|Date: 8/21/2003 9:47:00 PM From Authorid: 15070 Catherine, you are 100% correct here. Excellent post.|
|Date: 8/21/2003 10:10:00 PM From Authorid: 45684 Very interesting post. I wish more people would actually take the time to read things like this. It might just open their eyes|
|Date: 8/21/2003 10:12:00 PM From Authorid: 62181 wow, that is facinating! Thanks! Peace|
|Date: 8/21/2003 10:13:00 PM From Authorid: 4614 Isn't it the skeptics who are closed-minded?|
|Date: 8/21/2003 10:17:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 24924 hehehe...yeah, Sundance, it was my "closed mind" that led me to doing research on all the many thousands of gods, and that "closed mind" that ripped the blinders off my eyes which had been in place for 50 years. Gawd! I am so glad I got a "closed mind". *wink*|
|Date: 8/21/2003 11:37:00 PM From Authorid: 42945 Cat, I find this post very interesting and informative to say the least and hun, thanks for sharing it with us....hugs|
|Date: 8/22/2003 4:42:00 AM From Authorid: 62301 Where did you get this info? I'd be interested in checking it out for myself. Also, Are those page numbers in the text? Audria|
|Date: 8/22/2003 5:09:00 AM From Authorid: 40530 Very interesting! =D|
Date: 8/22/2003 6:27:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
Audria, there's so many books and websites; too many to mention here, but here's a few:|
|Date: 8/22/2003 6:52:00 AM From Authorid: 12806 Please don't confuse Christian with Catholic; they are not the same. Most of the Catholic dogma and rituals came from ancient Babylon with Nimrod who died and was cut into pieces and burned in a fire. His wife, fearing that the family's ruling status would suffer, took a servant to bed and became pregnant. The servant (the only eye witness) was then killed. She bore a son who she named Tamuz. She claimed that, since Nimrod was gone, she conceived Tamuz by a miracle. Tamuz then became the symbol of the ressurected Nimrod.... Everyone knew of the prophecies concerning the coming of the True Saviour (Jesus Christ), so it is no wonder that so many tried to insert it into their own culture. And in case you are wondering how they knew; it is most likely that they were informed by King Solomon (those who came after babylon), for he was visited by many rulers of foreign lands..........|
|Date: 8/22/2003 7:13:00 AM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 24924 *chuckles at Raybone's "please don't confuse christian with catholic"* Raybone, Raybone...Raybone; I DO want people to do the research, study, learn...and see for themselves. And they CAN do that; they ARE doing just that, for THEMSELVES.|
Date: 8/22/2003 7:19:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
Almost the entire Christ myth is of pagan (non-Jewish) origin, blending the dying and resurrecting god of Mythraism and other Roman myths with the Gnostic picture of a holy being descending to an evil world to enlighten the elect.|
When Christianity became the official religion of the dying Roman Empire, even more pagan elements were brought in, because the people just wouldn't give up their old ways.
Any of several books detailing the origins of Christianity should help you in your studies, the Pagan (non-Jewish) origins of Christianity and particularly Roman Catholicism is firmly established. Thus, most studies will come to pretty much the same conclusion.
The books by Rabbinical scholar Hyam Maccoby show the Jewish elements of the biblical Christ, which are conspicuous by their absense. By having a solid foundation of what is and is not Jewish, one can easily identify the Pagan (non-Jewish) elements. "Jesus and the Jewish Resistance and The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity" IS an excellent study.
I highly recommend the new book Deconstructing Jesus by Robert M. Price (published in 2000). "The Christ" by John E. Remsberg I HIGHLY RECCOMEND. "The Historical Evidence for Jesus" by G.A. Wells, is another. "Mythology's Last God's: Yahweh and Jesus" by William R. Harwood; and the list goes on.
Date: 8/22/2003 8:31:00 AM
From Authorid: 16671
The truth of the matter is that many stories over the course of history resemble that of Jesus of Nazareth in one way or another. And why should this surprise us? Additionally, however, it can be argued that the similarities we have listed (and, indeed, many others just like them) are only similarities, not exact parallels. It further can be argued that Jesus’ story, even though it seems similar to some others, is not exactly the same and, in fact, differs substantially in the minute details. For example, Krishna allegedly was crucified via an arrow through his arms, while Jesus was nailed to the cross. Confucius offered the negative form of the so-called “golden rule” (“Do not do to others”, while Jesus stated the positive (“Do unto others”. Dionysus’ mother, Persophone, reportedly had intercourse with Zeus, while Mary was a virgin. This line of reasoning possesses some merit, because it certainly is true that none of the ancient stories sounds exactly like Christ’s. A closer look at the Egyptian legend of Osiris provides a good example of the many important differences between the account of Jesus and other stories. Legend says that Osiris was killed by his evil brother Seth, who tore Osiris’ body into fourteen pieces and scattered them throughout Egypt. Isis, the goddess-consort of Osiris, collected the pieces and buried them, thus giving life to Osiris in the underworld. Afterward, she used magical arts to revive Osiris and to conceive a child (Horus) by him. After fathering Horus, Osiris remained in the underworld, not really ever rising from the dead (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1997, 8:1026-1027). This legend, taken as a whole, provides few (if any) real parallels to the story of Jesus. Encyclopaedia Britannica (1997), “Osiris” (London: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.) 8:1026-1027. |
Franklin, Stephen T. (1993), “Theological Foundations for the Uniqueness of Christ as Hope and Judge,” Evangelical Review of Theology, 179-53, January.
