A Reprise: Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth
- Thread starter Rambam99
- Start date
- Status
My apologies. I strive to a higher standard of spelling than this. I was on the phone while posting (albeit not a valid excuse). Please continue to bring further errors to my attention.
Not wrong, weak and without free thought. All I ask for is that Christians step-up to the plate and admit the main reason they believe in their religion is because someone told them too. That makes them weak.
How about they even say, If I knew today what I know now I would have never believed in this religion. That way they can avoid saying mistake.
I guess the question comes down to, why do people believe and defend a religion based on thoughts that are two thousand years old. It just boggles the mind that people need a book to base their lives on.
Wow, you've got it all figured out don't you? You must have gone to college!
if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
This post was edited on 3/1 11:15 AM by Hawkeye_EEif(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
How about they even say, If I knew today what I know now I would have never believed in this religion. That way they can avoid saying mistake.
I guess the question comes down to, why do people believe and defend a religion based on thoughts that are two thousand years old. It just boggles the mind that people need a book to base their lives on.
Wow, you've got it all figured out don't you? You must have gone to college!
if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
This post was edited on 3/1 11:15 AM by Hawkeye_EEif(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
What makes you think that my asking you if you've taken this up with your pastor indicates that I think you haven't already?
But, it does argue the world is only about 10000 years old, a virgin got pregnant and had the son of god, and that son eventually came back from the dead. Not a good start.
This post was edited on 3/1 11:49 AM by iowahawkeyes1986if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
Isn't there some story in the Bible about god stopping the sun dead in its tracks? Wouldn't that imply the sun was orbiting the Earth, if the sun was stopped and not the Earth.
Joshua 10
10:12 Then spoke Joshua to Yahweh in the day when Yahweh delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel; and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand you still on Gibeon; You, Moon, in the valley of Aijalon.
10:13 The sun stood still, and the moon stayed, Until the nation had avenged themselves of their enemies. Isn't this written in the book of Jashar? The sun stayed in the midst of the sky, and didn't hurry to go down about a whole day.
So even assuming that you interpret this as the Earth stopped spinning, this brings up its own issues:
"Think about it.
The earth is spinning at something like 1600 mph.
If all of a sudden the earth stopped spinning (1600-0 mph in under a second), the G-forces would be so immense that we'd just... die. Not to mention we'd all just fly into everything else at 1600 mph.
No way to survive. Utter destruction. Everything...
Gone."
Wonder how God pulled this one off?
This post was edited on 3/1 12:41 PM by jrotten666if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
This post was edited on 3/1 12:44 PM by jrotten666if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
If the Earth Stopped Spinning
Many -maybe even most- of my best friends are Catholics! But I don't discuss religion with them.
(Another post that seemed to be lost that wasn't. Gremlins?)
This post was edited on 3/1 9:30 PM by ChipHiltonif(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
This post was edited on 3/1 9:30 PM by ChipHiltonif(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
If he did, we should just give up on physics and everything else. The universe would no longer be logical and all the things science has accomplished should just be ignored, because reality can just be changed any given time by an invisible being, so studying reality is worthless.
But I doubt you are ready to give up your computer, tv, and just about everything else science has provided you. All the knowledge that went into making these items is worthless.
This post was edited on 3/1 1:36 PM by iowahawkeyes1986if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
That is a ridiculous statement. Logic would dictate that a creator who invented and implemented the very laws of physics could do whatever He wanted with them at any given moment. Is it that difficult?
Another completely unnecessary inference. Just because God could change anything at any moment does not mean He will. In fact, I believe He has stated He won't anymore until the end. Therefore, the logical thing to do is to continue with true science so we know how to best operate in our environment and subdue it, as He commanded.
That is a ridiculous statement. Logic would dictate that a creator who invented and implemented the very laws of physics could do whatever He wanted with them at any given moment. Is it that difficult?
You do not understand science or the laws of physics then. If those laws are able to be broken then those laws are wrong. Meaning we can't trust anything we see or know about the universe because it can be changed be randomly at any given moment. The universe wouldn't be logical.
Logic itself does not allow for a creator. If you say god created the universe, then the question must be asked, where did god come from? If you choose to say that god has always existed then why not save a step and say the universe always existed? There is no need for a creator. Introducing a god brings an infinite regress of what brought about what.
Another completely unnecessary inference. Just because God could change anything at any moment does not mean He will. In fact, I believe He has stated He won't anymore until the end. Therefore, the logical thing to do is to continue with true science so we know how to best operate in our environment and subdue it, as He commanded.
