Subscribe to Listverse
I recently watched the documentary Zeitgeist (Part 1) as well as Bill Maher’s movie Religulous. Both made mention of claims often made that there are many stories that predate Jesus but have striking parallels. I decided to follow up on these claims and see what kind of information was out there to substantiate these assertions.
I found several websites run by Christians who obviously disputed all claims of any parallels to the life of Jesus. I also found several interesting books on the subject, such as The World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviors: Christianity Before Christ by Kersey Graves, and The Christ Conspiracy, and Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled by Acharya S.
As a non-christian, I am approaching this topic purely as an interested observer. I am assuming half of the people who read this will automatically say the claims are false and the other half will say they are true. The truth I found is that it is difficult to know for sure.
Here are ten of the figures often sited:
Both went to their temples at the age of twelve, where they are said to have astonished all with their wisdom. Both supposedly fasted in solitude for a long time: Buddha for forty–seven days and Jesus for forty. Both wandered to a fig tree at the conclusion of their fasts. Both were about the same age when they began their public ministry:
“When he [Buddha] went again to the garden he saw a monk who was calm, tranquil, self–possessed, serene, and dignified. The prince, determined to become such a monk, was led to make the great renunciation. At the time he was twenty–nine years of age… “Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age.” (Luke 3:23). Both were tempted by the “devil” at the beginning of their ministry: To Buddha, he said: “Go not forth to adopt a religious life but return to your kingdom, and in seven days you shall become emperor of the world, riding over the four continents.” To Jesus, he said: “All these [kingdoms of the world] I will give you, if you fall down and worship me” (Matthew 4:9). Buddha answered the “devil”: “Get you away from me.”
Jesus responded: “…begone, Satan!” (Matthew 4:10). Both strove to establish a kingdom of heaven on earth. According to the Somadeva (a Buddhist holy book), a Buddhist ascetic’s eye once offended him, so he plucked it out and cast it away. Jesus said: “If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out, and throw it away;.” (Matthew 5:29).
According to Bhagavata Purana some believe that Krishna was born without a sexual union, by “mental transmission” from the mind of Vasudeva into the womb of Devaki, his mother. Christ and Krishna were called both God and the Son of God. Both were sent from heaven to earth in the form of a man. Both were called Savior, and the second person of the Trinity. Krishna’s adoptive human father was also a carpenter. A spirit or ghost was their actual father. Krishna and Jesus were of royal descent. Both were visited at birth by wise men and shepherds, guided by a star. Angels in both cases issued a warning that the local dictator planned to kill the baby and had issued a decree for his assassination. The parents fled. Mary and Joseph stayed in Muturea; Krishna’s parents stayed in Mathura. Both Christ and Krishna withdrew to the wilderness as adults, and fasted. Both were identified as “the seed of the woman bruising the serpent’s head.” Jesus was called “the lion of the tribe of Judah.” Krishna was called “the lion of the tribe of Saki.” Both claimed: “I am the Resurrection.” Both were “without sin.” Both were god-men: being considered both human and divine. Both performed many miracles, including the healing of disease. One of the first miracles that both performed was to make a leper whole. Each cured “all manner of diseases.” Both cast out indwelling demons, and raised the dead. Both selected disciples to spread his teachings. Both were meek, and merciful. Both were criticized for associating with sinners. Both celebrated a last supper. Both forgave his enemies. Both were crucified and both were resurrected.
Homeric tales about Odysseus emphasize his suffering life, just as in Mark Jesus said that he, too, would suffer greatly. Odysseus is a carpenter like Jesus, and he wants to return his home just as Jesus wants to be welcomed in his native home and later to God’s home in Jerusalem. Odysseus is plagued with unfaithful and dim-witted companions who display tragic flaws. They stupidly open a magic bag of wind while Odysseus sleeps and release terrible tempests which prevent their return home. These sailors are comparable to Jesus’ disciples, who disbelieve Jesus, ask foolish questions, and show general ignorance about everything. It’s amazing that either Odysseus or Jesus ever manage to accomplish anything, given the companions they have, but this simply demonstrates the power and ability of the one true leader who has a divine mandate to lead the people out of darkness and into a brighter future.
Romulus is born of a vestal virgin, which was a priestess of the hearth god Vesta sworn to celibacy. His mother claims that the divine impregnated her, yet this is not believed by the King. Romulus and his twin brother, Remus, are tossed in the river and left for dead. (A “slaughter of the innocents” tale which parallels that of Matthew 2:13-16). Romulus is hailed as the son of god. He is “snatched away to heaven” by a whirlwind (It is assumed that the gods took him), and he makes post mortem appearances. In his work Numa Pompilius, Plutarch records that there was a darkness covering the earth before his death (Just as there was during Jesus’ death according to Mark 15:33). He also states that Romulus is to be know afterwards as ‘Quirinus’; A god which belonged to the Archiac Triad (a “triple deity” similar to the concept of the Trinity).
Dionysus was born of a virgin on December 25 and, as the Holy Child, was placed in a manger. He was a traveling teacher who performed miracles. He “rode in a triumphal procession on an ass.” He was a sacred king killed and eaten in an eucharistic ritual for fecundity and purification. Dionysus rose from the dead on March 25. He was the God of the Vine, and turned water into wine. He was called “King of Kings” and “God of Gods.” He was considered the “Only Begotten Son,” Savior,” “Redeemer,” “Sin Bearer,” Anointed One,” and the “Alpha and Omega.” He was identified with the Ram or Lamb. His sacrificial title of “Dendrites” or “Young Man of the Tree” intimates he was hung on a tree or crucified.
Heracles is the Son of a god (Zeus). It is recorded that Zeus is both the father and great-great- great grandfather of Heracles, just as Jesus is essentially his own grandpa, being both “The root and offspring of David” (Revelation 22:16) as he is part of the triune God which is the father of Adam and eventually of Jesus. Both are doubly related to the Supreme God.
Diodorus writes that,”For as regards the magnitude of the deeds which he accomplished it is generally agreed that Heracles has been handed down as one who surpassed all men of whom memory from the beginning of time has brought down an account; consequently it is a difficult attainment to report each one of his deeds in a worthy manner and to present a record which shall be on a level with labours so great, the magnitude of which won for him the prize of immortality.”
Jesus is also said to have done a very large number of good works. John 21:25 says that: “Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.”
Hera tries to kill Heracles as an infant by sending two serpents after him, yet Heracles survives by strangling them. This parallels Herod’s slaughter of the innocents in an attempt to kill Jesus (Matthew 2:13-16).
Heracles makes a descent into Hades and returns from it with Theseus and Peirithoüs, just as Jesus descends into the “lower parts of the earth” or Hades (Ephesians 4:7-8); Though Jesus does not bring anyone up from it. Heracles’ body is not found and he is assumed to have been taken by the gods:”After this, when the companions of Iolaüs came to gather up the bones of Heracles and found not a single bone anywhere, they assumed that, in accordance with the words of the oracle, he had passed from among men into the company of the gods.”
In the middle of the 100s AD, out along the south coast of the Black Sea, Glycon was the son of the God Apollo, who: came to Earth through a miraculous birth, was the Earthly manifestation of divinity, came to earth in fulfillment of divine prophecy, gave his chief believer the power of prophecy, gave believers the power to speak in tongues, performed miracles, healed the sick, and raised the dead.
Zoroaster was born of a virgin and “immaculate conception by a ray of divine reason.” He was baptized in a river. In his youth he astounded wise men with his wisdom. He was tempted in the wilderness by the devil. He began his ministry at age 30. Zoroaster baptized with water, fire and “holy wind.” He cast out demons and restored the sight to a blind man. He taught about heaven and hell, and revealed mysteries, including resurrection, judgment, salvation and the apocalypse. He had a sacred cup or grail. He was slain. His religion had a eucharist. He was the “Word made flesh.” Zoroaster’s followers expected a “second coming” in the virgin-born Saoshynt or Savior, who is to come in 2341 AD and begin his ministry at age 30, ushering in a golden age.
Attis was born on December 25 of the Virgin Nana. He was considered the savior who was slain for the salvation of mankind. His body as bread was eaten by his worshippers. He was both the Divine Son and the Father. On “Black Friday,” he was crucified on a tree, from which his holy blood ran down to redeem the earth. He descended into the underworld. After three days, Attis was resurrected.
Born of a virgin, Isis. Only begotten son of the God Osiris. Birth heralded by the star Sirius, the morning star. Ancient Egyptians paraded a manger and child representing Horus through the streets at the time of the winter solstice (about DEC-21). In reality, he had no birth date; he was not a human. Death threat during infancy: Herut tried to have Horus murdered. Handling the threat: The God That tells Horus’ mother “Come, thou goddess Isis, hide thyself with thy child.” An angel tells Jesus’ father to: “Arise and take the young child and his mother and flee into Egypt.” Break in life history: No data between ages of 12 & 30. Age at baptism: 30. Subsequent fate of the baptiser: Beheaded. Walked on water, cast out demons, healed the sick, restored sight to the blind. Was crucifed, descended into Hell; resurrected after three days.
April 14th, 2009 at 1:32 am
Great list. I knew about most of these, but aside from Zoroaster, I never would have thought of them as “Jesus-like.”
Did you know another major figure in the Zoroastrian religion is Ahura “Mazda”?
April 14th, 2009 at 1:43 am
There are more things different between Krishna and Jesus Christ than there are similarities. And Krishna was not crucified, nor resurrected, in the sense Jesus Christ was.
April 14th, 2009 at 1:51 am
Actually in the old Norse religion Odin was hung from Yggdrasil (the world tree)for nine days and nights in sacrifice to himself that parallels Jesus’ crucifixion. As he hung there he was also pierced in the side by a spear. I know it isn’t as total as the rest of these are, but it does resemble it some. Here is part of the speech of Odin that describes it from the Havamal.
I know I hung on that
Windswept tree, swung
There for nine long nights,
Wounded by my own blade,
Bloodied for Odin,
Myself and offering to
Myself, bound to the tree,
That no man knows wither
The roots of it run,
None gave me bread, none
Game me drink
April 14th, 2009 at 1:54 am
Very good reading Rushfan. Thank you.
April 14th, 2009 at 1:54 am
#2 is Mithra, right ?
April 14th, 2009 at 2:16 am
Shakyamuni Buddha’s teachings run in great parallel to Jesus of Nazareth and there is growing evidence that Essenes (followers of a mystical branch of Judaism) are greatly influenced by Shakyamuni Buddha’s teachings (Hinayana)…
Rather than debating about dusty scrolls and archaic doctrines and dogmas, lets spend our energies in doing good with the time we are alloted here on earth =)
It’s what they ALL preached right?
April 14th, 2009 at 2:21 am
I’m going to have a nice conversation with my Christian girlfriend tomorrow
April 14th, 2009 at 2:23 am
Sorry to say, krishna and jesus similarities are so vague.
April 14th, 2009 at 2:25 am
Nice list, very controversial. Most of the Greek figures i cannot see a resemblance. However, Zoroaster and all the other Eastern figures certainly do have similarities.
I saw a documentary saying that around the exact time when Jesus was past 7… which is when nothing was written about him apparently… there was a child Dalai Lama or something rather (Buddha’s reincarnation?) that came from Israel and was taken to Tibet and taught. It drew parallels between the 3 Magi from Jesus’s birth and Buddhists priests/lords who search for their Dalai Lama (something rather, or Buddha’s reincarnation… can’t remember).
It explains a lot why Jesus’ teachings about God, humanity and religion are more peaceful and Buddhist-like rather than the more-aggressive God of the Jews/Islam. But… it’s a claim that will possibly never be verified, just as most mysteries of history.
April 14th, 2009 at 2:39 am
Religion is boring.
April 14th, 2009 at 2:45 am
Why am I not on this list?
April 14th, 2009 at 2:46 am
i lolled at the picture for #6!
April 14th, 2009 at 2:47 am
11. Jd8coke:
the title says “10 Christ-like Figures Who Pre-Date Jesus”
April 14th, 2009 at 2:49 am
There is nearly nothing similar between Jesus and Odysseus. Odysseus was King of Ithaka, not a carpenter. He was no son of God. He wanted to return home to his wife and son, and when he did, he killed several suitors trying to marry his wife. True Odysseus’ companions may have been dimwitted to some degree, they are really not comparable to the disciples. Odysseus’ men had been lost at sea for years, and had gotten a little stir crazy. I think that this comparison is a huge stretch and is counting on the hope that readers don’t know much about Odysseus. There is nothing “Christ-like” about Odysseus. Odysseus embodies man’s ability to use cleverness to survive. Plus Odysseus kills men, is unfaithful to his wife, blinds the cyclops, and even considers lopping off one of his companions’ heads when he back talks him. Tsk, tsk, a little research would have led you to a better example from the Greek tradition, perhaps Apollo, also called the savior of men?
April 14th, 2009 at 2:50 am
You forgot Quetzalcoatl of Toltec/Aztec lore. He was born of a virgin, died and rose again 3 days later.
April 14th, 2009 at 2:55 am
joanne: me too – that is why I included it
I wish I could pee and drink at the same time – it would save me a LOT of time at bars.
April 14th, 2009 at 2:56 am
something to think about…hmmm…
April 14th, 2009 at 3:04 am
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycat.html
interesting article on the topic
April 14th, 2009 at 3:05 am
Gods were just a cycle of mythology.
April 14th, 2009 at 3:07 am
Romulus and Remus were raised by wolves, and later went on to build the city of Rome. While arguing over what to name the city, Romulus tricked Remus into jumping into the river and drowning himself, thus taking all the credit. This doesn’t sound all too Jesus-like to me.
April 14th, 2009 at 3:10 am
16. jfrater:
but if you could pee and drink simultaneously you’d have to be standing in front of the urinal in the men’s room all the time while all the women are having fun outside now that would suck
April 14th, 2009 at 3:10 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attis
April 14th, 2009 at 3:27 am
Btw, how can Glycon pre-date Jesus if he was created in the mid 2nd century, around 150 years after Jesus’ birth?
April 14th, 2009 at 3:33 am
Jesus wasn’t beheaded, John the Baptist was. Again…spectacular research from another author who cares more about making a point than true accuracy. You need a salt-lick next to you while reading historical lists on this site.
April 14th, 2009 at 3:47 am
Not that this is a fascinating list…but you’ve got to take Zeitgeist with a pinch of salt, some of it consists of true crackpot theories
April 14th, 2009 at 3:49 am
Religitards are afraid to think for themselves. There is no god. Get over it.