Freke, Timothy and Peter Gandy (1999), The Jesus Mysteries (New York: Harmony Books).
Graves, Kersey (1875), The World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviors (Escondido, CA: The Book Tree, 1999 reprint).
Graves, Robert (1960), The Greek Myths (New York: Penguin).
Huxley, Julian (1960), “The Evolutionary Vision,” Issues in Evolution [Volume 3 of Evolution After Darwin], ed. Sol Tax (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).
McCabe, Joseph (1993), The Myth of the Resurrection and Other Essays (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, reprint of 1926 edition).
Till, Farrell and Norman L. Geisler (1994), Debate held at Columbus College (Columbus, GA) on March 29. Quotations are from written transcript of the debate.
Trench, R.C. (no date), Christ the Desire of All Nations; or the Unconscious Prophecies of Heathendom, (Searcy, AR: Bales Publications).
Wilson, Edward O. (1978), On Human Nature (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
|Date: 8/22/2003 8:37:00 AM From Authorid: 62301 Very intersting...Thanks for chiming in Firstborn. Audria|
|Date: 8/22/2003 8:40:00 AM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 24924 ^^^^DUH!^^^ Deb, here's a CLUE: This post IS about SIMILARITIES! No one is saying they are the SAME, or "parallels", and the Golden rule originally by Confucius was not "negative". The Christians stole it and rewrote it. Just like all the other stories; they just added their own words or words from yet another story. The Bible is such a mish-mash of stories from MANY sources and personal thoughts and opinions which were the prevailing beliefs of those times.|
|Date: 8/22/2003 8:47:00 AM From Authorid: 16671 In the old testament, way before any of these other gods were created, Jesus was spoken of. His birth, his death, his rising. Because of the scrolls, the writings, and of course this was way before the bible was made into a book, Jesus was foretold of. So its only understandable that others would copy what was about to happen with JEsus. Sure there are paralles in them and Jesus. But there is only ONE messiah, only ONE begotton son of God. I think its pretty flattering for them to copy the old testament. However I do have to go to work, so I'll be back later.|
Date: 8/22/2003 9:22:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
There is no evidence, outside of the four Gospels of the New Testament, that a man named "Jesus Christ" even existed. All other historical mentions of a literal, physical Jesus Christ, having lived during the administration of Pontius Pilate, were written AFTER the first Gospel was completed and put into circulation (Mark, ca. 90 C. E.).|
To explain the existence of the Christian religion, it is not necessary to posit the literal existence of Jesus. Paul makes little if any mention a historical setting -- a time frame -- when his "Jesus" character lived. There were many, many messiah claims circulating at the time. There was even a "Jesus" ("Joshua" myth that predated Paul by a couple of hundred years. PREDATING, DURING (alleged time of christ), and AFTER....it was the PREVAILING customs and beliefs, that ANY god worth his salt MUST have had a virgin birth, to be crucified, and ascend to "heaven" and rise from the dead. Superstitions abound, "miracles" WERE all over the place; and all the mythical tales were believed and passed along as "facts". Anyway, the works of Hyam Maccoby and G.A. Wells, are good places to start, to get the facts. Deb, I sincerely would appreciate it if you would refrain from proclaiming "Jesus is the ONLY true God; ONLY messiah; or ONLY begotten son" and statements of this nature. You are only preaching to THE CHOIR here, and I am well aware of YOUR beliefs in that vein. What I AM interested in, IS some concrete FACTS, some evidence; SOME material you could reccomend that I, myself, can check out. And, please, break it down; do not just copy and paste a whole nine yards of mumbo-jumbo texts from a christian website. Just mention one or two sources, a synopsis, and then take it from there; and then on to possible others. Thank you.
|Date: 8/22/2003 9:26:00 AM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 24924 oh, and this "foretold" business just will not cut it. I refuse to get into the "foretelling" of something. It is all HEARSAY. ALL those stories were hearsay; they were passed around, added to, and BELIEVED by people who were already preconceived, predisposed, TO believe in such notions of "miracles, prophecies, & magic" tales.|
|Date: 8/22/2003 9:37:00 AM From Authorid: 62301 Good point fb. If there is one truth (I believe there is), and this is it (obviously I believe it is), then it only makes sense that bits and pieces of truth would trickle into other religions especially if you believe as the old testament teaches that these things were made known from the beginning...Hmmmm.....Audria|
|Date: 8/22/2003 9:43:00 AM From Authorid: 62301 That's interesting, Thinker. Am I to believe from this that you believe in nothing supernatural? So this was all just superstition? Audria|
Date: 8/22/2003 10:07:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
Literally, an atheist is someone who lacks a god-belief for whatever reason. This includes infants who haven't developed the maturity to understand claims about gods. It also includes those agnostics who don't know if there is a god (but not the agnostics who say that people cannot know about the gods these agnostics believe exist). Of course, we, too, are atheists who, on philosophical grounds, reject theism. We have examined the claims and the arguments of the theists and have found them wanting.|
The word supernatural implies that there may be entities who are somehow "above" or "beyond" nature . If you believe in the existence of angels or demons, I'd suggest you might want to start calling yourself a theist: these are merely the demoted gods of polytheism. Atheists tend not to believe in the supernatural ("above" or "beyond" nature).It is much easier for me to think that someone is pulling my leg with these tales of a Jesus "miracle", particularly when it is almost impossible to show that a Jesus even existed and that the Jesus myth was not based upon myths and put forth for political purposes. With ALL claims of the supernatural, I will consider the claim and the evidence, but if it does not withstand REASON, does not make sense; then I simply WITHHOLD judgement; and therefore, I simply find no REASON to accept that claim and or believe and thus proclaim it as truth. I LACK a belief in supernatural "gods" as there has been no argument presented that compels me to believe; or makes any sense.