The mere fact that god can change something at any given moment makes the laws that we understand the universe with worthless.
You do not understand science or the laws of physics then. If those laws are able to be broken then those laws are wrong. Meaning we can't trust anything we see or know about the universe because it can be changed be randomly at any given moment. The universe wouldn't be logical.
Logic itself does not allow for a creator. If you say god created the universe, then the question must be asked, where did god come from? If you choose to say that god has always existed then why not save a step and say the universe always existed? There is no need for a creator. Introducing a god brings an infinite regress of what brought about what.
Another completely unnecessary inference. Just because God could change anything at any moment does not mean He will. In fact, I believe He has stated He won't anymore until the end. Therefore, the logical thing to do is to continue with true science so we know how to best operate in our environment and subdue it, as He commanded.
The mere fact that god can change something at any given moment makes the laws that we understand the universe with worthless.
You do not understand science or the laws of physics then. If those laws are able to be broken then those laws are wrong. Meaning we can't trust anything we see or know about the universe because it can be changed be randomly at any given moment. The universe wouldn't be logical.
This is so utterly ridiculous. You believe in the Big Bang, right? Think about it.
This is so utterly ridiculous. You believe in the Big Bang, right? Think about it.
Nothing banged in the "big bang" so that term is worthless. What did happen was an expansion and that expansion happened according to the laws of physics.
You can't just change something in the middle of the universe without having drastic effects on the laws of physics. God stopping the Earth or sun in its tracks would cause all of physics to break down. Singularities, the points at which you contend physics break down, requires further study to explain them, but Hawking and other physicist are making breakthroughs in areas not previously explained by physics. They require a combination of the theories of the very large and theories of the very small. We can adjust our laws of physics to fit new phenomena, but the act of god stopping the sun or Earth is not within the scope of physics. Such an event makes our current physics altogether worthless.
This post was edited on 3/1 4:21 PM by iowahawkeyes1986if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
Again, exACTly.
And exactly why faith in God, the very concept of God by those who practice their antagonistic disbelief on message boards and in debunked literature, is anathema.
If you'd give as much thought and effort to digging into the things you so angrily deny as possible, you may learn something.
Where did God say he would no longer change the natural world until the end of times?
This is bordering on a Deist position. If God is no longer going to actively operate in the natural world, then what good does prayer do? God will not help you if you are ill, injured or in danger.
This is the big contradiction with religionists. On the one hand, to be relevant or even exist in the modern world, they need to at least cater to science to some extent. Yet deep down, they hold very unscientific beliefs and take a very unscientific approach to the world. Their pretensions towards science are out of necessity and they have had to be dragged kicking and screaming the whole way with virtually every major scientific advancement.
"If Christians wish to enter the public arena then they can expect to become meat for the lions"
I understand them just fine.
Anway, says you, and frankly, that doesn't carry a lot of weight with me.
Actually, nothing can be trusted in the big picture. God can do whatever He wants whenever He wants. But that's irrelevant as to whether it is true or not. It would make the universe perfectly logical if there was a Creator.
No, your logic is flawed. Logically, there must be a Creator. The physical universe cannot account for itself, nor have existed forever. Therefore, the only logical solution is the non-physical.
Your statement is the height of arrogance. Obviously, they have served God's purposes and man's uses quite well. That was really dumb.
I believe the Bible indicates the age of the miraculous would quickly come to an end. The miraculous event is an attesting sign. The event can only be ascribed to the supernatural. But near the end of all things there could be supernatural events. I'm not going to post all the verses on the theology in this thread.
God can operate in such as there is no detection of any manipulation of the physical universe, thus it would not be called miraculous. It's called working providentially, or at such a level that his tweaking cannot be proven.
I will tell you what I was told. Keep telling yourself that. It may bring you comfort but it's completely wacked. It's pure ridiculousness. Christians have made gigantic contributions to science.
Says, you, and like with the other guy, it doesn't carry much weight with me.
I understand them just fine.
Anway, says you, and frankly, that doesn't carry a lot of weight with me.
Obviously you don't. The laws of physics apply everywhere. If you can just nit pick situations where the laws no longer apply the law is worthless. Anyone who had a clue about what a scientific law or theory is would know this.
No, your logic is flawed. Logically, there must be a Creator. The physical universe cannot account for itself, nor have existed forever. Therefore, the only logical solution is the non-physical.