April 14th, 2009 at 3:52 am
Where are these “facts” about Horus, Krishna and others coming from? The bible is sourced, but I would like to know where this other info is derived. They all seems to come from Zeitgeist, which was a horribly cheesy “documentary” without any evidence or experts backing up any of the bold statements that are again repeated here. I have read much on Egyptian and Persian mythology, yet I don’t recall many of the statements about Horus and Zoroaster above being mentioned at all in the ancient literature.
April 14th, 2009 at 3:53 am
A very interesting list which confirms the fact that Christianity was just pieced together from aspects of existing religions and cults.
Don’t forget the Roman god Mithras, mainly worshipped by soldiers and men of the lower orders. He was born on December 25th, began his ministry at age 30, was worshipped through an eucharist, died and came back to life after three days.
April 14th, 2009 at 4:04 am
I was expecting to see the god Odin in Norse/germanic mythology who impaled himself on Yggdrasil (the world tree), giving himself to himself in a world of pain, to discover the runes for the good of humanity.
April 14th, 2009 at 4:05 am
In Old Testament times there was nothing unusual about being “a” messiah. Various people throughout the OT are called that, including a non-Jew, Cyrus the Persian. The word originally meant “chosen” or “anointed”. After the failure and/or death of all of them, expectation arose about the coming of “the” messiah, which Christians proclaim in Jesus of Nazareth.
April 14th, 2009 at 4:09 am
The fact that the 25th of December keeps cropping up is quite weird considering nowhere in the Bible is this date attested to be the birth date of Jesus.
Phil E. Drifter, why do you assume that those who have come to the conclusion that there is a God have not thought for themselves and are fearful retards?
Is it because you deem the idea to be foolish and because it is foolish it can’t be true, therefore those who believe it are also foolish?
I also agree with Pretzolio, where are the facts to back these claims and shouldn’t there be referenced sources? Not to say that it is the be-all and end-all of information, but a simple wikipedia search on the above individuals hardly seems to corrolate with what’s been said here, and the similarities that are there have been puffed up to make them sound more profound.
One cautionary measure I’d suggest is using christian terminology to substitute for events or acts that in essence aren’t the same. It’s a common ploy among Christ-Mythers.
April 14th, 2009 at 4:21 am
Do you not think that there may only be one supreme God and one son-of-God, but in different cultures are called different things and depicted different ways?
That’s what I like to think anyway
April 14th, 2009 at 4:22 am
This list also probably needs Tammuz (also Adonis – a later variant of Tammuz). He’s a near eastern fertility god with a death and resurrection mythos, often cited as a proto Christ figure.
April 14th, 2009 at 4:36 am
Gina: Or perhaps there is one God an one Son of God, and that knowledge of them both has existed since the dawn of time, as well as the hope that this God would come down and save humanity. Therefore, over time, as civilization developed, knowledge of the aforementioned became distorted resulting in a myriad of religions with similar themes and beliefs.
Would also makes sense that if this God eventually did come to earth, one way to reach out to all the peoples who had adopted these religions would be to do the very things they would be expecting an incarnated God to do.
Also the fact is that whilst there are similarites, religions tend to disagree on content and intent. They could all be wrong but only one of them can be right. One of Jesus’ claims was that He is the Way, the Truth and the Light, so in effect He claimed to void all other religions.
That’s not to say, however, that expression of belief in Him couldn’t be different according to different cultures. Kind of like if you took an indian fisherman and an inuit fisherman. They both have the same occupation and are both experts, but they do it differently in accordance with their culture and environment.
April 14th, 2009 at 4:56 am
My previous statement of these questionable “facts” about Horus, Krishna and others was not in defense of God or Religion, I am an Atheist; regardless of belief this article/list, like the Zeitgeist movie, simply contains much non-factual misinformation presented as fact and is very misleading. Do indeed as “Stizzy” says and look up these individuals on Wikipedia, you will find little in their bios that resembles those found on this list.
Also for a more intellectual arguement on the topic check out this Skeptic Magazine article about Zeitgeist (presumably where the author of this info derived their information from):
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/09-02-25.html#feature
April 14th, 2009 at 5:02 am
Wolvesofodin and Metalwrath: The problem with the Jesus/Odin comparisong is that Hávámál – the poem in which the story of Odin hanging in Yggdrasil was not written until around year 800. I know it is build on much older oral tradiotions, but perhaps the story have been influenced by Christanity…we will never know.
April 14th, 2009 at 5:06 am
What about Apollonius of Tyana? Apollonius was pretty similar to Jesus in that he healed people, was put to death for his religious beliefs, and came back to life. He was mentioned in The Bible episode of Penn & Teller’s BS. However, he probably didn’t really “predate” Jesus since he lived at around the same time.
April 14th, 2009 at 5:59 am
What about Socrates? He was a great teacher that went against the establishment and was killed for it. Just a thought.
April 14th, 2009 at 6:08 am
The list shows alot of those who by myth or legend were trying to be the messiah. It wasn’t until Jesus Christ came along sent by His Father who is God into the world so at last a Savior was amongst us. Jesus proclaimed the truth and the way to everlastuing life. His sacrifice for us and his ressurection proclaims his victory and our victory as well to salvation. Glory and Honor to Him.
April 14th, 2009 at 6:09 am
Interesting list, i have to agree with pretzolio on this one, how much of this was made up, and how much did you get out of those books you mention? I also wonder how much in those books you mention was made up. which parts did you get from which books? can you reference any scientific/historically proven book?
seems to me to be more propaganda
April 14th, 2009 at 6:12 am
I’d be interested to see where this information comes from. Not that that it is the end all of factual information, but I checked out Dionysus in Wikipedia and though it has a lot of information, it never mentions a December 25th birth, nor the the titles of “sin-bearer”, “king of kings”, etc. that are cited here.
In fact, when you read the citation in Wikipedia, Dionysus led a much different life than Jesus. The parallels are reduced tremednously.
April 14th, 2009 at 6:13 am
I guess some of y’all didn’t understand the into. I’m not claiming to be a scholar on this topic. Others make that claim and make claims about these figures. I already said I don’t have a stake in whether it’s true or not. Take this list for what it’s worth. If that’s nothing to you, don’t bother with it. I think it’s a fascinating topic and wrote a list of the examples often used on this subject.
April 14th, 2009 at 6:16 am
ah…you forgot about me…Thomas Edison…ya..I’ll smite you.
April 14th, 2009 at 6:17 am
Both Christianity and Judiasm evolved from Zoroasterism, which was the first mainly montheistic religion. Both picked and chose many of Zoroasterism’s teachings to incorporate into their beliefs. It makes sense that Jesus was one of those teachings.
April 14th, 2009 at 6:18 am
Suoehprom, I’m assuming that you are referring to #1 while complaining that the list’s author said that Jesus was beheaded. Maybe you should read that again, as it was clearly stated that the baptisER was beheaded, not Jesus the baptisee.
If you’re just going to jump on here to make a pompous complaint, you should probably brush up on your reading skills so that you don’t make a fool of yourself in the future. If you don’t like Listverse’s lists, then by all means, go away and take your smug arrogance with you.
April 14th, 2009 at 6:21 am
suoehprom
Boy,have you got it right.Most of this list is horseshit but that’s not the point of it. Make Siddhartha,who never existed, equal to Jesus Christ and “BINGO”–Jesus Christ never existed as well–This is nothing new.This ploy has been used by the Godless for years.Jesus Christ is my king and Savior. But I no longer try to convince others which is wrong in me but I know longer have the heart. Let everyone believe as they may and let the chips fall where they may.You would be surprised how many idiots on this board believe Oprah was raised on the 3rd day.
April 14th, 2009 at 6:24 am
This list is crap. Have fun burning in hell, blasphemers.
April 14th, 2009 at 6:25 am
Rushfan- Its a great list to read. Thanks mate for the contribution. These type of lists always bring out alot of insught and debate.
April 14th, 2009 at 6:37 am
I’m confused by all the people saying to use wikipedia as a source….it’s not generally a source of 100% factual information because it’s written by random people who can say whatever they want. Maybe I’ll go edit the jesus entry. I hate wikipedia.
April 14th, 2009 at 6:38 am
Wow. It is not the position of the religious to judge the beliefs or opinions of non-believers. To do so is arrogant. When will your blind faith give way to the intellectual light of reality? Religion has been around for thousands of years, in one form or another, and yet you so easily cast away that with which you do not agree as either mythology or blasphemy.
What it comes down to is that no one, believer or not, has the right to judge another for his or her belief. Why is it so incredibly difficult for you to accept others. Right or wrong, you have to share this planet with them. If he or she is wrong, that’s one less person with whom you have to spend eternity. At the same rate, if you blind and arrogant few are the ones who are right… what makes you think we want to spend eternity with you?
Get over yourselves. No one is perfect and none of this can be proven. That’s what makes religion faith-based. That’s what makes faith so important. Lay off each other’s differing opinions. As far as I’m concerned, it’s all mythology until the that day comes.
Such cruelty and judgments are what create so many problems and so much hatred. You want to try to live a good life that your god would appreciate? Maybe you should try to accept all people and love all people as brothers and sisters and get over your petty differences. We are only human and are inherently faulted, we will never know or understand divinity.
Have a blessed day.
April 14th, 2009 at 6:39 am
rushfan often produces good lists, and this one’s no exception, though I do think she takes a couple liberties here and there, and misses including a couple figures who should have been on the list. (Mithras being one).
But since ancient Greece is one of my specialties–and because the story of Odysseus is key to the book I myself am writing–I have to point out the errors in the entry on Odysseus, firstly, and then I’ll address Dionysius.
So, Odysseus first: In all my years studying ancient Greek both in college and on my own initiative, I have run across very few scholarly works claiming a parallel between Odysseus and Jesus. Both fit the cyclic and mythic mode of the hero, it’s true, and in that sense they bear a relationship to one another, but it’s a tenuous one at best. I don’t even recall Joseph Campbell making any statements about Odysseus being a “Christ-like” figure per se, though again, there is a certain degree of shared heroism between the two.
At any rate, where Dionysius is a very appropriate choice here, Odysseus is quite *in*appropriate. Odysseus is not divine or even semi-divine. His parents were both mortals and his lineage is mortal. He suffers, yes, but his suffering is of the “purging” variety, not the suffering which Christ endures as a means to an end (i.e., the atonement for mankind’s sins). Christ’s suffering is therefore epic and symbolic in nature, whereas Odysseus’, while to some degree symbolic of the movement from barbarism to civlized behavior (as a figure, Odysseus leaves the end of the Trojan War as symbol of violence and destruction–in short, barbarism–and must suffer his travails in order to come home, finally, restored to his status as a civilized being) is more of a thematic element of his personal story–Odysseus suffers not so much for a purpose as for simply *being* Odysseus–he has exhibited hubris before Poseidon and Poseidon makes him suffer for it. And the story of Odysseus’ journeys is the story of his suffering.
In addition, of course, Odysseus was NOT a carpenter—this mistake comes from, probably, the fact that Odysseus builds the bed for himself and his wife, and is spoken of as working to build his home in ways that we don’t expect of a king–but in fact this is merely indicative of the true nature of Bronze Age kings in Greece, who were less the kingly figures we think of when we imagine, say, medieval royalty, and more like warlords. Some, surely (such as Agamemnon) were more “kingly” than others, but many (such as Odysseus) were simply warriors who had carved out a small kingdom but were otherwise farmers, shepherds, fishermen and the like. At any rate, Odysseus is simply a handy man who, yes, can build things with his hands–but in fact if anything he is basically a farmer. As is his father, Laertes.
The final point made, regarding Odysseus bringing his followers out of darkness–this is reaching a bit. It’s true Odysseus must find his way out of the darkness of barbarism in order to return home as a civilized man again–but we must remember that Odysseus’ companions DO NOT MAKE IT HOME with him. They all die. In a sense their lives are part of the price he pays for his transformation back into the Odysseus of Ithaka. In short, then, Odysseus’ men do not benefit from his transformation or his final triumph, and this is most definitely not a parallel with the Disciples of Jesus. Moreover, Odysseus must return to one final bloodletting (actually two, if one counts the final battle on his father’s farm with the fathers of the slain suitors–though only one of these dies, if memory serves me) and then he has re-established his kingdom. For Jesus the bloodletting is personal–he meets his ultimate suffering in his scourging and crucifixion, and this cannot be said to reasonably parallel Odysseus’ fate.
There IS an interesting end note to this though. It’s said in later tradition that Odysseus will not die until he carries a staff (I think that’s what it was) to a spot on Ithaka, and there he’ll finally pass from the world. This DOES recall Jesus carrying his own cross through the streets of Jerusalem—but again, it’s more interesting as a point regarding Jesus than it is Odysseus–in other words, it’s more interesting the way Jesus repeatedly fulfills all the mythic requirements of the life of the hero, including the solitary march to a final death which is often the postscript to heroic sagas (but is never part of the ACTUAL saga–Odysseus’ death does not occur in The Odyssey and is not mentioned except in separate tradition).
April 14th, 2009 at 6:42 am
Smithstar15, it pains me that I, an atheist, have to explain to you, a Christian, some facts about your Bible, but apparently that is the case.
For starters, Siddhartha Gautama Buddha obviously DID exist. The fact that you would deny a clear fact just shows your obvious historical ignorance to favor Jesus’ existence. As I mentioned, I am an atheist and even MY opinion is that Jesus probably did exist, just not as Christians portray him. But through typical Christian arrogance, you dispute the indisputable. But I’m not surprised. I’ve never met a Christian who knew much about history, because the more history one learns, the more Christianity is clearly shown to be a fictitious amalgam of other, older religions, and a weak amalgam at that.
Also, by taking the Gospels literally “as Gospel”, you seem to be unaware of the fact that the writers of the Gospels almost certainly never met Jesus himself. Matthew the disciple did not actually write the Gospel of Matthew. It was written by an unknown author a couple hundred years after Jesus’ death and attributed TO Matthew and his point of view. Same with the other 3 Gospels. Everything written in the Bible, especially the New Testament is written by men who not only never met Jesus Christ, but whose great-grandfathers hadn’t even been born when Jesus had already joined the choir invisible. Bet they didn’t teach you THAT in Sunday school.
I also found it amusing that your post is pretty much the only one here thus far that contains profanity, even though you profess to be Christian. Also not a surprise, as Christians tend to be far more inwardly ugly and more hypocritical than the average nonbeliever. After all, was it not Matthew who said “And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?” If the meek do indeed inherit the earth, as Jesus taught, you clearly will not be included. Lots of pent-up anger there, pal, for a supposed Christian. But I’m not surprised. Hardly any “Christians” these days follow the Christian teachings as they were given. They just proclaim themselves Christians because they think it makes them better than everyone else. Sorry, dude, but it doesn’t. Hate to break it to you.