|Date: 8/22/2003 10:17:00 AM From Authorid: 55967 I've heard of all this before, and I'm going to check those other interesting sites you've listed, BUT, from even more sources, I have found that this whole theory was popular back in the late 1800's and into the early 1920's, but since then, scholars have found that the REAL similarities are all stretches, and a lot of what some sources are trying to say were real parallels were not true at all with the original myths. In other words, there are some similarities, but people stretched the truth to make it fit their theories that the Christ story was taken, with every little detail intact, from another story. Even without the other sources that point this out, think about this: if it were really true and known that there are other stories with SO MUCH similarity, like the virgin birth on 12/25, the similar miracles, the similar crucifixion, etc., would that not be much more popular and known today? I would think so.|
|Date: 8/22/2003 10:30:00 AM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 24924 "scholars have found that the similarities are all "stretches"?? WHAT "scholars"? explain, please?|
|Date: 8/22/2003 10:38:00 AM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 24924 Look, NOT one single thing leads one to conclude that the Bible God, i.e., Christ, is a myth, but when you consider: The histories of the many gods that predate the Christ god. The history of the customs and beliefs of the times. The lack of science. The TIME lines. The over whelming Bible contradictions. The many denominations. The many interpretations. Then you ADD EVERYTHING UP, a reasoning mind concludes (as I did!) that: We've been HAD!|
|Date: 8/22/2003 10:47:00 AM From Authorid: 62301 Thank you for explaining that, Thinker....Audria|
|Date: 8/22/2003 11:31:00 AM From Authorid: 62301 Obviously, I don't agree with your conclusion. Partly because Science is incapable of measuring some things. Things have happened to me that should not have happened. I feel things and see things that I can't prove I feel and see, because very few people are capable of feeling and seeing the things I do. I don't want to 'sense' these things. I've tried most of my life to deny that I sense these things. "It was just my imagination," I would say, but it got to the point where I couldn't deny those things any more. There are things that have always been considered 'supernatural' that science may not have been able to prove or disprove. Although I think this is changing somewhat...I don't think it's any kind of jump to say that there were things happening at that time that science even today cannot measure or explain. Not just biblical happenings, but natural things also. I have seen things that make me believe in a spiritual world, whether I want to or not, but science can't prove it. Without some type of scientific measurement, I can't prove the validity of my experience, but that doesn't mean that at some future date science won't come up with some way to measure it or that it's not valid. I realize this makes things more subjective, but what can I do until someone invents some way to prove my experience to others? My point is, science can't prove everything that exists and doesn't even know everything that exists, so it's not always the best ideal to lean on when try to prove or disprove things. (Although I do understand your 'putting it all together' statement, I can't agree with it for myself because of my own experiences and the standard I've proven to myself to be true.) Audria|
|Date: 8/22/2003 12:07:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 24924 IF and UNTIL someone can come up with a BETTER method for determining facts from falsehoods, than The universal Scientific Method, then that is what I will rely on. NO, science does not have all the answers; and never claims to have all the answers. They cannot disprove anything of the supernatural , and do not need to; that is the onus of the theists; the Burden of Proof demands that the one who is making an extraordinary claim provide extraordianry evidence to support that claim, otherwise we have no reason to accept their claim as fact. What you are presenting here is "Faith" and personal anecdotes. You "feel", you "sense", you have CHOSEN to believe without facts; you've CHOSEN to believe that the things you don't know, or have "seen" as those of the supernatural. THAT is one's perogative; one's own perception and personal interpretation. For 50 years THAT is also what I did.|
|Date: 8/22/2003 12:20:00 PM From Authorid: 62301 I have not chosen to believe w/o facts. I have chosen to believe w/o facts that a scientist can measure. If I'm with a group of blind people and I see the sun setting, but they don't, I can tell them the sun is setting all I want to, and if they refuse to believe me, my fact is no less true. Audria|
|Date: 8/22/2003 12:24:00 PM From Authorid: 62301 I'm not talking about feelings as in, "I feel happy." I'm talking about feeling as in sensing with the sixth sense. When I say feel, it's like saying "I'm smelling..." But if you've never sensed in this way, you can't understand it. Like a blind person who's been blind from birth doesn't understand the color red. Audria|
|Date: 8/22/2003 12:36:00 PM From Authorid: 28363 this is amazing research and very refreshing. My research leads me to believe that there is a *spiritual* gene in humans which can be opened, say like neural pathways or dormant *other* abilities. This pathway can be opened in many ways i.e thru dedicated prayer, intense concentration, long term meditative techniques, tonal sounds/chanting, sacred percussive strains, etc. I think what you put your faith in is what matters. If you put your faith and pray for years to something, for ex. Jesus, or Buddha or Mohommed or your naugal or spirit helper then eventually you may be able to open that special *spiritual* gene. I also think it's the diligence of the practitioner that determines the outcome. Look towards the fruit to see if your practice is pure. In all things, God bless and have a great day|
