a lot of Christians hope for that but I think it's a false doctrine. No, I don't believe in the May 21st 2011 date either..for two reasons. One is that scripture clearly states that no one knows the hour. That alone makes anyone setting a date automatically wrong. The other is that the person who made this prediction had made another prediction that the world would end in 1994. Obviously it didn't happen so that means that he is a false prophet. If a prophet makes a prediction and even one letter of it doesn't come true it means he is not a real prophet.
>> ^shuac:
While I certainly do not wish to add more stress to shiny by adding more questions to his docket...but ultimately, I cannot resist. And anyway, they're easy yes/no questions...
1) Do you believe in the rapture?
2) Do you believe that it will happen on May 21, 2011 as many theists predict?


ok.
so the pentacostals are out /scratches them off the list.
as is the book of john../more scratching.
any other books i should dismiss?


i am just following the conversation brother.
listening to your witness and taking notes.
so dont dismiss the books but allow for interpretation../check.
read more scripture../check
let me ask you a question.
since you feel im "sniping" from the peanut gallery.( i was being a snark..but snipe is nicer)
if you do not believe in the rapture and find it non-doctrinal,would you consider yourself to be a preterist?
do you consider yourself from ecclestiassitcal,calvinism or maybe even of a arminianism theosophical school of thought?
and if ecclestiassical..how have you resolved the issue of the nicean creed?
another i am curious as to how you may have resolved is zoroastrianism.
how have you been able to separate the seemingly identical stories from both the bible and this pre-christian religion?
i mean one could come to the conclusion that monotheism was actually born from this religion which was influential in judaism and christianity.
reading zarathustra's sermons one may find some close similarities to many of the earliest books of the bible.
or the story of gilgamesh and its seemingly identical recitation of noah,even though gilgamesh was centuries before noah.
how did you rationalize that particular conundrum?
one last question.
since you are christian,as am i,i am extremely curious how you were able to resolve the issue of the resurrection deities:
krishna,osiris,dionysus,mithra.
all were have purported to be the son of god.
to have began their ministry at an early age.
performed miracles.
persecuted and then executed.
dead for three days.
and on the third day were all resurrected.
what about the female resurrection deities?
ishtar and persephone?
they have similar stories too!
i am curious how you dealt with these particular theological dilemmas.

@BicycleRepairMan

Come on now, we were having a nice discussion about religion privately before (sorry I haven't responded recently--work is a bit crazy right now) without having to resort to gross over-generalizations and mudslinging. All religious ideas are insane? Buddhism teaches respect for all life, the unlimited potential of all human beings (regardless of race, class, sexual orientation, etc.), and cooperatively working together to improve the world. Crazy huh?

Most of the people who are on here spewing hate against religion and/or religious people seem to have a very superficial view of religion--I'll call it the "religion as myth" viewpoint. That's a very simplistic view of a very complicated social phenomenon. Religion, at it's core, is about bettering ourselves as human beings. This is a common theme you can see across the world's religions: Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Christianity, and Judiasm. Again, that doesn't seem very crazy to me at all.

Some people (including the guy in this video) do indeed abuse religion and steer it from its true purpose of helping people lead better lives. But people do that to ANY social system (democracy or communism being used as a reason to "liberate" other countries from "oppressive" regimes for instance). I think this is Lawdeedaw's point--that singling out religion as a source of problems seems as illogical and reactionary as a fundamentalist Christian attacking Darwinism. Both viewpoints stem from both a lack of understanding and the lack of a willingness to explore the other's viewpoint.