April 14th, 2009 at 6:43 am
BTW… a certain a-hole who shall go nameless has once again made an absurd assertion—namely, that the Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama) never existed.
The uninformed and ill-informed should never make statements that they wish to pass off as factual. IN FACT there is just as much evidence for the existence of Buddha (that is, Siddhartha) as there is for Jesus–in fact, there can be said to be MORE. I, of course, have repeatedly defended the factual REALITY of Jesus as an actual person who DID exist, on this site, against detractors who claim he did not. But equally there is certainly a good deal of evidence for the existence of the Buddha—at least as much as there is for any other figure of the time.
April 14th, 2009 at 6:48 am
Odin is definitely a glaring omission. Anyway, for those who think similarities between the few figures on this list who are actually dying/resurrecting gods and Christ do any damage to Christianity, you’ll want to see what C.S. Lewis says on that.
April 14th, 2009 at 6:49 am
Mithras?
April 14th, 2009 at 6:51 am
“Both Christianity and Judiasm evolved from Zoroasterism, which was the first mainly montheistic religion. Both picked and chose many of Zoroasterism’s teachings to incorporate into their beliefs. It makes sense that Jesus was one of those teachings.”
Doesn’t Judaism predate Zorosterism by at least several hundred years, if not more?
April 14th, 2009 at 6:53 am
Interesting list. I don’t believe a word of it, but it’s interesting.
And the picture for number 6, it looks more like he’s changing wine into water, rather than water into wine.
April 14th, 2009 at 6:57 am
Great list, rushfan! I actually liked this one because I believe all of them are myths. Including jesus. I just love mythology!
Gina, It would make sense that other cultures might adapt christ-like figures of their own. I guess the last one on the scene wins. Like a battle or something.
Love the pic for #6.
This could get very interesting today.
April 14th, 2009 at 6:57 am
Atropos77
Gee,thank you for clearing that up for me and showing me the light. Since I only went to the 4th grade and wasn’t required to read “Siddhartha” in philosophy 101,I’m just a dumb hick who’s never heard all this drivel before. And thank you for pointing out my shortcomings.
“They just proclaim themselves Christians because they think it makes them better than anyone else”. –You know,that may be the dumbest statement ever made in the history of man–I don’t think I’m better than anybody. I have more than my share of faults. And I may possibly be the meanest son-of-a-bitch on here but I will never deny my lord,Jesus Christ.I’m getting old now but I’ve fought,got drunk and chased whores with the best of them but I loved my lord thru it all.And I will never deny him.Never. I feel sorry for you. Well actually,I don’t.
April 14th, 2009 at 7:00 am
It’s a well known fact: Christianity is in fact bullshit.
April 14th, 2009 at 7:02 am
Stizzy:
Depends on how you precisely define “Judaism.” If you call the religion of the Hebrews going all the way back to Abraham “Judaism,” then yes, it predates Zoroaster by several thousand years. This is a tad stretchy, though.
If you define “Judaism” as the actual faith of the Hebrews that developed from the Law (i.e., of Moses) then it predates Zoroaster only by about a thousand years, at best.
Where it gets tricky is if one begins to recognize only the “modern” idea of Judaism, which is not just about religion but also about identity–that is, the identity of “being Jewish,” and in THAT sense Judaism is roughly contemporary with Zoroaster. And it MIGHT be said that Zoraster was influential on Judaic thought and theology–but I’m not an expert on that and can’t comment.
Frankly I think the text was incorrect. It’s pushing it quite a bit to say Judaism was predated by Zoroaster (though SOME do claim that Zoroasterism goes back some 5000 years or more). Let’s say that Judaism in a sense is far older—but Judaism in the modern sense isn’t THAT much older than Zoroaster.
April 14th, 2009 at 7:03 am
And there’s a certain A-hole on here who’s trying to present himself as knowledgeable on Siddhartha because he just looked up the name on Wikipedia after I correctly spelled the ficticious name for him.I’m glad he got it in before they came to take him for his shock treatments.
April 14th, 2009 at 7:05 am
I guess “turning the other cheek” doesn’t apply to some a-hole.
April 14th, 2009 at 7:08 am
“Also, by taking the Gospels literally “as Gospel”, you seem to be unaware of the fact that the writers of the Gospels almost certainly never met Jesus himself. Matthew the disciple did not actually write the Gospel of Matthew. It was written by an unknown author a couple hundred years after Jesus’ death and attributed TO Matthew and his point of view.”
Would like to see your source for this, as it’s generally agreed that Matthew wrote that gospel and that is wasn’t written several hundred years after the death of Jesus.
“Same with the other 3 Gospels. Everything written in the Bible, especially the New Testament is written by men who not only never met Jesus Christ, but whose great-grandfathers hadn’t even been born when Jesus had already joined the choir invisible. Bet they didn’t teach you THAT in Sunday school.”
The book of John was written by the John who was one of the twelve, and also most likely a relative of Jesus.
Mark wasn’t written by one of the apostles but is drawn from the testimony of Peter who was one of the Apostles.
Luke was contemporary of those who did know and meet Jesus even if he hadn’t himself. He makes this pretty clear in the opening to that gospel. He also wrote the book of Acts.
The epistles 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, James, Jude, and Revelation were written either by apostles or direct relatives of Jesus. James and Jude were two of Jesus’ half-brothers.
With the exception of Hebrews, the rest of the books were written by the Apostle Paul who didn’t know Jesus during His ministry but certainly did meet Him afterwards. After all, it was this event which marked his conversion. And again, he was a contemporary of those who did know Jesus and walked with him, such as Peter.
It’s also attested in the books of the NT that over 300 people who saw Jesus were still around when some of the books were written, hence their stories could be checked by those reading the gospels at the time.
Not to mention, Peter in one of his epistles refers to the letters of Paul as scripture, showing a great portion of the NT would have been written around that time and circulating the early church.
April 14th, 2009 at 7:08 am
Thanks Randall! I was hoping you’d jump right into this and get it going. When you’re not abusing my political views, you’re a real smartypants and I think you bring a lot to the table!
April 14th, 2009 at 7:11 am
smithstar, everytime you open your mouth here you show yourself up as more and more ignorant and worse, less and less willing to educate yourself. Age is no excuse for either ignorance OR an unwillingness to learn.
A) “Siddhartha” is a novel written by Herman Hesse. It is the STORY of the Buddha, in essence, but is not historical in particular. What we know about the Buddha does NOT come from “Siddhartha.”
B) However, you bring up only that text, and I have little doubt that it’s the only text you’ve ever heard of regarding the Buddha. What’s reprehensible about this is not your ignorance of the texts and facts surrounding the Buddha, but rather that you chose to shoot off your mouth ABOUT the Buddha as a figure when clearly YOU HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE about him, historically, whatsoever. Offering up opinions regarding topics about which you know ZILCH is pretty much the height of arrogant stupidity.
Lastly, you speak exactly like the sort of typical self-absorbed, self-satisfied and self-congratulatory Christian who has not a care or interest in understanding the world or the others in it–the sort of “Christian” which gives the religion such a terrible name.
I DO feel sorry for you, in fact. Wisdom has eluded you, despite the years you claim to have under your belt.
April 14th, 2009 at 7:11 am
Thanks for clearing that up Randall, I mean yeah it does kinda boil down to how you define Judaism. As a religion and culture, it took some time to develop. But if you look at it in terms of faith in and worship of the Deity who made Himself known as Yahweh than most definately it predates Zoroasterism.
April 14th, 2009 at 7:16 am
smithstar15: I also have to kinda agree with some other people on the way you speak here, as one professes Jesus as his Lord an Saviour, you sure don’t act like it.
Afterall, even the devil himself can say that Jesus is Lord and Saviour but that hardly makes him a follower of Jesus lol.
Sure you may not deny Jesus yourself, but you have to ask yourself that baring in mind how you’re carrying yourself here, would Jesus deny YOU?
April 14th, 2009 at 7:17 am
The other amusing thing, smithstar, is that you are utterly clearless about whom you’re addressing here. The other day you were making raving accusations that I and about a half dozen other “regulars” on this site were the same person.
I’m quite proud to state for the record that I don’t require Wikipedia and in fact rarely if ever visit the thing, because I consider it unreliable and uneven in the extreme. Furthermore, I have no need to defend my record or my credentials as I’m QUITE confident in both and I find pathetic attempts to bait me *about* them to be only laughable.
It clearly comes as a surprise to you, but there are ACTUAL scholars (with advanced degrees and everything!) on this site (I’m not the only one) who come here for fun, to educate, to blow off some steam, and banter with other interesting people.
Sadly you are not one of them.
April 14th, 2009 at 7:18 am
excuse me… “utterly CLUELESS.” I need my morning coffee.
April 14th, 2009 at 7:21 am
Stizzy:
I agree about Judaism–unless someone wants to buy an extremely ancient origin for Zoroasterism, (which I frankly don’t) then Judaism is older by far.
It’s just hard to say WHAT Judaism actually is once we get past about, say, 1000 BC or so. Particularly if we go back to the time BEFORE Moses. The further back you go, in a sense there comes to be more than ONE “Judaism,” and the further forward you come, the more it becomes tied to a particular sense of identity about BEING Jewish.
But I’d never say Zoroaster predates it, and would doubt much inflence that Zoroaster had over it.
April 14th, 2009 at 7:22 am
To a certain a-hole– Since I’m unwise and you’re not, I offer a simple solution–You worship buddha and I’ll stupidly worship Jesus Christ and we’ll both be happy–How about that? See,even a dummy like me can come up with sensible solutions at times.
April 14th, 2009 at 7:23 am
rushfan:
You’re welcome.
I’m happy to abuse your political views as I am to congratulate you on all your great lists. 
And always happy to mouth off too—you know what a show-off I am. 
April 14th, 2009 at 7:23 am
The existence of Christ-like symbols before His actual birth does NOT discredit Christianity by ANY means. In fact, the existence of such symbols show that all people have hope for a Savior, a Christ, a pure and perfect leader. Indeed, the existence of such symbols further prove that the coming of Christ was prophesied before his birth and that his mission – atoning for the sins of all humanity and redeeming man from the dead – was heralded long before his coming.
I know that Christ lives and that he atoned for my sins personally. I know that He rose again, breaking the bonds of death. The symbols presented above further confirm my sentiments.
April 14th, 2009 at 7:25 am
tobbyboy–Thank You
April 14th, 2009 at 7:26 am
smithstar:
Again, your ignorance knows no bounds.
Buddhists do NOT “worship” the Buddha. Doing so would, in fact, be a violation of the essential precepts of the philosophy of Buddhism. Again, stop trying to comment on things about which you have NO knowledge.
As for your solution–fine with me–I could care less who or what you worship. But one hopes you WOULD sincerely recognize that you ARE, in fact, “unwise.” I don’t CLAIM wisdom, myself. What YOU claim is unclear, but I would suggest that recognizing one’s own LACK of wisdom is the first step on the road TO wisdom.
April 14th, 2009 at 7:31 am
O-Wise-Randall–If you’ve ever seen the inside of a university it’s because you were there to clean the urinals.Oh wait–I forgot–You have a degree from Wikepidia college–Sorry–
April 14th, 2009 at 7:35 am
smithstar15: Your hostility serves to only lessen your already diminished credibility and you are a misrepresentation of Christian beliefs.
I don’t know if Jesus ever taught to ostrasize those who do not follow him. I didn’t think he did…
April 14th, 2009 at 7:37 am
Check out Joseph Campbell. You can start with his Power of Myth, but a lot of his lectures are available free online. He gives a very good presentation not only about these figures, and their similarities, but why they are there and why they affect us, and what that means.
fyi,
Russ
April 14th, 2009 at 7:37 am
Judaism was most likely influenced more by your early Mesopotamian religions such as the Babylonians than Zoroastrianism. The Hebrew Bible bears a striking similarity to the Enuma Elish, because the The Author(s) most likely were influenced by the religion and were constantly trying to refute it by saying that their god was more powerful.
as someone mentioned earlier December 25 is never stated as the date of Jesus’ birth in the bible. This was later attributed to Jesus’ story and in turn was a tactic used by early Christians to try and win over pagans by making the Christ Deity into an analog to their own. (thus keeping their festivals etc.) Similarities are often less about stealing religious ideas and more about marketing.
April 14th, 2009 at 7:42 am
Randall–You may be the most boring person that ever lived. If I’m so dumb why do you make any replies to my remarks?–If I was as wise as you I would overlook a dummy like me and consider the source.But I’m sure you once fell asleep by a babbling brook and the brook revealed all wisdom of the sges to you so I guess you’re just trying to lead an idiot like me to the light–Hey,thanks buddy–
April 14th, 2009 at 7:43 am
It would be a saving grace, smithstar, if you were at least funny. Sadly for you even this isn’t so.
April 14th, 2009 at 7:43 am
Where is Anakin Skywalker???? LOL
April 14th, 2009 at 7:47 am
It’s pretty clear that Jesus was an invention just like most of the others on the list. This is Paul’s doing, there are no contemporary accounts of Jesus whatsoever. I could go on and on. One more thing: I wish to thank smithstar15 for showing me how to be a true paragon of Christian virtue.
April 14th, 2009 at 7:47 am
What made Jesus different is that he claimed not merely to HAVE the true interpretation of the Bible, but to BE it. Everything in what we call the Old Testament somehow pointed to him,
Some important points are involved here:
1. Jesus came to fulfil the Old Testament prophecies made to the people of Israel. It is therefore necessary for the Christian to understand what those prophecies were and why they were made, if we are to have any real understanding of what Jesus did.
2. The message of redemption cannot be separated from the doctrine of creation. The New Testament teaches us that all things were made in and through Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God. We are therefore not being saved FROM the created order, as if that were somehow ungodly, but FOR it – the Apostle Paul tells us in Romans 8 that the whole creation is groaning, waiting for the revelation of the sons of God. The climax of the present age will not be a disembodied spiritual existence in some kind of airy-fairy heaven. On the contrary, there will be a new heaven and a new earth, and we (who are a new creation in Christ) will then take up our rightful place in it. A gospel which does not affect the material order is no gospel at all, and Evangelical Christians have historically been in the forefront of those who insist that God changes things – not just in the sky when we die, but here and now, on this earth. In a world which wants instant gratification, this is an important perspective to bear in mind – and it comes mainly from the Old, not from the New Testament.
Jesus was able to claim and fulfil different titles given him because unlike Abraham’s other descendants, he was more than just a human being. Born of a virgin mother, his father was God himself, making him both God and man. Jesus’ life and work were qualitatively superior to those of his predecessors because Jesus himself was qualitatively superior to them, just as he is qualitatively superior to us. In him, the covenant and its different dispensations find their true fulfilment, making us who are united to him participants in his rule over both creation and redemption.