|Date: 8/22/2003 2:53:00 PM From Authorid: 16671 Thinker, I beg to differ, there are lots of writings about Jesus that do not come from the bible. There is lots of evidence that supports the bible historically that is out side of the bible, Written evidence outside the Bible The Roman historian Tacitus The Roman governor Pliny The Roman historian Suetonius The Babylonian Talmud The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus The Jews' 'wise king' - the letter of Mara Bar-Serapion a letter of divorce from New Testament times a promissory note from New Testament times Legal documents in New Testament times Other Archaeological discoveries a chart listing more than thirty major archaeological finds relating directly to the New Testament. These include Herod’s temple and winter palace, an early synagogue in Capernaum, the pool of Siloam, an inscription about Pontius Pilate, and many others. The ‘Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels’[i] has a 13-page article on ‘Archaeology and Geography’ listing archaeological information about the background to various places mentioned in the Gospels. Not to mention the dead sea scrolls. So history and archaeological discoveries, even those that bare the name of Jesus have been found. you say, ""What I AM interested in, IS some concrete FACTS, some evidence; SOME material you could reccomend that I, myself" I gave you information that you could check out. I can give it to you but I cant make you read it. Nor will I do your study for you.|
Date: 8/22/2003 3:07:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
Deb, somehow I knew which ones you would offer here; and that snide jab at me about not "making you read" is silly, considering it has always been shown time and time again... to be YOU, who is the one that doesn't read what is reccomended to YOU! Only a handful of the more unscrupulous congregations and sects resorted to the Tacitus and Josephus yarns, these being so easily and so handily and so widely repudiated -- even by the churches.|
Cornelius Tacitus (circa C.E. 55-117 or later) writing in about C.E. 114-17, briefly describes the "Christians" who "derive their name and origin from Christ who, in the reign of Tiberius, had suffered death by the sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate." He says no more than this. Had he given more detail, we would be justified in believing that he made more than a cursory investigation into the sect. But since he ONLY gives this description, we cannot eliminate the likelihood that he simply placed into his text the description that was commonly held -- that description from the Gospels that had been in circulation for at least 20 years.
Also, he was not describing Christ, but Christians, who by then did not need an actual Christ to explain their existence; hundreds of sects thrived during that time who had alleged historical founders that probably did not exist and certainly did not perform the feats attributed to them in their respective body of mythology.
You'll have to do better than Tacitus, almost 100 years later, to establish that a historical Jesus even existed -- much less was who the patently biased and Gospel accounts say he was, or did what these hopelessly flawed Gospel accounts say he did. First you must establish that he existed, and Tacitus cannot help you there; then you must establish that he was who the Christians say he was and did what the Christians say he did -- and Tacitus most certainly cannot help you there. That someone cannot see this simply boggles the mind.; that people continue to propagate this yarn shows only that the propagation of the Christian religion is still being entrusted to patently dishonest individuals..........
The alleged segment in Josephus's so-called Testimonium Flavianum (Ant. 18:63-64) is not genuine, and only a handful of Josh McDowell-type hucksters still insist that it is. Josephus (circa C.E. 37-101) was an orthodox Jew who cannot be expected to have written such obviously Christian words. The rest of his works do not ring like this one passage, and this segment uses many words (such as tribe to mean something completely different than how it is used here.
If he did write these words, and if he believed what they say, then why did he restrict his coverage of Jesus to this ONE little parenthesis? Why would he interrupt his count-down of the various rebellions in Judaea, insert a wild and very un-Josephus account of a mystical religious figure who, according to the narrative, sparked no rebellion, and then return -- right where he left off and continue to recount the Judaean rebellions? Why did he not devote more if not much of his work to describing this most wonderful of men -- if Josephus thought the story was true? And why is this the only place where Josephus enters into a parenthesis without introducing it as such, and without reintroducing the reader back to the main narrative?
But we don't have to address these or any similar problems if Josephus the Roman Jew did not write this obviously Christian passage.
And why is Hierapolis's tenth-century quote of the Arabic translation of Antiquities, which was probably made from the Syriac translation, so vastly different from the one handed down to us by Roman Catholic monks? These two drastically different accounts cannot both be authentic; at least one of them is a plagiarization -- if not both of them.
If this passage is genuine, we can expect later Christian writers to refer to it. It would have been a strong element in the early Christians' struggles to ward off the allegations that no Jesus ever existed and that Jesus was just another mythological figure like all the other mythological figures who allegedly founded the hundreds of different religious sects which thrived during those times.
Date: 8/22/2003 3:09:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
Justin Martyr (circa C.E. 100-165) but never once quoted this passage -- even in the face of charges that Christians had "invented some sort of Christ for themselves" and that they had accepted "a futile rumor" (Dialogue with Trypho 8; circa C.E. 135).|
Origen (circa C.E. 185-254), who in his own writings relies extensively upon the works of Josephus, does not mention this passage or any other passage in Josephus that mentions Christ.
Jerome (circa C.E. 347-420) cites Josephus 90 times, but never once cites the Testimonium. Perhaps it was added later?
L. H. Feldman, in his book Josephus and Modern Scholarship, lists two fathers from the second century, seven from the third, and two from the early fourth -- all of whom knew Josephus and cited his works. But, he says, the "do not refer to this passage, though one would imagine it would be the first passage that a Christian apologist would cite."
The first mention of the Testimonium is Eusebius (who died about C.E. 342), and a full century passes (including, most notably, the era of Augustine [C.E. 354-430]) before it is again mentioned by a Church Father. This leads many to believe that it was Eusebius who ordered that this passage be inserted into the copies whose transmission was under his jurisdiction. Eusebius is the first to use the word tribe to describe the Christians, just as the alleged Testimonium uses the word. Eusebius is probably most well know for openly advocating that people lie if that's what it takes to entice people into believing in Christ. So, it makes sense to suspect that the Testimonium is just another of Eusebius's lies for Christ.