Actually the physical universe can account for itself, not fully yet, but we are getting closer all the time. Conservation of mass and energy is not broken by the universe existing. Take a look inside the strange world of Quantum Mechanics, things happen without a cause at all.
Second, even if you say the universe can't account for itself, neither can god. Where did this "creator" come from? How come the creator doesn't have a creator? How is it possible for a creator to always exist, but not the universe. Your logic is flawed, not mine.
Your statement is the height of arrogance. Obviously, they have served God's purposes and man's uses quite well. That was really dumb
You don't understand the scientific method, let alone what scientific theories and laws are, so this sentence doesn't really surprise me.
This post was edited on 3/1 8:04 PM by iowahawkeyes1986if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
Anway, says you, and frankly, that doesn't carry a lot of weight with me.
Obviously you don't. The laws of physics apply everywhere. If you can just nit pick situations where the laws no longer apply the law is worthless. Anyone who had a clue about what a scientific law or theory is would know this.
No, your logic is flawed. Logically, there must be a Creator. The physical universe cannot account for itself, nor have existed forever. Therefore, the only logical solution is the non-physical.
Actually the physical universe can account for itself, not fully yet, but we are getting closer all the time. Conservation of mass and energy is not broken by the universe existing. Take a look inside the strange world of Quantum Mechanics, things happen without a cause at all.
Second, even if you say the universe can't account for itself, neither can god. Where did this "creator" come from? How come the creator doesn't have a creator? How is it possible for a creator to always exist, but not the universe. Your logic is flawed, not mine.
Your statement is the height of arrogance. Obviously, they have served God's purposes and man's uses quite well. That was really dumb
You don't understand the scientific method, let alone what scientific theories and laws are, so this sentence doesn't really surprise me.
This post was edited on 3/1 8:04 PM by iowahawkeyes1986if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
You can live in the dark and think I didn't understand them. But I had several semesters of college physics and did very well. I understand the nature of the laws. You're just failing to grasp the power of a Creator (if He exists) over laws he completely designed and implemented. You're closed minded and won't let it open to other possibilities.
No, it can't. Something can't come from purely nothing. However, that's a nice faith you have. I see you have a strong faith in your modern priesthood.
There is zero flaw to my logic. Physical laws only apply to the physical universe. The concept of a Creator is theoretical solution to the existence of the universe. It would take an eternal non-physical being, not existing in linear time, and not bound in any way by physical laws, but instead being the author and master of them. Open your mind.
I understand the scientific method just fine. I'm just not arrogant and therefore can understand its limitations. I don't worship it as you do. It is your God and you pay homage to it.
This post was edited on 3/1 8:20 PM by HoundedHawkif(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
Can't read the last part can you? We are getting closer to understanding the things we haven't previously. It just takes more research. But keep thinking you pointed something out.
This post was edited on 3/1 8:56 PM by iowahawkeyes1986if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
The problem is, you are not using logic at all. You are explaining natural phenomena with super natural things. That is not logical at all. Maybe in your small small world it is, but not when it comes to science.
""A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"
Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!
"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle -- but no dragon.
"Where's the dragon?" you ask.
"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."
You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.
"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."
Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.
"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."
You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.
"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick." And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.
Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless..."
- Carl Sagan
Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!
"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle -- but no dragon.
"Where's the dragon?" you ask.
"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."
You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.
"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."
Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.
"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."
You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.
"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick." And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.
Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless..."
- Carl Sagan
Says you. Period.
There are people with vastly more scientific knowledge than you that fully believe what I said is logical. You're too closed minded and have limited true science. And aren't you the one that lives in the truly small, small world? You're in the vast minority, after all, when it comes to whether people believe there must be a God.
This post was edited on 3/1 9:14 PM by HoundedHawkif(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
A very, very poor analogy. These types of stories fail miserably like the Flying Spaghetti Monster. People try to attribute absurd physical characteristics and then corellate the story to a non-physical being who wouldn't occupy any space or even time in this physical universe.
You limit yourself to the only other possibility, that is the universe was Created. And all because you can't detect a Being that if you could detect, could NOT be the Creator. In your limited little world where people turn off their minds, they have nowhere to go but to THE extreme example of faith in humanity, that is, believing everything can come from absolutely, and purely nothing. Now, that is illogical and proves you possess more faith than I will ever have.
- Status
Latest posts
-
Missouri State Transfer WR Raylen Sharpe Visiting Iowa on Tuesday- Latest: Eliot Clough
-
-
-