April 14th, 2009 at 8:02 am
Hey,I owe everyone an apology–I just went to my trusty O.E.D. and it seems that buddha did exist–And so did Paul Bunyan and Pecos Bill–Who woulda thunk it!
April 14th, 2009 at 8:07 am
And where is Bono…
April 14th, 2009 at 8:15 am
I can tell this might stir up some controversies…and more comments. I won’t add my two cents unless I somehow get offended (hard thing to do). lol
April 14th, 2009 at 8:19 am
87. shaymm – Hello mate! Please do express yourself if you want. We’re all open-minded here.We’re expected to be.
April 14th, 2009 at 8:24 am
24. suoehprom:
“Subsequent fate of the baptiser: Beheaded.”
This sentence is referring to the baptiser, not Jesus.
April 14th, 2009 at 8:29 am
Just thought it would be handy to clear up some stuff before we see people at each other’s throats again. Jesus DID exist. There’s no doubt about it. St. Peter brought Christianity to Rome, and Christianity was widespread among slaves by AD 70. This would have been impossible had Jesus not been real; the disciples would have NEVER developed a large enough base of followers if they ran around preaching about a great man who only THEY had seen. Thousands must have seen Jesus himself if Christianity was to have gotten off the ground.
And Buddha did exist. He was the Crown Prince of a Kingdom, his name appears as a Royalin various annals as well. He is listed as heir until his brother took the throne (Buddha choosing to seek enligtenment). And also Buddha never plucked anyone’s eye out as the list claims. Somadeva was a storyteller (not a book) who lived in the 10th century AD who wrote a “backstory” to his religion. I know this sounds strange as he was a beliver in Buddha, but in Asia, its not out of place to see their religion being used as a base for purely fictional stories for entertainment. I’ve read a translation of a 15th century Chinese novel where Heaven is somehow besieged by hell.
April 14th, 2009 at 8:32 am
Odysseus was not virgin-born, was not a messiah, was not a carpenter, did not preach and was not resurrected.
He was a king, a warrior, a farmer, very clever, and unfaithful only because a goddess seduced him. Yes he built a boat and a bed, but these would be relatively common abilities for his time-period.
Scholars that see this as a comparison for JC are truly stretching.
April 14th, 2009 at 8:32 am
I will now be worshipping the drunk, peeing, fat little baby Savior.
April 14th, 2009 at 8:45 am
Hey what about Huitzilopitchli? How easily we forget this great god–And I know for certain he exists because I saw a polaroid snapshot of him in the Blue Fox bar in Tijuana in 1963.And the tequila had nothing to do with it.
April 14th, 2009 at 8:47 am
Hey, #74. tobbytoy… When it comes to linguistic gymnastics, you are truly Nadia Comaneci and Kerry Strug rolled into one. Allow me to be the first to give you a perfect 10. That was one of the most brilliant rationlizations I’ve ever read for belief in Jesus. If YOU can take the stories of Horus and Zarathustra as reasons for believing in Jesus, then can’t I do the same thing in reverse? I’ll take the stories of Jesus as reason for believeing in H & Z. Works both ways.
April 14th, 2009 at 8:49 am
88–I appreciate it, I’m finding that not a lot of these people are open minded.
First, I will say that I respect a person’s desire to learn about religion, which ever way you interpret is your own dealing. For me, I have found the bible to be a great gospel, but fail to see it as God’s Word–I try and try, but it’s just not there for me. For me, I like to think that the Bible (Christian)is a mere variable, and that believing in (a)God is the main goal. There are over time, like this list has pointed out, many gospels of truth and to think that either one is correct or wrong goes against our own given by God ability of choice and reasoning. Also, and I think the Dalia Lama said, people are conscious of their religion because of their culture and vice versa. He even told two Germans that they shouldn’t convert because it would put them in an awkward position. I’m not sure exactly what it was that he said, but I remember it being told to me by a well respected man–a person that knows a great deal more than I do. People shouldn’t worship something that makes no sense to them–what sense is there in that?? I think if there is a desire for an understanding for a higher power than the battle is half over…
Notice I put “I think” a lot. Just with everything else, there is no definite answer.
April 14th, 2009 at 8:52 am
I didn’t know Bill Maher actually existed until now because I thought it was impossible for anybody to be that butt-ugly–I thought it was somebody wearing a horror mask to scare kids.But I guess he does actually exist–Hey,he may be a god too.
April 14th, 2009 at 8:54 am
smithstar15: “Hey,I owe everyone an apology–I just went to my trusty O.E.D. and it seems that buddha did exist–And so did Paul Bunyan and Pecos Bill–Who woulda thunk it!”
I feel the same about jesus…wow…who woulda thunk it!
You are proving with each word you write, why I can’t stand christianity or other such hocus pocus. You don’t accept that there are other views nor do you follow your lord’s laws. You are quick to judge but are afraid to turn that insight towards yourself. You’re failing at being a christian…did you know that?
At least Cybogen, who I have talked with on another list, sees that others have their own views and is very understanding. He’s a good soul.
April 14th, 2009 at 8:55 am
88–I like what you have to say. Oh, and I enjoyed everyone’s interpretations (just about everyone…lol). Great and very interesting.
April 14th, 2009 at 8:55 am
no Ra?
April 14th, 2009 at 8:58 am
Mithra?
April 14th, 2009 at 8:59 am
97. oouchan – Warm regards to you for your words of kindness. I hope life is as good to you as you are to others!
April 14th, 2009 at 9:02 am
oouchan–Thanks for judging me–Now the Lord won’t have to since you’ve taken his place. But I believe he’ll be surprised when you tell him I’ve failed as a Christian.Is there anyway I can talk you into keeping this quiet?
April 14th, 2009 at 9:02 am
Oh my. Are you suggesting that Christianity borrowed ideas from other faiths. I’m speechless. Next you’ll tell me Easter traditions are based on an old Pagan festival called Beltaine.
April 14th, 2009 at 9:05 am
101. Cybogen: No problem! You are one of the nice ones to talk to.
102. smithstar15: I can judge because I don’t believe in any of this stuff….but if when I die I am wrong (ha!) and I go to hell…I will see you there. Good luck!
103. jake ryder: Love it!
April 14th, 2009 at 9:08 am
#100, the similarities between Mithras and Christ come down to the fact that they were competing religions in roughly the same time and area, so there was an exchange of followers between the two. Different people have different tastes so once a follower of mithras find out about christ, and christ happens to be a better fit, he converts, and thus theres an exchange of ideas there. Eventually converts may become an elder in the church and spreads his own dogma integrating ideas of the Mithraic Mysteries into Christianity.
April 14th, 2009 at 9:09 am
@Smithstar15: As a Christian I am offended that you would so malign the name of Christ. Remember that Christ taught us to love others just as much as ourselves. That means loving those you disagree with.
I sum up my beliefs in one saying,
Love God, Love People, Nothing Else Matters.
As a Christian I am sick of what Christianity has become. I am sorry to all of those on this site who have ever been hurt or slandered by a Christian. I am glad that some of you know that what these Christians act out is not what Jesus taught and I am saddened that you know more about Jesus and the Bible then these so called Christians, I constantly feel misrepresented. It pains me to see the name of Christ being misrepresented so much. I hope that you can see past all of the hypocrisy and self righteousness in Christianity today and know that there are still Christians who try to follow what Christ taught. To love others no matter what.
I heard a quote from author Shane Claiborne, (who is doing wonders for turning Christianity back to Christ, all those who have hated Christians or been hated by Christians should read his book The Irresistible Revolution)
any way the quote was:
America did not invent Christianity, it merely domesticated it.
Peace and Love to all!
April 14th, 2009 at 9:11 am
106. ABrutalKind: Another great one! Thank you for living true to your lord’s laws. There is hope yet.
Still doesn’t make me a believer, but at least there are those who stay true.
April 14th, 2009 at 9:17 am
Hey,what about Agloolik?—His mother,ooklook, gave him virgin birth in an igloo way,way before Jesus.Now he lives under the polar icecap and tangles up fishing nets for fun. But that won’t last much longer because Al Gore says the icecaps are melting and he should know because he’s a god too.He didn’t actually invent the internet-Al said,”let there be email” and it came about on the 3rd day.I think this list,as great as it is,has left out to many worthy gods.
April 14th, 2009 at 9:25 am
Very intelligent and informative introduction, but cited begins with a ‘c’ !
April 14th, 2009 at 9:25 am
Jesus and everyone of these man made gods never existed. The stories of the bible are an adaptation and personification of the zodiac, which is myth stories based on constellations and solstices. There will only be proper peace on earth when everyone comes to realise this, and at the rate things are going it looks like this wont happen for a very long time. When i see a religious person who thinks they know it all it really makes me want to box them in the mouth and I do be ashamed to be the same breed as these fools who haven’t got a clue
April 14th, 2009 at 9:27 am
@oochan
Thank you and guess what, I don’t have an ulterior motive of trying to convert you. I believe that everyone has the right to hold their own faith. And I shouldn’t force my faith on someone else; I don’t want them to do that to me.
April 14th, 2009 at 9:31 am
110. Willy Brown Balls – I was curious in all respect to your statement that “Jesus and everyone of these man made gods never existed. stories of the bible are an adaptation and personification of the zodiac, which is myth stories based on constellations and solstices”
Is this from a text you might have read or perhaps your own original belief? Just curious and asking mate. Thanks
April 14th, 2009 at 9:33 am
ABrutalKind: That is great to know. I wish there were more like you.
My family crammed christianity down my throat to the point I choked. I can’t do it anymore. For some of the regulars, they know that my child is now Baptist. She follows that and I follow the Shinto religion. We both have agreed not to convert each other and we keep it very high level. I support her and her decision as I support others in theirs. She also supports me!
So needless to say, thank you for being so accommodating!
April 14th, 2009 at 9:33 am
Oh, smithstar15, I don’t know whether to laugh at you or pity you. On one hand, I am tempted to pity you since your foolish clinging to an invisible cosmic ‘god’ will lead you by the leash to your last moments, when you ready yourself on your deathbed to be received into the Kingdom of Heaven only to ultimately find that your last use on Earth will be to feed the worms six feet under until your last physical vestiges are gone forever.
On the other hand, I am tempted to laugh at you due to even other Christians on this page having to lecture you on your most un-Christian-like behavior. Here you sit, insulting everyone who dares besmirch your angelic piousness and yet if Heaven somehow DOES exist, you will be denied entry for your arrogance and smug superiority. So either way, I have a feeling that the Pearly Gates will not be opening for you, no matter how much of an expert on the subject you THINK you are.
The irony.
April 14th, 2009 at 9:35 am
The thing is, if a christian were to see the resemblance and he would believe that there might be a possibility that jesus christ was just derived from one of these stories, that would be a ”moment of weakness” right?
There’s lots of things in all sorts of religion that keep you from even being allowed to doubt anything. It’s perfect.
April 14th, 2009 at 9:36 am
Remember children, don’t feed the trollz
April 14th, 2009 at 9:37 am
This whole topic is just plain silly. There is absolutly no proof of any of this nonsense. All the books were written well after the alleged incidents took place by people that were born hundreds, or even thousands of years later. I’m sure that most, if not all of these people were real and they had a lot of followers.
Anyone remember Mussolini, Mao, Hitler, Jim Jones? They all also had and still have devoted followers. What would people think of them a thousand years from now if we didn’t have accurate records of their exploits?
The only thing that I truly believe is that none of us really know what to believe.
April 14th, 2009 at 9:41 am
Isn’t is Hercules? Not Heracles? Maybe I’m thinking of a different one?
April 14th, 2009 at 9:42 am
ABrutalKind–You’re full of shit and you know it.I’ll just say this–I had rather be me than you on judgement day. I know my standing with the Lord. And I’m very comfortable with it.You tell me I offend you and others and then you turn around and offend me and make fun of my relationship with my lord.You can’t get anymore unChristian than that. And as for your buddy oouchan or whatever he’s calling himself at the moment,I’m glad he’s a nonbeliever–I know that’s not very Christian-like without you telling me and judging me again but the Lord knows what’s in my heart. I believe the end is near–It could be another 500 years-but near.Everyone on the planet has heard of Jesus’ teachings thanks to heroic Christian Missionaries who have braved jungles and wilderness to get his word out. I firmly believe it’s far too late to try to convert nonbelievers. I know I cut up a lot-Mostly just to agitate people like Randall(who I actually like whether he believes it or not and who I believe actually likes me) I think we actually consider each other worthy opponents-Of course I can’t speak for him but it’s the way I feel.And I’m sure we’ll be going at each other again.But after all my nonsense what I’ve said here about my love for the Lord Jesus Christ and my belief that the time grows nigh is genuinely how I feel.
April 14th, 2009 at 9:46 am
Reader: Are you suggesting that Jesus or other religious icons could be Hitlers or Mussolinis that have had their brutal acts washed out over the course of a couple thousand (if that) years? If so, wow. I’d like to see where that goes…
April 14th, 2009 at 9:47 am
this list is dumb.
April 14th, 2009 at 9:47 am
Positively brilliant! Thanks Rushfan
April 14th, 2009 at 9:49 am
You think you are a worthy adversary for Randall. That is the most lol-worthy thing I have read today.
You know your standing with the lord? Really? Has he told you?
Do you know what I think is funny? If you speak to God, you are pious and religious, if god talks to you, you’re insane
With all the religions on earth, each saying if you don’t believe in their religion you go to hell, the chances of you being right are slim. As far as I’m concerned, everyone is going to hell, if such a place exists.
Judging on your previous actions and your actions on this list (turn the other cheek was a teaching of jesus remember) you are one of the worst christians I have met.
April 14th, 2009 at 9:50 am
119. smithstar15- “And as for your buddy oouchan or whatever he’s calling himself at the moment,I’m glad he’s a nonbeliever”– Hey mate its cool, calm down. First off Oouchan is a lady, i am sure cuz I know her and I know that can be rough to feel the way you do but this is a public forum. We4 all defend our beliefs. It cool to be defensive but we are all just debating. Its not judgement day yet and I know that I believe in my Lord too but we should just spread peace to make it easier to get through this life. We all know it to be hard as it is anyhow!
April 14th, 2009 at 9:51 am
49. callie_ – “I’m confused by all the people saying to use wikipedia as a source….it’s not generally a source of 100% factual information because it’s written by random people who can say whatever they want. Maybe I’ll go edit the jesus entry. I hate wikipedia.”