Date: 8/22/2003 3:11:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
Even if you were to show that the Tacitus passage is genuine (it probably is), you have shown nothing about the claims contained in the Gospels other than what we already know: some of the Gospel accounts had been published by the year C.E. 114. That's all we know about the Tacitus passage is that Gospel accounts (and we know not which ones) were in circulation by the year 114 -- over 80 years after Jesus is alleged to have died.|
And even if you were to show that Josephus said what a tiny minority of Christians throughout history have alleged that he said, you have shown only that he said it, you have not shown that it is true. You cannot claim Josephus's information as first-hand knowledge because when by the time Jesus is supposed to have died, Josephus was not even born yet.
Date: 8/22/2003 3:27:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
The book "Deconstructing Jesus" by Robert M. Price, shows that there was no consensus as to who Jesus was until the councils started meeting in the third century to decide who Jesus was. After that, anybody who taught a "different Jesus" was put to death and their writings burned. This is how the Dead Sea Scrolls came to be so carefully "archived" in a cave: the people did not want the Roman Catholic authorities to confiscate and burn their precious history and replace it with a Christian contrivance. Until then, though, who Jesus was depended entirely upon which sect was speaking or writing.|
Date: 8/22/2003 4:27:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
Eusebius of Nicomedia (d. 342?)|
Constantine's overseer of church doctrine and history==
"It will sometimes be necessary to use falsehood for the benefit of those who need such a mode of treatment".
-- Eusebius, The Preparation of the Gospel
|Date: 8/23/2003 7:50:00 AM From Authorid: 16671 C.E. 114-17, briefly describes the "Christians" who "derive their name and origin from Christ who, in the reign of Tiberius, had suffered death by the sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate." So a a handfull of people wont go by these writings, and can we say, "why not" LOL. As for Josephus, his papers were altered after the fact of what he said. None of what you have sited has made their statements null and void. As for the dead sea scrolls, of course they didnt want the romans to get thier hands on it. But the point is the dead sea scrolls, other than the change of I think it is 35 words in the whole of the text which is very large, nothing was changed, it was still the same and intact. "seeing they do not wish to see, hearing they do not wish to hear." Have a good day thinker.|
|Date: 8/23/2003 9:29:00 AM From Authorid: 12806 Thinker, it never ceaces to amaze me how someone like you will put so much time and effort into something they "claim" they do not believe in. The truth of the matter is that you DO believe in God but you somehow feel that you are superior to him. So you are now on this personal crusade to discredit Him, and in the process, credit yourself as some enlightened one. I don't know what really happened to you (but I can assure you that it was caused by people, and not God) to make you so bitter toward God, or why you feel that you must "save" everyone else from a life of hope and faith. If you truly want to make a difference, to be remembered for something (here in your golden years) choose something that will help people. Just because something bad happened to you on a particular path doesn't mean that something bad will happen to everyone who goes down that path...... I don't need to hear a bunch of "internet quotes". There is absolutely NO reason to believe anything that you hear or read on the internet. Especially those sites who seem to be run by people with a personal vendetta against someone or something. I pray that you will find peace in your heart and the ability to forgive whoever it was who stole your faith and your sense of "wonder" from you........... Peace....|
|Date: 8/23/2003 10:36:00 AM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 24924 Raybone, You are most welcome to YOUR delusions, but please do not state them as facts. You LIE when you claim to know ME, and MY mind; you LIE when you claim to know WHY I reject the mythical god story; YOU lie to YOURSELF, and to others, when you THINK and CLAIM that I "really do believe" and that my non-belief is "caused by people"! WHY WILL NONE OF YOU ANSWER THIS QUESTION?: >>>>HOW can someone be "bitter" or hate something which does not exist?????<<<<<EXPLAIN, Please! Your lies, and attempts to slander and portray me as "bitter" , without hope, without peace, and "in my golden years" without "wonder" and as "having an agenda"; is dispicable bigotry, and further cements my views of Christianity; it showcases the exact type of pious exclusivity, arrogance, and hatred for truth, which is (and has been) displayed by hypocrites who hide behind the veil of religious pretense. Instead of you offering rebuttle to the subject; to the things that are written by the authors suggested; debating specifics of their findings (you can't!), you MUST attack ME, try to misrepresent ME , discredit ME and then proceed to say things like "bunch of internet quotes" "no reason to believe anything on the internet" yada yada yada. OHHHHHH YEAH, BUT the same hypocrites never stop to jump up and down in praise with a hearty "AMEN!" IF it supports THEIR dogma and THEIR position!!! I am disgusted with your cheap shot "golden years" statement. FIRST of all, I am no where near my "golden years". YOU don't know me at all when making such a cheapshot assertion! I have a much more fulfilled life and sense of wonder than i ever had under the delusional umbrella of Christianity. I certainly have much much respect for truth than YOU. You cannot guilt trip me, or shame me, into believing something is true or false: you must SHOW something to be true or I have every reason to believe that you're lying to me......especially when it comes to matters of religion, whose HISTORY is fraught with opportunists, hucksters, political power plays, frauds, deceit, trickery, slight of hand, and many other things which cast doubt on the entire enterprise of religion and superstition. YOU ARE SO BLOOMING CONDESCENDING AND ARROGANT when (just because I point out the hypocrisy and I'm against the intrusive measures/methods of christianity) you think or claim that I don't have "peace in my heart", and you think and claim someone "Stole my faith"!!! LIES, all LIES. If someone holds a belief, ANY belief, and keeps that belief private, the belief is not of my business and not my concern. But when they enter into the public domain and proclaim that their belief in The Great Pink Unicorn is THE ONE and only; theirs is THE absolute truth and the Bible is above and beyond man's laws, etc., then honey, it is OPEN-SEASON. Once somebody takes their private religion and turns that religion into a set of public claims, those claims then are subject to scrutiny and criticism. Scrutiny, questioning, debating is how we can tell if someone has told us the truth. Criticism is the best way to publicize the fact we find fault with certain claims, and to advise that people had better watch out and do their OWN research before making decisions. It is wrong to treat religious views as "sacred" and pretend we ought not to criticise or question those views. Christianity is being rooted out of that dark cloak closet which they've gotten away with for soooooooooooo long; and the invention of the internet has blown the door off that closet. You can rant and rave and hiss and spit, and try to portray me as some kind of evil monster for the things I say, but that's ok. You can't squelch, deny and shut me up. Many many Great people; writers, philosophers, Statesmen ( I'd be happy to list them) have been slammed and slandered, and were thrown in jails or spit upon, and some were not even left alone after they died! (the religious zealots claimed they "suddenly" accepted Gawd!) and it will always be that way.|
Date: 8/23/2003 10:48:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
Now, My opologies to anyone else who may be reading and wishes to LEARN something, or just wishes to discuss the findings of which this topic is about. There will always be those who will come here and because they do not want such information to even be known, they will try to disrupt and derail the topic. I found a GREAT site yesterday. I read and read and read, and the more I read, and followed the links, the more clearer things became. He he he, didn't get to bed until past 2:30 a.m. Here you go. Check this out:|
|Date: 8/23/2003 11:34:00 AM From Authorid: 55967 Hey Thinker. I must admit, you are at an advantage to me. I made that comment above about other sources saying that certain conclusions are stretches. You're at an advantage, because, although I've read and studied this topic before, I do not have the sources at hand like you do. I just know I read them. I'll give you the points due that you can show me where you got your information and I cannot, but I'm not a liar. I read before that those similarities were a popular rage back in the early part of the last century, but it was found that the other religions really did not have as much detail in common with the Christ story as was thought. Those sources about such things are out there. I know you just came off of telling someone else that they do not know you and should not arrogantly judge who you are or even how you believe what you believe, and I agree with you 100%, considering what the person said. However, I want to put my own two cents in here. I'll start by saying I could be completely wrong, but I have had certain experiences myself. There seems to be a human phenomenon that I would call a pendulum swing. Lol, you probably know where I'm going. This is the case in a lot of areas in humans. I personally know many (not one or two, but many) people who were raised in either a strict Catholic environment or other limited, strict religious family setting, and they were force-fed the doctrines of their beliefs. Some even took them in and believed them for a long time. When they finally decided to think about the world themselves, the first thing to question was what was jammed down their throats. This seems to be a natural human action. They found, quite unsurprising once one did the research, that a lot of modern religious doctrine is BULL. From that, they followed up with a real nasty taste in their mouths for what was forced down them while growing up. ALL the cases I have in mind right now have tossed religion to the dogs and believe nothing about it. They are sick of the the crap and the falsehoods their families continue to believe. Thing is, I personally am searching for only ONE thing; it is the TRUTH, whatever it be. I've read many things on both sides of the issue. I don't think I should toss the whole thing out because I know many are misled today. What was said in the Bible and in other ancient spiritual manuscripts may have a lot of meaning and good ways to live life today. As for the topic of this post (sorry), I believed it too a few years ago, but there are always other sources to counter such claims (MAN, I'm going to start a search this weekend and try to find some of them again). Here's a kicker! Okay, I am up to believing that modern man does not interpret the Bible the way it is supposed to be interpreted. With that said, even if the Christ story mimicked the other myths (Mythra, Dionysus, Horus, Osiris, etc., etc.), in ALL the details mentioned, could that not simply be evidence that the Bible was part of a long chain of schools and other "mystery" organizations espousing the Truth? That the Truth can be found in MANY different teachings, and one strain of those teachings utilized the crucifixion of a god to illustrate the True Life Lessons it wanted to get across, and did so again and again? See what I'm saying? Jesus' teachings are even very close to Buddha's. Of course this would not sit with most modern Christians. My point for this whole long essay here is that there are always sources out there to counter such claims, and there can always be more to something than what you think, even if you are turned off by modern teachings of those things in question.|