THANK YOU CALLIE! That’s exactly what I was thinking while reading through the comments. Wiki is a community-based, open encyclopedia, meaning anyone can write or revise articles regardless of it is factual, so never take anything there as complete truth. Does no one remember what happened to the comedian Sinbad? A few years ago, someone went to his wiki entry and edited it to say he had died. It made such a mess that Sinbad had to make a press statement just to say “nope…still here….”
Great list, Rushfan. I know a lot of jerks are spending precious comment space complaining, but I personally think it’s an interesting topic and a great conversation starter.
April 14th, 2009 at 9:54 am
Hey, I’m a new commenter and someone who just loves to throw out their opinion.
ABrutalKind: Thanks for that. Unfortunately, your kind of Christianity is underrepresented, but it is nice to see it sprout up every once in a while. While I personally am an atheist and no longer feel the need for a the presence of some sort of higher power, I respect the fact that other people do. The sad fact is, that in today’s world (or maybe in general; I don’t know), it is hard to be a positive atheist. Most atheists I know have a fairly negative and nihilist view on life. So, I do believe that religion CAN ultimately be a good thing. Which brings me to my next point:
Smithstar: I really just want to ask “Seriously?!”, but unfortunately I know enough people who are just as narrow-minded as you are to believe that you really do mean what you say. I’m not going to go into the “If you are a good Christian, how can you say such things?” line, because it has been done to death and most malicious Christians ignore that line anyway. The only ones who ever take notice of that argument are the ones who do not really need to. So, have your Jesus and judge away- humans all judge each other anyway; we just get touchy about it when it comes to our cosmic views. I really don’t care how narrow-minded you are, because there is nothing I can say or do to change that, and frankly, it is your loss, just as you think me not being Christian is my loss.
However, what I object to is you denying the outright FACT of the historical existence of Buddha despite all of the evidence that exists. It is one thing to believe in your religion and believe that everyone else is going to hell and what-not (since I don’t believe in hell, I don’t care), but it is another to deny a historical fact out of spite. You seem to be willfully denying the existence of Buddha just because it suits your argument. And, that is what bothers me about your comments. There isn’t even any good motivation to deny his existence: the existence of Buddha does not preclude the existence of Jesus. I just don’t understand how anyone could just flat-out willfully ignore what is objectively true because it does not fit with their particular cosmology.
April 14th, 2009 at 9:55 am
smithstar15: Let’s all applaud you in being a neighsayer and predicting the end of the world. “I’ll just say this–I had rather be me than you on judgement day.” Yeah…same with me. I would love to be there to see what happens, but I don’t really care.
Oh …and to set the record straight…I’m female and not Randall. Although I am happy that you think I am. I would love to have just half of his intelligence, so you saying that, doesn’t bother me at all. On the other hand, I would still choose to be a female (sorry Randall!).
April 14th, 2009 at 9:56 am
Sorry to see the comments section marred by retards, but, hey, we all know they show up again and again for the abuse. Troll = masochist?
Hercules and Heracles are pretty much the same guy, one is Greek, one is Roman. But since those dasterdly Romans stole everything from the Greeks, it boils down to being the same guy.
It’s too bad those of you of the Christian persuation can’t take this opportunity to come up with your own arguments, civily discourse, and strengthen your faith. This is a challenge, not an attack! see: Stizzy. He/she is doing pretty well on this list.
April 14th, 2009 at 10:00 am
you know something very weird? i cant stand people who will single out a person and mock their beliefs rather then take on the crowd and mock the beliefs of the crowd. them people are bullies. if that makes sense. but smithstar has taken a whole bunch of people, in his head has made them into one person and is now singling them out. that would make him a bully, he thinks he is picking on just one person. i’m not sure where his head is!
April 14th, 2009 at 10:02 am
@Smithstar15
I never meant to offend you. I was just letting you know how I felt about your statements as a “fellow” Christian. In no way did I mean to hurt your feelings or offend you I don’t even believe that I did. I just called you out on not following what your beliefs tell to do. I would want you to do the same for me if I espoused a teaching that I did not follow.
April 14th, 2009 at 10:03 am
124. gabi319 ” “I’m confused by all the people saying to use wikipedia as a source….it’s not generally a source of 100% factual information because it’s written by random people who can say whatever they want. ”
That is an exact description of the bible!!!!! (and every other religious text)
April 14th, 2009 at 10:04 am
By the way, good and interesting list. The literary/mythological examples like Odysseus are fascinating. I think it is possible to find parallels between Jesus and most (primarily) literary figures, in particular. Not all, just most. It really adds a whole new layer to the character, even if it is not what the author meant. It at least makes you look at the story in a different way for a little bit. The connection between Jesus and Odysseus is tenuous, but the parallels can be identified and studied just as an intellectual exercise.
April 14th, 2009 at 10:07 am
@Cedestra
It is not that I don’t want to debate, it is just that I find the argument, sorry debate, over the existence of god to be futile and pointless only leading to hatred and anger. There will never be any proof one way or another and so I would rather just hold my faith in my heart and respect others beliefs and faith. If you want to know why I believe what I believe you can just ask. I am more then willing to share my beliefs, but only if you want to hear them. I don’t like to force them on others.
April 14th, 2009 at 10:08 am
128. 6twistedbiscuits: “I’m not sure where his head is!” What a loaded question, dear.
(it seems, I am in a feisty mood today)
April 14th, 2009 at 10:08 am
Interesting list… I didn’t read through every comment so I don’t know if this has been said before.
First, all these similarities across the world, at different times suggest that there is possibly some truth in them. Maybe different religions are telling the same stories different ways.
On the other hand, perhaps, all religions come from a single ancient religion and have just been changed over time as they have developed in different parts of the world.
Just on a sidenote, Christian holidays (such as Dec. 25) were often chosen to coincide with Pagan holidays so that the people would accept them and they would replace the old ways. In fact Christianity borrows a lot from Pagan themes\motifs in order to make it more palatable by the people of the times.
Well those are a few of my thoughts… Personally I believe in God, but not religion. Religion is a man-made concept conceived in order to understand God.
April 14th, 2009 at 10:08 am
Oouchan – Heya. Just wanted to let you know I knew you were a lady as well as I pointed out to smithstar15 on my comment 123. Glad to back you up anytime senorita~
April 14th, 2009 at 10:09 am
Okay, I take back what I said before : “I think it is possible to find parallels between Jesus and most (primarily) literary figures, in particular”.
I’m researching a paper on Macbeth at the moment and just realized that what I said is not really true of any of the protagonists in that play… can’t really make a Christ figure out of Macbeth or Lady Macbeth. Not at all. So, I’m amending what I said: It is possible to find religious parallels between religious figures and most literary figures. You never know, I might take that back too.
April 14th, 2009 at 10:11 am
These christian people are the scariest… has anyone seen Jesus Camp? They freak me out. They’re not any better than Muslim fundamentalists/extremists; actually, they’re nearly the same. Seriously, they’re a cult. Actually, most religions are cults but they’ve just gotten a big enough following that people accept them as religion.
April 14th, 2009 at 10:13 am
oouchan – i can guess where his head is lol. i wasnt sure at first if this guy was joking or not.
April 14th, 2009 at 10:13 am
Cybogen: Thank you, sweetie!
April 14th, 2009 at 10:20 am
84. Cybogen – “1. Jesus came to fulfil the Old Testament prophecies made to the people of Israel.”
Someone brought this up in another list and I have yet to get an answer. What prophecies? Please give chapter and verse so I can do some reading/research.
106. ABrutalKind – “As a Christian I am sick of what Christianity has become. I am sorry to all of those on this site who have ever been hurt or slandered by a Christian.”
Thank you for restoring some of my faith of goodness in some Christians. A friend of mine (who is a pretty embittered agnostic) had quite the argument with two rather zealot Christian friends a week or two ago regarding Christianity and it was pretty rough to watch. I’m pretty sure he lost two friends because it’s hard to come back to good terms when one girl screams something along the lines of “When you burn in hell, I will look down and say ‘I told you so!’” Thank goodness there are still kind Christians out there like you, ABrutalKind.
125. msulli22 – “Hey, I’m a new commenter and someone who just loves to throw out their opinion.”
Welcome to the crazyhouse. I’m sure you’ll fit right in.
April 14th, 2009 at 10:20 am
I haven’t read all the responses on here but–
Is it not possible that the Bible is just not 100% accurate, and that Jesus may have existed, done great things and may or may have not been the son of God, and the story of his life has just been edited and corrupted over centuries of other influences–and leading him to share many similarities with other saviour figures? Chistianity, like every other religion that’s stood solid against the test of time, has evolved to suit the culture of the believers. Things get lost and picked up along the way.
Our image of the Devil is not the same as what people thought of in 800.
Science has proven today that disease is not caused by evil spirits or God hating you, it’s caused by tiny lifeforms, so pieces of the Bible (and other holy books) that try to explain why people get sick are invalid. That’s not to say “God was wrong,” or “God was lying to us,” but that maybe something has been lost in translation, or that the HUMANS who were writing the book simply could not understand the ideas at the time. They didn’t have the knowledge.
God used layman’s terms.
April 14th, 2009 at 10:23 am
Atropos77 (52):
“through typical Christian arrogance”
“Also not a surprise, as Christians tend to be far more inwardly ugly and more hypocritical than the average nonbeliever”
“They just proclaim themselves Christians because they think it makes them better than everyone else.”
Yes, obvisouly… Because calling Christians arrogant, inwardly ugly and hypocritical is such a redeeming quality in you! If you want to call someone out on their behavior and comments, be my guest but insulting people who happen to be Christians in your rant is actually pretty hypocritical of YOU.
*****
smithstar15:
I´m almost sorry to post the above as I cannot defend your comments on this thread.
April 14th, 2009 at 10:23 am
Rasha: I like that. “God used layman’s terms”. It is a nice way to put it.
April 14th, 2009 at 10:28 am
Of course the bible is not 100% accurate, just like it is nowhere near inerrant.
People don’t realise that the bible was compiled by the romans at the first council of nicaea, and any gospels that made jesus look mortal were left out.
For god sake, the Bible claims that rabbits chew the cud, that the pattern of goats’ coats can be changed by what their parents look at while copulating, that only dead seeds can germinate and that ostriches are careless parents.
The book is a fairy tale. A popular one with a decent message, but no more factually true than Harry Potter. This is not to say it (the NT at least) doesnt provide you with a good set of rules to live your life
April 14th, 2009 at 10:34 am
I think everyone is missing my point–I am in no way trying to change anyone’s belief–You can believe in Rumplestiltskin if that turns you on.Jesus Christ is not debatable to me.And I’m not going on here and list the reasons for my love of and belief in the Lord in an academic fashion.It’s much,much deeper than that as I’m sure any Christian will tell you. And those of you saying I’m not a Christian–Knock yourself out–oouhan seems to think I care whatever he or she believes and I just don’t. If anyone thinks I’m going to try to convert anyone to Christianity,stick your thumb up your butt and wait for it to happen.I imagine you’ll get highly constipated waiting for that.And I believe that’s exactly what has some on here like oouhan so upset–I’m supposed to be arguing with her about Jesus’ existence so she can come back with wise remarks like “well,where did God come from”? She doesn’t get it that I absolutely don’t care what she thinks of me or The Lord or anything else.She can worship anything she wants to or nothing if she wants to.
ABrutalKind: Thank you for your second post
April 14th, 2009 at 10:35 am
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com
Yeah…
April 14th, 2009 at 10:36 am
cym…do not pick on Harry Potter! I am a devoted fan.
jk
April 14th, 2009 at 10:36 am
118. Simons: Heracles is the Greek name. Hercules is the Roman, I think.
122. cymraegbachgen87: I believe Sikhism teaches that you can go to Heaven throughal religions, but it is easier if you follow theirs.
April 14th, 2009 at 10:37 am
GTT: My comments are my comments and I don’t need you or anyone else defending them–For some reason I just can’t seem to be able to get this point across–
April 14th, 2009 at 10:38 am
140. gabi319- Cybogen – “1. Jesus came to fulfil the Old Testament prophecies made to the people of Israel.”
Someone brought this up in another list and I have yet to get an answer. What prophecies? Please give chapter and verse so I can do some reading/research.
OK gabi319- Fair question mate! I hope this helps. If you want more support for what you asked please let me know my friend. I have more to offer you. Good Day. Read below.
Old Testament Isaiah 7:14
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.
Old Testament Micah 5:2
This passage is said to prophesize the birth of the Messiah in Bethlehem:
“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.”
April 14th, 2009 at 10:43 am
I thought Isaiah was mistranslated from Hebrew into Greek. The original Hebrew reads ‘maiden’ not ‘virgin’ I will try and hunt down a source for that but its hard to eat, research and play piano all at the same time
For all those HP fans…big secret – ITS NOT REAL
jk
April 14th, 2009 at 10:43 am
oouchan (97):
“…why I can’t stand christianity or other such hocus pocus”…
Dont take this specimin as a reference point on what it means to be a Christian… We´re not all wackos!
*****
smithstar15:
Please, please, for the sake of the reputation of Christians everywhere STOP. Just stop. Thank you.
*****
Now, I´m thiking I´m probably saying this in vain, but can we please have a civilized discussion on the topic? No more preachy “God is right, Jesus is the way to God and everyone else can go to hell” and no more “Religious freaks are all blind to reality and stupid”. We all have different opinions. Get over it.
Now, can we get back to the fascinating topic of THE LIST?
April 14th, 2009 at 10:48 am
cymraegbachgen87 (150):
HARRY POTTER NOT REAL? Shocking, truly shocking!
*****
smithstar15 (148):
In that case, why do you go around all the lists trying to piss people off?
April 14th, 2009 at 10:48 am
I knew of the #1.. and am I the only one thinking that Christianity is kind of a scam?
I don’t want to offend too much with these words, juste my humble opinion
April 14th, 2009 at 10:49 am
Any of you who have read my comments on the 10 saints list know that I am a Christian. As a Christian, I believe that the only thing we Christians are not allowed to judge about another human being is the fact or lack of their salvation. I could expound on that, but I believe I did that on that particular list.
That being said, I can not judge if Smithstar is a Christian or not. I certainly have to say that his actions point to the idea that he isn’t (at least not in the manner I choose to be a Christian), and that he’s merely taking on this persona in order to take an extreme position to elicit response from anyone who will bite. I believe this defines the word “troll”.