|Date: 8/23/2003 1:41:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 24924 Thank you, GypsyHawk. I DO understand very well what you are saying here. And, I believe you are right in that MANY hold their opinions and beliefs because of some kind of "pendulum swing". However, this is in no way applicable to MY case. As I have explained so many times before, it was a whole combination of things; and an exposure to that, what I call "Supressed Evidence", and a fearless examination of materials that I didn't even know existed; a venture into areas that were previously supressed and or kept from me altogether. In other words: I got an EDUCATION. I've found out for myself, and it gets much more clearer everyday, the fact that the church, the religious leaders, the fundamentalists DO NOT WANT anyone reading anything that disagrees with their dogma; their Bible; their faith. Science is spit upon; slammed and slandered, and vast avenues of higher learning and scientific research and findings are witheld, supressed and kept away from young minds; books are banned and burned; authors are slandered. Anything and everything is forbidden....IF it doesn't support the doctrine of their faith. My stomach churns and flips over when I visit the many creationists websites; the outrage I feel at the TOTAL LACK of reason and HONESTY that I see. It is staggering. I see the Jerry Falwell's; the Benny Hinn's, and any number of the same ilk; I see them lauded and praised, and held up as such leaders....and to ME, it is THEY who are evil, immoral, and dangerous. I cannot say this strong enough; make it clear enough: I DESPISE hypocrisy; I loathe LYING, and will speak out against it until I draw my last breath. There are many things that culminated into the position I am NOW in; many, starting with the discovery and study of OTHER religions, cultures, customs and beliefs and their origins, as well as an indepth study of Christianity; the different denominations, sects, cults, practices, origins, history, etc. etc., then you can toss it all the other stuff, as I did start paying close attention to the ACTIONS and the "fruits" of people as opposed to what comes out of their mouth. It was and is not a pretty site. Yes, you're right. There will always be those who "counter those claims" as you've said. And it is very hard to discern WHO is being truthful; if one doesn't use reason and common sense and or the scientific method to seperate the facts from the falsehoods. That is why religions like to inculcate, indoctrinate the young. When a belief system; a religious doctrine does not uphold truth; when it shuns reason and common sense, when it will not hold up under intense scrutiny and or criticism, then I don't and I CAN'T believe in such a thing.|
|Date: 8/23/2003 1:54:00 PM From Authorid: 62181 since when did this become a debate? I thought that Thinker was just posting on something she found interesting and wanted to share. If you don't agree with her then don't reply. This wasn't in the debate section last time I checked. I personally am thankful that she posted something like this and we should all be allowed to post something we believe in without everyone trying to prove us wrong. Peace|
|Date: 8/23/2003 2:28:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 24924 Michelle, I don't mind anyone who wishes to debate something that I post; any and all viewpoints are encouraged. And I would have posted this in Debate, if it were possible to delete the snide, derogatory and slanderous attacks on ME, as opposed to the subject matter of the post. I know that there are those who have nothing to offer in the way of substantive rebuttal, so the only thing left is to try to "kill the messenger", or to put them in a bad light so as if to say "Don't take her serious; don't believe anything she has to say...because...". It's ok to give opposing argument and viewpoints; give references, and criticize what is being SAID, but it is NOT ok to proclaim one's own belief that THEY know why the other person believes as they do. We all hold different beliefs, for a whole variety of reasons. If someone pours out there heartfelt reasons why THEY hold a certain belief....then I will accept their reasons; and the same should be for their acceptance of MY reasons for my belief or non-belief. What we ALL can do is then to be on guard for CONSISTENCY in those beliefs put forth by each individual. It is quite alright if you see someone who is saying one thing on one post, but quite another thing on another post, it is then alright to call them on it and or say something like "You seem to be confused, or not quite sure what you believe" and things of this nature. We all learn from each other. If I can somehow get some one to THINK about or look at something in a different light, then that is good, and the same holds true with everyone. I love it when someone can offer me something that I've never heard of or some new way of looking at an old way. This happens many times. Anyway, thank you for your reply. I appreciate it.|
Date: 8/23/2003 6:50:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
Firstborn said: "As for the dead sea scrolls, of course they didnt want the romans to get thier hands on it".<<<< Ah, yes, but you don't consider the Roman Catholic to be Christian, right? All Those so-called records were written by devout ecclesiasts who wanted to believe, and wanted others to believe, in the coming of a Messiah. Until someone proves otherwise, therefore, these stories must be considered nothing more than folk tales consisting in equal parts of legend and wish fulfillment. But there's never going to be any way of truly verifying them one way or the other. Scholars have found that references to Christ in Josephus were deliberately planted in the translation long after it was written, and the Latin references to Christ are not to a person of that name. In the Dead Sea Scrolls there was mention of a particular "teacher of righteousness" who had characteristics somewhat like those attributed to Christ, but it might easily have been someone else. Life magazine ran an article on the historicity of Jesus, and I was floored to find that they conceded the only evidence we have for his existence is in the Gospels. In his book The Quest of the Historical Jesus, the most definitive study that's ever been done on the subject, Albert Schweitzer admitted that there isn't a shred of conclusive proof that Christ ever lived, let alone was the son of God. He concludes that one must therefore accept both on faith. To try to establish that there was ever a person by that name is ONE thing (impossible) but to go even further and state that he was divine entity, a god, is really|
S T R E T C H I N G it too much for me! Firstborn, that "seeing they do not wish to see..." quote is cute; it is catchy, and what-not, but it certainly does not apply to ME. YOU, on the other hand.....well....you know the rest.
|Date: 8/24/2003 5:28:00 AM From Authorid: 28363 It's really hard to answer your questions when your being so hateful and calling everyone liers. Peace be with you (pls)|
|Date: 8/24/2003 6:29:00 AM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 24924 Donno, WHERE, HOW, am I being "hateful"? Seriously; How would *YOU* respond to those who attack personally, instead of offering an opinion or rebuttal to the topic; those who would misrepresnt their opponent (no matter what belief they have) as has been done so much here?? How would YOU respond to to those who present themselves as flat-out superior to you because you are not one-of-them, not a born-again member of the Chosen Few Club? WHAT are your suggestions for those few who insist on using dishonest arguing techniques for the purpose of slandering the author, derailing the post, or get them upset so that they will say something "hateful" thus possibly getting the post deleted (which they didn't want up in the first place) so their objective is accomplished?? THIS has happened so many times on here, and only a hand full of people REALLY knows what the heck is going down. Donno, there's many things you can't see, from the background; and if YOU are not involved; or if YOU are not the one who is at the brunt of someone's bigotry and hatred. There are ALWAYS two sides to every story; and everything that you might THINK you see. Now, if you have anything that you wish to say, and it is HONEST, coming directly from within you, and isn't just an attempt to slam or slander me, then you haven't anything whatsoever to worry about. I've have utmost respect and admiration for anyone who is honest and straighforward in all they do and say; and I am very aware that NO ONE bats a thousand per cent; there will always be those who will try to take potshots and bring you down (for a variety of reasons, perhaps raining on their parade/messing up their "game" of deceit, jealousy, etc.??). I'm open to suggestions here, Donno. Thank you for your reply.|
|Date: 8/24/2003 7:35:00 AM From Authorid: 28363 I don't know the answer about how to respond to vitriol and invectives. I only wish clarity of vision, wisdom of speech and love to the universe. I know you believe in love. I wish I had more in my life, maybe if I gave more love I would receive more in turn. You have given me moments to ponder and I thank you for taking the time.|
|Date: 8/24/2003 7:53:00 AM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 24924 ahhhh, yes, Donno, I DO believe in love. But there are a gadzillion different interpretations of what it IS. I am constantly being told that I must not have peace and harmony in my life; or I must not have joy and love in my life....IF I don't believe in a god. THIS is not truth. And, where there is lies and deceit; where there is bigotry and exclusivists, where there is force and control, to ME, love does not dwell there. You mentioned a "spiritual gene" in your first reply, and I don't mean to just skim over it, but that would take a whole long long reply. I'll just say that in MY realm, spirituality doesn't just mean that which has to do with a god belief. I consider myself as very "spiritual" in that I DO take in all the wonders of nature and cherish and relish all that it gives and reveals; I am exalted and nourished by beautiful music, Chopin, Mozart, Beethoven, going to concerts/symphonies; getting giggles and laughter from little kids; touching my dear mother's face; seeing her laughter in her eyes; cooking and sharing a great meal with those I love; giving aid and comfort to those who do not have; on and on and on, everyday; there is wonderful, beautiful, exciting and nurturing.....LIFE. Thanks, Donno.|
|Date: 8/24/2003 8:10:00 AM From Authorid: 28363 hehe 'chases Thinker around the room, tickling for the *spiritual* gene'. "come out, come out, wherever you are"|
|Date: 8/24/2003 8:58:00 AM From Authorid: 62289 being an exspert in mytholagy i love reading this|
|Date: 8/31/2003 2:27:00 PM From Authorid: 52187 yup. I read a book that said that the orignal myths from Summeria,Egypt, ect. were transformed into Christain ones. yup|
Date: 9/8/2003 9:52:00 PM
From Authorid: 26598
I read your post. I do recognize the similarities in religions of the style of the dying god mythologies. I refuse to reiterate the fanatical stance on one belief or the other. I find that the diversity of views are colorful foods for thought. I am not as highly educated as you are in your studies of deities. I often held simply that any religious attendies who prosilitize in mass, have the need to bully,slander, and make life harsh by public judgements of any persons religion forign to their own; are not worth my time, it would take to be hurt or angry. |
I do appreciate your sharing of your research in this area of th simarities of the dying gods to the jesus archtype. I comend your courage under fire. I would have reported the bible thumpers to Usm Administration for religious harrassment. Usm is a forum for all people and not just the christians.
|Date: 11/24/2003 11:19:00 PM From Authorid: 28989 Thinker, your posts are always very interesting, and I agree with you that we should all read and study as much as possible. I've always been aware of the similarities between religions (and the so-called "gods" and heroes and founders of religions throughout the world). In fact, just recently I read about the origin of the Noah story, how it derived from the account of a Sumerian king and an actual river flood that occurred around 2900 BC. (Later, the story was recorded as a sea flood, and from then on the story grew to legendary proportions.) My interpretation of these similarities leads me in a Joseph Campbell-like direction, however. I tend to see the stories as parables or allegories (a common method for ancient peoples to get their point across) all inspired by the same source (God) and filtering down through various cultures around the world. I believe that that accounts for some of the similarities (God as the source) as well as the differences (the diverse cultures). I think that the important thing isn't whether or not a particular story really happened exactly the way it was told, but whether or not the story teaches us something useful or fulfilling about ourselves. One thing I definitely DON'T believe is that one spiritual tradition is superior to another (except when clerics and political people skew the original teachings for their own benefit, which has happened in almost all religions). Your list of similarities above tells me that the foundation of all religions is the same and not proof that the Bible or Christianity or any other religion is invalid. The Golden Rule, which Christ said was one of the most important commandments, is spoken of in all of the world's religions, as are many other spiritual laws. Of course, if I didn't believe in a Great Spirit, I would have different thoughts on this, so I guess I'm kind of biased; we all tend to see what we want to see. Thanks again for a great post; it kept me up way past my bedtime!|
Renasoft is the proud sponsor of the Unsolved Mystery Publications website.
See: www.rensoft.com Personal Site server, Power to build Personal Web Sites and Personal Web Pages
All stories are copyright protected and may not be reproduced in any form, except by specific written authorization