Randall, I don’t agree with everything you say. From my world view and religious standpoint, you’ve got quite a lot wrong. I personally don’t think that there are multiple ways to God, and that presenting such a case is a cop-out, a way to avoid making a decision that might offend friends, collegues (sp?) or family (keep in mind, I’m not trying to attack you, I’m working toward a point
). But you know what? That’s alright by me. You are certainly as entitled to your opinions and your religious beliefs as I am mine, even if I don’t agree with them (and I know you don’t agree with mine, judging by what I’ve read), I appreciate that you’ve taken the time to put them to paper for all of us to read. When it comes to actual, provable fact, you sir, are a veritable fountain of knowledge.
Randall, I know for a fact that there two points of irrefutable fact that we can agree on:
1.) Smithstar is a dick.
2.) You are far too intelligent to take the bait.
Please note that I only used Randall as an example, because I honestly view him as a knidred spirit. This doesn’t mean that I don’t enjoy any of the other “regulars” here that I have come to look forward to reading. All of you know better that to feed a troll!
Now, I know I shouldn’t have said this, as a Christian, I believe that God loved everyone in the world while we were all still his enemies, and that we are to love the sinner and hate the sin, turn the other cheek and what-not, but come on, there’s only so much troll baiting I can take. Remember, even Jesus had had enough when he got mad at the money changers in the temples, flipped over all their tables and ran them out.
April 14th, 2009 at 10:51 am
smithstar15: “oouhan seems to think I care whatever he or she believes and I just don’t.” When did I say I cared? If it didn’t bother you, you wouldn’t post. Also, I never said “well,where did God come from”. Are we having the same conversation here?
However, in your posts you attack everyone who says anything negative about jesus. I only said I don’t believe and I consider him and his powers a myth. I pointed out to you how nasty you are to people. If that is a christian attitude…no wonder others are embarrassed about you.
Turn the other cheek. Do not judge. Aren’t these values of the christian faith?
GTT: Cybogen and ABrutalKind, along with you are helping me see that not all christians are like that. Just most that I have evern encountered in my life are like him. It’s just so sad.
As for the list: I would have added Odin myself. Love the vikings…they were hot!
April 14th, 2009 at 10:51 am
cymraegbachgen87 I will try and hunt down a source for that but its hard to eat, research and play piano all at the same time- I know how you feel, try typing, eatting spaghetti and downing a pint o’ beer, while doing my job here at work. The boss may not know but if so, he can hold my beer while I type.
April 14th, 2009 at 10:53 am
Zeitgeist is a tight film.
April 14th, 2009 at 10:53 am
(119) And as for your buddy oouchan or whatever he’s calling himself at the moment
Oh lol…
April 14th, 2009 at 10:59 am
I’m surprised that no one has mentioned the fist Council of Nicaea…There’s loads of info on it. About how the different sects of Christianity got together to unify the religion, put together a “comprehensive” book while throwing out hundreds of texts deemed “heretical” or unusable for their purposes. Or how Jesus was voted into divinity, or oh! how about the first Christians who didn’t believe in heaven or hell but instead of transmigration of the soul?
Or about the fact that the organization of the Christian religions was founded on the idea of population control? The first christian cults were fighting with each other for superiority and there was massive civil unrest as the slave population converted and fell away from their master’s gods. Constantine himself hated most christians and this council was his way of getting them under control.
There’s a plethora of information out there. I prefer old fashioned books, but the ‘net will have to suffice for now. Except Wikipedia, which is crap.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/why/legitimization.html
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html
http://www.amazon.com/Christ-Conspiracy-Greatest-Story-Ever/dp/0932813747/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239731776&sr=1-6
http://www.amazon.com/History-First-Council-Nice-D/dp/1881316033/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239731872&sr=1-4
http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Side-Christian-History/dp/0964487349/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239731923&sr=1-9
And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
April 14th, 2009 at 10:59 am
cymraegbachgen87: Thanks a lot. I don’t know what to live for anymore, now that you’ve made it very clear that my letter from Hogwarts is never going to come. There goes my dream of curing cancer with a magic wand. Damn. I guess I’ll just have to study science now.
April 14th, 2009 at 11:00 am
#
157. Yondofan12 – April 14th, 2009 at 10:53 am
Zeitgeist is a tight film.
Why may I ask?? It’s main purpose is to refute a system of beliefs that will not be refuted, mainly because the followers refuse to let it. It’s full of uninformed answers and BS propaganda. If you want to fall for it, go ahead, but I think you’re more naive believing in that crap than in Christianity.
Oh and I figured it would be important to note that my only religion is evolution.
April 14th, 2009 at 11:11 am
Is it possible that we just need to “believe” that we are here …just because and we don’t need to know the how and why we got here… but just the matter as to ‘just be alive’ and be happy for the day we have. Carpe Diem “Sieze the Day”
April 14th, 2009 at 11:13 am
GTT–smithstar15:
Please, please, for the sake of the reputation of Christians everywhere STOP. Just stop. Thank you.
What an idiot–Can you read at all?–That’s the whole point–I haven’t preached to anybody-Actually I’ve went out of my way not to-I have not said once:”God is right-Jesus is the way”–I said Jesus is MY lord–Everyone else can believe whatever they want to believe–What part of that do you not understand? And I don’t care what you think of me as a specimen or as a Christian–Your or anyone else’s opinion of me and my Christianity means less than a dead goat to me.What is so hard about that to understand?
As far as judging me on my words and telling me I’m not a Christian,a passage comes to mind-”Judge not lest ye be judged”-I have judged no one–In every post I reiterate that everyone should believe whatever they want to believe.And this is what has evryone hacked off-Because I’m not belittling anyone’s beliefs.
Jesus also said.”If You Deny Me Before Men I will Deny You Before The Father”–And I fully believe that but certainly no one else has to–
So please stop GTT–You’re giving idiots everywhere a bad name–
April 14th, 2009 at 11:15 am
Christianity is to man what sand is to an ostrich.
April 14th, 2009 at 11:21 am
K… Let’s address Dionysus now.
“Dionysus was born of a virgin”
Only one version of the myth of Dionysus talks about a “virgin” birth by his mother, Semele. But this is really beside the point. As Zeus is divine and his love interests were often mortal (but not always) then ALL of his children by mortal mothers can be said to be “virgin” births–assuming those mothers were, at the time, actual virgins. That would, for instance, make Helen, Clytemnestra, and their brothers Castor and Poledeuces (Pollux) the products of “virgin birth” as well. (Heracles also).
“on December 25″
I cannot recall any tradition in Greek mythology or folk belief (that we know of) which states a specific birthdate of December 25 for Dionysus. This is spurious.
Remember–the date for CHRIST’S birth (as Dec. 25) is almost certainly not correct—it wasn’t arrived at until a much later date. In ancient tradition, little attention was paid to the BIRTH date of important personages–it was the date of their DEATH that mattered.
“and, as the Holy Child, was placed in a manger.”
This is reaching. Dionysus, like Hermes, was suckled by his mother, yes, in pastoral surroundings whose description varies—but I know of no tradition which places Dionysus PRECISELY in a “manger.”
“He was a traveling teacher who performed miracles. He “rode in a triumphal procession on an ass.” He was a sacred king killed and eaten in an eucharistic ritual for fecundity and purification. Dionysus rose from the dead on March 25. He was the God of the Vine, and turned water into wine.”
K… much of this is accurate, give or take some liberty.
The interesting thing about Dionysus (and Demeter–the other great pastoral deity of the Greeks–in tandem with her daughter Persephone) is that he is the latest addition to the Greek pantheon of Olympian gods, (his tradition seems to have been established sometime between the late Bronze Age and the Archaic period–roughly 1200-700 BC) but he and Demeter both hearken back to an EARLIER pastoral form of tradition—of a god dying and coming back to life, ala Horus and many other “agricultural gods” throughout mythology. The ancient Cretans, for instance, held many of these traditions, and they seem to have been prevalent in the Minoan period of the island–the Cretans later claimed that Zeus had not only been born on Crete–which was tradition–Zeus was supposed to have been secreted, after birth, in the Dictaeyean Cave, suckled by the goat Amalthea and a bee whose name escapes me now… YES, I AM just pulling his sh*t out of my head, I am NOT getting it from any source, let alone the hated Wikipedia—believe it or not I have loved this nonsense since I was a child and when you’ve passionately studied something for almost 40 years, it sticks with you… but anyway, the ancient Cretans also claimed that Zeus was BURIED on the island–and there’s a mountain in Crete (whose name also escapes me) which they held sacred–which looks a GREAT deal like a reclining figure… we must remember that at some point Zeus was taken to be the “personification” if you will of ALL the gods–in short, he becamse a sort of monotheistic figure in a pagan system–and the Cretans claimed that this was Zeus in repose. To THEM, with their VERY ancient pastoral traditions, a god who is born, dies, and rises again made total sense.
ANYWAY… Dionysus and Demeter fit very much into these very ancient pastoral traditions, even though they were “latter gods” in terms of the Olympian pantheon. And around each “mystery” religions were founded which to a GREAT extent mirror the mystery-tinged nature of early Christianity–also surrounding an essentially pastoral god who is born, dies, and rises again.
Indeed, mention is made here of Dionysus being “hung” on a tree–and interestingly, during the Bacchic celebrations (Bacchus is another name for Dionysus–incorrectly held to be Roman–actually the Greeks knew him by both names) the “effigy” of Dionysus was constructed of a wooden staff mounted by a representation of the head of the god. He was also symbolized by an artichoke stalk—which is vaguely reminiscent of a head, and of course, is also suggestive of the pastoral, agricultural connotations of the god.
If anyone’s really interested in this, I could go on at length–I’ve had to write papers on this crap, and I never tire of it–I find this stuff fascinating.
BUT… the truly interesting thing is NOT so much how these gods and goddesses and stories PREFIGURE Jesus… but rather how Jesus himself fulfills them, as a figure of reality.
Now… there are a lot of people on here who keep denying Jesus ever existed. This is patently absurd. For a literate ancient people to invent a human being out of whole cloth is quite simply ABSURD. It would not have gone done at ALL, let alone would it have been possible to found a religion around such a figure. Moreover there ARE contemporary accounts of Jesus–not during his actual life, but in such a short time AFTER he lived as to be unquestionable. Disinterested, even hostile parties AREN’T going to speak of a man like Jesus AS an actual person if he HADN’T in fact existed. It would have far more served many of their purposes to DENY his existence–yet none of them did so. MOREOVER, it is in fact NOT true that the Gospels were not written during Jesus’ lifetime. It IS true that the Gospels, as we have them today, were not constructed in their final form until a century or more after Jesus’ death–but it has been proven by intense forensic archeo-graphic study that the Gospels in their present form originated with TWO original texts which are now lost–which were written NO LATER than 40 years after Jesus’ death, if memory serves me. FURTHER examination has indicated that these almost certainly have origins in writings which were made as little as TWENTY years after he died, though the further back you go, the less certain any of this becomes.
But the key here is that these texts were NOT simply “made up” out of whole cloth a century after a “fictional” man was supposed to have lived. They have their origin in a period only a few decades–perhaps as little as two, after that man was supposed to have died—and again–no ancient people any more than any modern people were going to accept a “fictional” character as real under those circumstances. There would have been far too many people still alive who have balked and said, “wait a minute–this guy you’re talking about never existed!” But we have not ONE WORD from anyone from that period who denied his existence. His DIETY is one thing.. but his EXISTENCE is NEVER questioned, even for a moment.
FURTHERMORE, the gnostic Gospel of Thomas, only recently uncovered, has CONFIRMED EXACTLY the hypothesized nature of the early, now-lost texts of the other Gospels. Thomas has Jesus saying exactly the same things he says in the other Gospels, while there are interesting and subtle differences and omissions which suggest a changed nature of the overall “philosophy” of Jesus as a figure. Nevertheless, he IS there, and the gospel confirms the nature of the OTHER gospels.
And what I’m getting at then, is the interesting thing about Jesus—he most certainly was born, and most certainly did and said many of the things he was reported to have done and said. AND he most certainly was put to death by the Romans (recent findings have even established that Pontius Pilate was indeed the governor of Judea at this time). Now… here we have a guy who, in some ways is closer to us than the more ancient, paleolithic and Bronze Age deity figures who “prefigure” him—whose life MIRRORS these ancient figures.
*I* don’t know who or what Jesus was anymore than I know “what” the Buddha was, other than an actual man. (which he was as well). But those of you who blithely dismiss Jesus, pretending he didn’t exist, or just tossing away the stories about him… are missing a big and weird piece of the picture here.
There is a mystery to this guy that never ceases to interest me and even awe me. And it’s narrow-minded to ignore that or discard it. There is more to this existence of ours than the world we see around us, it seems. I don’t know what it is or how much of it we can actually sense–but I do know that there’s mysteries in a figure like Jesus that can’t be dismissed out of hand.
April 14th, 2009 at 11:23 am
Hey,That’s good FTW–
I have a saying too,”The only ones who believe in Christ are Christians and dead atheists” Of course I’m not asking anyone else to believe that.
April 14th, 2009 at 11:26 am
This list is absolute crap, why is it called the Christ Like list, to me this is the Horus like list. Where is jesus on the list he is missing. When Horus returns you bastards will all pay for your sins.
April 14th, 2009 at 11:30 am
Are dead jews or dead muslims considered dead atheists? They worship the same god. Otherwise I don’t think you understand what the word atheist means.
April 14th, 2009 at 11:30 am
Randall said: “There is a mystery to this guy that never ceases to interest me and even awe me. And it’s narrow-minded to ignore that or discard it. There is more to this existence of ours than the world we see around us, it seems. I don’t know what it is or how much of it we can actually sense–but I do know that there’s mysteries in a figure like Jesus that can’t be dismissed out of hand”.
Randall,this hurts to admit but I always knew down deep that you were above most in intelligence (God,I’m having chest pains-lol)And this last post of yours confirms it–You really are a noncomformist thinking man who marches to the beat of his own drummer much like another a-hole we all know they call smithstar–haha–
April 14th, 2009 at 11:33 am
Oh Wow, I could go for a beer right about now.
So anyway I say they list will hit 300 comments or better before the days up.
April 14th, 2009 at 11:36 am
HAHAHAHA you’re kidding me right? Zeitgeist is full of so many inaccuracies it’s hilarious. That’s what you get for watching a movie with a “Bush did 9/11″ part in it. Here are all the various pieces of information from PART 1 (the religious part – where this list is derived) DEBUNKED:
http://www.zeitgeistresponse.info/
April 14th, 2009 at 11:38 am
AwesomeMan
Actually Jews and Muslims don’t have to be dead for me to consider them atheists.Political correctness be damned when it comes to Christ. Of couse that’s strictly my opinion and certainly no one else has to feel that way.
Geez–It seems I have to put a disclaimer with every post to keep GTT from being upset
April 14th, 2009 at 11:39 am
MisterSir:
Thanks for what you said, and no doubt we are kindred. Just to address one thing:
“From my world view and religious standpoint, you’ve got quite a lot wrong. I personally don’t think that there are multiple ways to God, and that presenting such a case is a cop-out, a way to avoid making a decision that might offend friends, collegues (sp?) or family”
MisterSir, I don’t feel the way I feel or believe what I believe out of some desire to not offend friends or family (indeed, neither my friends nor my family would care) nor to avoid making a “decision.” I believe that making a DECISION about the mystical, profound and spiritual is ITSELF an absurdity–and this is where I believe Christianity has gone wrong ever since the faith was codified by a monolithic Church into a hierarchical, dogmatic system. YOU think today that you MUST follow a certain path laid out like a map to salvation–as do most Christians–but you fail to see that you have been LED to believe that by a system that was put in place LONG AFTER Christ died, as a bureacratic means of controlling the faithful and ensuring the power and the continuance of the Church. Now, in some ways this was necessary—we don’t know if Christianity would have survived had it not been so. But it doesn’t make it right.
Unfortunately, however, it became the WAY of things due to the power of the Church, which was self-fulfilling.
I choose not to belong to bureacratic system in order to codify my spirituality. YOU, or if not you, others–may believe that this condemns me. That if I do not accept Jesus as you or they believe I should, then I am lost. But *I* say that is yours or their READING of the nature of belief and spirituality, which comes FROM that early, bureacratizing of the faith… and that you or they are simply following a hierarchical system PLACED upon you some 1500 years ago by people long dead who wanted to build an EDIFICE out of the church for the purpose of ensuring its continuation. A laudable goal at the time. But not serving, in full measure, the spiritual needs of MODERN people. This is in part why Christianity is losing numbers and HAS been losing for over two centuries now.
April 14th, 2009 at 11:40 am
Randall (164)
I just read a book about the gnostic bibles. It was really interesting- painted Jesus as just a normal dude. It kind of reminded me of the quote book my best friend and I kept in college (only ours was for drunk quotes…) Anyway, any other recommendations on gnostic lit?
April 14th, 2009 at 11:43 am
minor spelling error: sited is spelt wrong in the introduction. it should have a c
April 14th, 2009 at 11:45 am
Randall:*I* don’t know who or what Jesus was anymore than I know “what” the Buddha was, other than an actual man. (which he was as well). But those of you who blithely dismiss Jesus, pretending he didn’t exist, or just tossing away the stories about him… are missing a big and weird piece of the picture here.
Wonderfully worded. And if my memories of freshman year Theology101 serve me correctly, the Gospel of Mark is generally considered one of the original sources for the the gospels of Matthew and Luke, or as close to an original source as we can determine. Biblical scholars also speculate that the other gospels (Matthew and Luke) drew on an as-yet hypothetical “Document Q”, the other original (or near enough original) source that the other gospels drew on. Essentially, the theory is: the gospels of Matthew and Luke were written from the Gospel of Mark and Document Q. It is speculated that the Gospel of John, which is quite different from the other three gospels, was written as some sort of spiritual interpretation of the other gospels, since it includes much more moral dictates and interpretation of Jesus’ words than the other gospels do. That is just what I recall from theology class.
April 14th, 2009 at 11:45 am
When we are born we are all atheists. You have to be indoctrinated in religious beliefs.
Some choose to rise above the indoctrination and see it for the hypocrisy that it is and do good for the sake of doing good and not out of fear of eternal damnation.
April 14th, 2009 at 11:46 am
callie:
YES. “Yeshua Buddha” is a great book which skirts the gnostic ideas about Jesus without actually BEING gnostics (let’s face it, the HARDCORE gnostics could be kinda nutty too).
http://www.amazon.com/Yeshua-Buddha-Quest-Books-Williams/dp/0835605159
I HIGHLY recommend this book, as it portrays the Buddhist/gnostic nature of Jesus without denying his divinity–so it has something for everyone.
April 14th, 2009 at 11:49 am
nah seriously the word atheist has a meaning that is real you should try looking it up. Muslims and Jews may be doing it wrong (or you are one of the two) but they do believe in god and as luck would have it they believe in the same god you do. By the way you can’t have an opinion on a fact no matter how politically correct you want to be. You ARE a complete MORON though which does entitle you the ability to do lots of things we mortals simply can not understand much less do ourselves. You are one hell of a troll but I’m pretty sure that just comes naturally cause I can’t imagine you having the intelligence to do it on purpose. Lucky for you I LOVE trolls.
April 14th, 2009 at 11:50 am
an interesting list. just wanted to point out though that “glycon” wouldn’t have been pre-christ if he was created around the “100s ad” cuz christ had already died around 30-33 ad. just throwin it out there
April 14th, 2009 at 11:52 am
msulli22:
Essentially correct, with the caveat that Mark itself, in the form we know it, is not the ORIGINAL form of Mark… and that “document or text Q” and Mark are older but still not the absolute ORIGINAL forms of the gospels.
If memory serves, Luke is the “Greek” interpretation of the gospel, and John the latest. And then John is presumed to be the same John, I believe, who writes Revelations–which has been BADLY misinterpreted as being about a FUTURE apocalyptic vision–when in fact it almost certainly was written in coded form to refer exclusively to Rome—John being supposed to be a Jewish scholar who was akin to the Zealots.
And so, here we are thousands of years later, mistaking the rabid anti-Roman noodlings of a Jewish Zealot for divine prophecy of the future of OUR world. How silly.
April 14th, 2009 at 11:54 am
What no man woman or child were indoctrinated with a religious influence at all? Inside the home outside the home in public, schools, classrooms, ect….and of course to be fair no chuch of any kind. I mean just no mention of a creator or a redeemer. What do you think it would be like? Would there be peace or war, more love or more hate? I wonder if they just let Jesus be and did noting to him and let him on his way wondering, but not recording his life or any of the ones coming before him or after him. What would we all be living for? Would we believe we just die and thats it? Would we belive in anything after death. It makes you wonder what kind of people we would all be if there was no religion. Just Curious Mates!
April 14th, 2009 at 11:56 am
FTW: Some choose to rise above the indoctrination and see it for the hypocrisy that it is and do good for the sake of doing good and not out of fear of eternal damnation”.
Hey,FTW–I’m happy for you pal,I really am. Way to go in rising above all that Christian foolishness.
By the way–Jesus said,”Your good works are as filthy rags before the Father”–But of course you and I know that’s just foolish pratter…right?
April 14th, 2009 at 11:57 am
just also wanted to point out to ftw, that we may be born “without religion” but one is also born without any sort of knowledge or ability to do pretty anything but cry and suck. the fact that we learn things largely through our culture, parents, etc. is true but it doesn’t make them wrong.
April 14th, 2009 at 11:58 am
I’m reading a book on the topic of religious (or at least spiritual) beliefs being biological. From what I’ve taken from this book so far I would have to say the the proposed situation above is not possible we REQUIRE god in some for to survive. I personally don’t think which form it is matters. I kind of enjoy the bickering about it.
btw if anyone cares book is Born to Believe by Andrew Newberg
April 14th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Hiya all! This was a very interesting list, but perhaps not as interesting as the debates that followed…lol Personally I believe there was a creator, however whether the creator was a god or an event I do not know, I was not there.
“And I think God is like broccoli. If you love broccoli, you should eat it. But don’t hate everyone at the table who doesn’t have it on their plate. Maybe they’re allergic. Maybe they tried it and didn’t like the taste. Maybe they found a worm in it. Don’t stand on your chair and shout about why broccoli is healthy for you, why it grows, why it’s better than corn, what it should be called. It ruins the meal for everyone, including you. There are as many different experiences with broccoli as there are people at the table. Just eat your broccoli and enjoy it. Or not”. Not sure who wrote that but loved its profoundness.
But I would like to leave you with this thought “to one with faith no explanation is necessary, to one without faith, no explanation is possible”.
April 14th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Randall: Funny how people are, isn’t it? The End of Days has been predicted at least once a decade since the Book of Revelations was written… maybe one time it all did end and now we’re living in hell? Well, there’s a Matrix-y mind warp for you (oh, yes, I did just make “Matrix” into an adjective).
Personally, I’m holding out for December 21, 2012 to see if it all really does end like everyone says it will. If not… well, I’ll have one hell of a hangover on December 22, 2012.
April 14th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
All these people that are asking for sources should go find those sources on their own if they are so interested. It is a list you just read, not an argument. These are facts (suposedly) from information that is available to anyone. Just because they don’t fit into your neat little fantasy religion box doesn’t mean that they are wrong (or true for that matter)
April 14th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Cybogen #181, interesting question. And would John Lennon even exist?
“Imagine there’s no heaven
It’s easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today…
Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace…”
April 14th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
BTW–JFrater–Can you sing “Aida” in b-flat the way Elton wrote it?–Just wondered.Great site you have here–Good posts today on rushfan’s list. You may have already had it before I came onto this site but I wish someone would do a list on the greatest heavyweight boxing champs.I know it’s a dying sport but it used to be the #1 draw in this country.And England has had some great fighters also. Sorry to get off the subject–I just wanted to make that comment–
April 14th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
If there is a god, may he strike me down!
I’ll come back tomorrow for the next list, by the way. People who discount other religions so easily are insecure about their own religion.
I like to ask: If there is a god, then why the hell do I not have super powers?
April 14th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
189. smithstar15 ~ “I wish someone would do a list on the greatest heavyweight boxing champs.”
I would encourage you to write one yourself. Writing lists is tons of fun, and if it’s something you’re interested in, why not write one?
April 14th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Rising Falls — I like to ask: If there is a god, then why the hell do I not have super powers?
Why would I give you my super powers?
April 14th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
I’d rather be clothed in the rags of my good works than wear the coat of many colors of religious intolerance.
April 14th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
Randall Said: “and this is where I believe Christianity has gone wrong ever since the faith was codified by a monolithic Church into a hierarchical, dogmatic system. YOU think today that you MUST follow a certain path laid out like a map to salvation–as do most Christians–but you fail to see that you have been LED to believe that by a system that was put in place LONG AFTER Christ died, as a bureacratic means of controlling the faithful and ensuring the power and the continuance of the Church. Now, in some ways this was necessary—we don’t know if Christianity would have survived had it not been so. But it doesn’t make it right.”
It doesn’t make it wrong either. Scripturally, there are statements that give an authoritative structure and power to the Church. Acts 20:17,28, – Paul refers to both the elders or priests (“presbyteroi”) and the bishops (“episkopoi”) of the Church. Both are ordained leaders within the hierarchical structure of the Church (Also see 1 Tim. 5:17; Titus 1:5; James 5:14). Also, Hebrews taught to “obey” Church authority:
Hebrews 13:17
“Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.”
The Church was also the final authority:
Matthew 18:17-18
“And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Now, of course anyone is free to disagree with these statements, but there is quite a bit of Scriptural evidence for an organized, authoritative Church.
April 14th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Wait…what about free will? If I am to obey and have someone rule over me, where did my free will go? Just asking.
April 14th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
I just want to say something about ALL of these top 10 “myth buster” post that I’ve been reading through.
So far I have not seen any links going to supporting facts about these ideas and I am speaking for every one of these top 10 list. To me they are nothing more than open minded, suggestive, premature deductions.
No offense to the writer, but word of advice to the reader. Don’t take these seriously.
April 14th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Steelman:
AGAIN, it is the VERY IDEA of slavishly following scripture word-for-word, clause by clause, that I am talking about. THAT notion hearkens back to this idea of a dogmatic system being forced ON the faithful by the bureacracy of the church.
We have–and I think anyone who is a modern and a believer in the essence of democracy would agree with this–grown out of the idea presented in Hebrews.
And the statement made in Matthew is questionable. As I pointed out earlier–original versions of Christ’s actual words, as hypothesized from textual study of the gospels and from the evidence we have from Thomas–do not support some of the statements of this nature.
YOU might say that we should not “cherry pick” what we want and don’t want from scripture–but I would answer that the ESSENCE of the message of Jesus is the only thing that matters–and that slavishly following scripture which isn’t even in its original form is no more valid a philosophy.
April 14th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
My belief is that religions are no different than cults. The only ‘rule’ we all need to live by is love for all of creation.
April 14th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
runtothewell:
How about being more specific, champ? Your statement makes close to zero sense, without any context or particular examples to indicate what it is you’re talking about.
April 14th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
let me quote C.S. Lewis from his book Mere Christianity:
I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun has risen; not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
Amen to that!
April 14th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
smithstar15: generally trained singers don’t sing transposed versions of songs – it is “not done” so to speak
If you can’t sing it as the composer wrote it – you don’t sing it at all.
April 14th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
JFrater: I gotcha–Do you have any videos on youtube or elsewhere?–I would love to hear you sing.
April 14th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
smithstar15: actually I don’t – but I might put something up at some point; I have plenty of recordings I could put there.
April 14th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Thanks rushfan–I may try it–You certainly hit a homerun with your list today–There will still be postings going up on this one for weeks to come–Well done and thought provoking–
April 14th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
jfrater: That would be great.
April 14th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Steelman
I see what your saying but I wonder how much the “Church” they are talking about in the scriptures relates to the Modern Churches of today. I don’t think things like indulgences would have been looked upon very kindly to those authors. Not trying to offend anyone but the role and structure of the “church” has changed considerably from the time that those works were written.
April 14th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Unlike smithstar15, I do believe that it is important what others think of me as a Christian. However, this is a list of 10 misrepresentations.
The author of this list, much like Bill Maher who is a very troubled man, has gingerly stepped around as well as on some of the facts and blatantly manufactured others.
Jesus Christ is real and from the signs of the times, He will return soon. God bless you all and may He have mercy on your soul.
April 14th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
thes0wer: I can’t speak for rushfan who wrote the list, but I definitely believe that Jesus Christ was a historically real person
April 14th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Great list, it really made me think, but some of the figures, especially Dionysis and Romulus were a stretch. Jesus is seen (by Christians) as a wise, merciful savior. Dionysis wouldn’t really qualify because he was the god of wine and partying, which hardly constitutes him as an admirable figure. Romulus eventually killed his brother Remus, commiting fratricide, something that is frowned upon in the Bible. Both of these cannot be labeled as a “Christlike figure” even if their origins have parallels to Jesus. Interestingly enough, it’s funny how people are arguing more about the religious aspect of it all. However, this article is very intriguing, and introduced many facts I was unaware of before.
April 14th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Wait…what about free will? If I am to obey and have someone rule over me, where did my free will go? Just asking.
Who says you have to have free will? Prove you do. You can’t prove you do anymore than I could prove you don’t. I will say that every interaction you have with anything is filtered through your brain which makes all decisions and it makes those decisions by taking genetic information and combining it with environmental experience. So I would say that even though logic only is valid if a person knows everything which I certainly do not but if I had to guess I’d say there is more to support that you do not have free will than that you do. I certainly like the idea of free will though so lets all just pretend we have it
…. btw as logical as it may seem I can’t live my life without believing I have free will no matter what I think.
April 14th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
i remember watching a photo of an atheist rally denoucing religion as a “hate creating machine” and in that same photo you can see a 2 year old with a FUCK JESUS shirt…. irony…gotta love it.
And randall my views are you views, i feel the same exact way, there is a mistety towards Jesus that is just fascinating, there’s something about him, he was not a king (or at least a material one) nor he was a great warrior, nor he was rich, but he shaped and form most of the world, than any king, president, queen, warrior, philosopher than any other historial figure, and like Randall said the thing about most of the figures here are methaphorical,the thing about Jesus is that…he did exist.
Best regards.
April 14th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
What really gets me about the whole legitimacy of christianity is how the bible has been edited countless times. For an example look no further than the books of the apocryphal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_apocrypha.
Books entirely omitted from the bible because the sources were not “credible”. Nobody who removed these books from the bible had ever met any of the people responsible for writing these books. My question is, how have they come to the conclusion that these authors lack credibility?
There’s really only one answer, folks. I was a Christian until I went to college and dove head first into researching the topic. It wasn’t long before my faith was shattered and I’ve never felt more happy or free. Truth is some of the world’s greatest men and women were not religious, it’s possible to be good without god.
I won’t ramble on much further, I just encourage everyone to sit and think deep about their faith. I respect people who can still believe and keep their faith. It’s just that in a world where we’re told to not believe anything you hear and only half of what you see, why do we put blind faith into what buried scrolls tell us?
April 14th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
jFrater: Well, it is kind of hard not to acknowledge He is a real person who lived, when almost daily there is something new from the Bible proven to be true. It is an accurate book.
But! The Bible says that even Satan believes in Jesus and trembles.
I enjoy List most of the time just as I enjoy my life most of the time. This one List, which deeply troubles me will not chase me away. How can one fight the ignorance of the world if they do not even know about it?
Somehow these words seem a bit smart-alecky but they are not meant to.
April 14th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
lol people are so funny. its really kind of ridiculous that everyone gets so mad at eachother. everybody brings so my assumptions and presuppositions to the table and no one really knows what eachother actually believe lol. i dont know if this is considered an advertisement but if u guys enjoy discussing this kind of thing you should checkout theallogy.blogspot.com (spelling is incorrect on purpose. its a blog open to ALL different beliefs atheist/christian/buddist w/e thats just trying to get people discussing and not fighting. so if ur interested u should check it out!
April 14th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
ThesOwer
Unlike smithstar15, I do believe that it is important what others think of me as a Christian. However, this is a list of 10 misrepresentations.
And that’s good–Nothing wrong with that–Christians are not ran off an assembly line–We’re all different just like any other group-You care and I couldn’t care less–I think that’s great–
April 14th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Marv in DC (210): interestingly, if you read the early church documents you will find they are very much in accord with the modern Church. For example, the Council of Elvira in 324 (before the Council of Nicaea) deals with marriage, baptism, idolatry, fasting, excommunication, vigils, frequentation of Mass, the relations of Christians with pagans, Jews, and heretics; and it even deals with the concept of Nuns and many other customs that still exist today. You can read the canons here.
Particularly interesting is the Council of Ancyra which occured in 314 AD – note this canon:
This is exactly the same rule as is used now: preference is celibacy but marriage is allowed BEFORE the person becomes a priest (deacon above refers to priest as we know it). If a person marries after becoming a priest he is excommunicated (as was obviously also the case in 314). Also remember, these councils didn’t “create” new rules – they were confirming the universal rules already in practice. In the case of these extremely early councils, we can safely assume that these were put in practice at the behest of the apostles. Oh – and there were about a dozen Bishops present at Ancyra – so it was quite a significant council which predates Nicaea.
April 14th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
AwesomeMan: Not sure what you were getting at there. If thoughts travel through the brain and then “spit” out a decision, it’s still mine and my free will because it’s my brain. At least I am fairly sure that it’s my brain.
April 14th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Not that I’m any great defender of Christianity or anything, but people have found ‘remarkable’ similarities between the JFK assassination and the Lincoln assassination. It doesn’t mean that they are connected or didn’t happen.
Faith in a supernatural deity isn’t something that’s based on facts. It just is. Both sides should acknowledge this before rolling up their sleeves and getting into a pitched battle…it’s pointless.
Bill Maher’s movie is something of a joke, IMO. Human nature is really the issue…not a specific set of beliefs. It’s simple-minded to conclude that eliminating supernatural belief systems will solve all of our problems. Communist governments are rather godless and they’ve been quite efficient in murdering millions of their own citizens.
April 14th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Well,this has been a great list with some great posts(including Randall’s-God there’s those chest pains again-lol)–But the posts are now becoming pretty much repetitive(including mine) and I have to finish some graphite sketches I have to take to the little local community college in the morning so I’ll say goodnight. We’ll see what Jfrater has for us tomorrow.
April 14th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Please do correct me if i’m wrong, but apart from #4 none of these came to fullfil ancient prophecies like Jesus does the prophecies of Isaiah and so forth, do they?
April 14th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
very well put black, blaming religion for human nature is like blaming burgers for me being fat.
April 14th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
not sure I would exactly put it as thought travel through brain and spits out decisions. What I am saying bluntly is that in all probability you are a machine (not like made of metal or anything) that can only respond to situations based on past experience and genetics therefore there is only one possible “choice” you can make to any situation.
April 14th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
jfrater- I stand corrected, I didn’t have the info that you presented and I agree with what you are saying. I think the idea that I was trying to push was the way(?) people viewed the church. When I look at the idea of the church today it seems very outmoded and out of touch with the world around it. This may simply be because of my particular beliefs (I’m Christian and believe in God, but I’ve never had a problem with my relationship between science and religon.) but it seems to me that the church is still operating in a world where they think that their word is unimpeachable. I think that worked for a long time especially when the church was one of the main sources for information. Nowadays the church has to deal with people who have almost unlimited access to knowledge that was previously contained and controlled by the church. This access has allowed people to question the church in ways that it seems the church is not used to. I guess I just have a healthy skepticism of organized religon and have seen how the church has used their position to perpetrate a lot of nasty things. I’m not saying that organized religon is bad in any way (in fact I think organized religon has done a lot of great things.) but I do believe that high up members of all churches have used their supposed “knowledge” about the bible and god to, not honor god or the religon, but instead used it for their own selfish reasons. (hence my mention of indulgences) Sorry to be confused about it, I really have not had a strong religous upbringing.
April 14th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
AwesomeMan: That makes sense. I like it! Welcome to the Machine.
April 14th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
awesome man,
that is indeed a possiblity. however, if we are indeed “machines,” only capable of making once choice based on past experiences leading to each moment etc., then theres no point in really arguing about free will at all. it would seem that you indeed we are only discussing free will because we are determined to, which, if that is the case, is simply what it is and theres no point in trying to convince anyone of anything. after all one is simply determined to believe what they believe. however, if one does indeed have free-will (which is the opinion i share) then there is purpose in just about everything one does.
April 14th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Randall:
“We have–and I think anyone who is a modern and a believer in the essence of democracy would agree with this–grown out of the idea presented in Hebrews.”
Aren’t you in essence just adding your own dogma here? You are free to accept the concepts presented by the Church or not, but now you are adding that one should be “modern” and a “believer in democracy” to see correctly. That seems like personal dogma.
“YOU might say that we should not “cherry pick” what we want and don’t want from scripture–but I would answer that the ESSENCE of the message of Jesus is the only thing that matters–and that slavishly following scripture which isn’t even in its original form is no more valid a philosophy.”
And what might be the “ESSENCE” of the message? My intent was to show that from a Scriptural perspective, Jesus, both himself and through the Apostles, set up a Church, that is visible via a hierarchy and has authority when it comes to faith and morals. That is a part of the “essence” of Jesus’ teaching. No picking and choosing. Given human nature, it does indeed make sense to have a continual teaching authority given our short attention spans. The human society is based on authoritative structures.
Now, if you are going to get into what books are valid, what verses are valid, etc., well then you start to back yourself into a highly debatable shitstorm.
April 14th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Zeitgeit is a bunch of crap and so is this list.
April 14th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
smithstar15
I was never into judging you. All I´m saying is that this is supposed to be a fun, intelligent blog and you just seem to be attacking everyone in sight. You are entitled to your opinion. Just tone it down so this can go back to being something we all enjoy.
(Oh, I´ve been reading through the rest of your comments and they seem much nicer…
)
*****
Randall (168):
Greek mythology has always been my sort of guilty pleasure too… Everyone I know just thinks I´m weird because of it!
*****
littleboots (189):
I hate brocoli but I loved your comment!
April 14th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
gtt,
nah man i love greek mythology as well! i used to read so much about it when i was younger
April 14th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
GTT: count me into that as well! I love mythology and ancient eygptian lore. Fun stuff!
April 14th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Marv in DC: I appreciate what you are saying but one must be careful about generalizations – for example, fundamentalist sects (such as the (mostly) American Bible Christian religions) do exclude science when it doesn’t agree with the Bible, but that is not true of other religions. The oldest Christian Churches (the Catholic and Orthodox Churches) certainly embrace Science and even Thomas Aquinas said that faith and reason co-exist – they are not exclusive of one another. Some of the greatest scientific minds have come from the Catholic Church – even in modern times. For example, Monsignor Lemaître, a Belgian Priest, proposed the Big Bang Theory.
Even when evolution first came up, the Church did not speak against it at all. And in the 1950’s, when the Church first mentioned it specifically, Pope Pius XII said this:
He also said:
April 14th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
congrats rushfan!!!
you really know how to stir it up
April 14th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
The main similarity Jesus’ life has with these other characters is that it too is fictional.
April 14th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Thanks, Rushfan, for another interesting and thought-provoking list. And thank you, Randall for your time and effort in bringing reason and knowledge to the discussion. As always, I learned a lot from you today. And Oouchan, I loved your arguments as well. I love LV!
April 14th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
after 10 and 9 i got bored with correcting your mistakes so i will just say that my religions of the world textbooks have different facts than you do on every single entry
April 14th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Hey – You – Guys!! I thought I’d wait until all the fuss died down before noting my little bit. First of all, good idea rushfan – although I have to say that I was waiting for Mithras to be no.1. Then, no Mithras at all! I believe Randall pointed it out first.
A lot of the evidence, as I understand is, is millenia old and has clearly been lost in translation after all this time. Stories merge into each other. Tails intertwine until knowbody knows for sure. I love fables, parables and folk-tales, but to me it is the wisdom that matters – rather than (as the Monty Pythons may say) – who killed who.
Is it up to us? No. – we don’t know, just as authors of books don’t know, and all those manuscripts talking of slaying dragons and defeating the grave – do they know? No. ..Too much time has gone by… The only people who know: know it in their hearts – and that is enough.
April 14th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Davo (237):
you might want to check out some of the comments posted above regarding the existance of a historical Jesus (ie. Randall in 168). You may or may not believe in the DIVINITY of JC but the fact remains that he did exist.
April 14th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
For those of you discussing free will, here’s a fun theory (really simplified). I myself am not entirely sure what to make of it.
So, basically, from the studies done on quantum particles that make up everything in the universe, they seem to have no pattern. Their movement cannot be predicted and appears to be completely random on the quantum level. When you take this to a larger scale, the movement of the small particles determines the movement of the objects and organisms they make up. Therefore, people want to say: “tada! We have free will! Since the particles that make up our universe are not determined, neither are we.” However, since the movement of the particles is random, is it any better that complete randomness has taken the place of determinism? Essentially, in theory, all the particles that make up YOU could just randomly jump to the moon. In theory.
Just throwing this out there to show that not all arguments for or against free will are necessarily theologically driven.
April 14th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
bigbenton
Quite the contrary if that were the case and lets be honest who could possible live their lives if they actually believed that but if it were true then human contact and conversation would truly be the only thing that did matter bot necessarily the content but the actual activity itself. I do kind of like that idea but even if there are no choices but the ones we make the allusion of self determination is crucial.
April 14th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
There are several non-Biblical historical pieces on Jesus.
Does the “Jesus-myth” have any scholarly support? In this case, to simply say “no” would be an exaggeration! Support for the “Jesus-myth” comes not from historians, but usually from writers operating far out of their field. The greatest support for the “Jesus-myth” comes not from people who know the subject, but from popularizers and those who accept their work uncritically. In spite of the fact that relevant scholarly consensus is unanimous that the “Jesus-myth” is incorrect, it continues to be propagated on a popular level as though it were absolutely proven.
Jesus was not considered to be historically significant by historians of his time. He did not address the Roman Senate, or write extensive Greek philosophical treatises; He never traveled outside of the regions of Palestine, and was not a member of any known political party. It is only because Christians later made Jesus a “celebrity” that he became known. Roman writers could hardly be expected to have foreseen the subsequent influence of Christianity on the Roman Empire and therefore to have carefully documented Christian origins. How were they to know that this minor Nazarene prophet would cause such a fuss?
Jesus was executed as a criminal, providing him with the ultimate marginality. This was one reason why historians would have ignored Jesus. He suffered the ultimate humiliation, both in the eyes of Jews and the Romans. To the Romans, the primary gatekeepers of written history at the time, Jesus during his own life would have been no different than thousands of other everyday criminals that were crucified.
Jesus was a poor, rural person in a land run by wealthy urbanites. Yes, class discrimination was alive and well in the first century also!
It is also important to recognize that in 70 A.D., the Romans invaded and destroyed Jerusalem and most of Israel, slaughtering its inhabitants. Entire cities were literally burned to the ground! We should not be surprised, then, if much evidence of Jesus’ existence was destroyed. Many of the eye-witnesses of Jesus would have been killed. These facts likely limited the amount of surviving eyewitness testimony of Jesus.
April 14th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
I think what is interesting about this list is that none of this is fact. Just popular opinion because most records don’t accurately date to that time. However, some people look at the “christian” side as fact and Odin, and Heracles,and othersuch figures as mythology….
April 14th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
im so bored the world of warcraft servers have been down for 10 hours now.
April 14th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
I was interested in seeing how Bil Maher would showcase the negative aspects of religion on society. What a disappointment it was! Religulous was more of a snide joke rather than a critical examination. Maher seemed to be more interested in gaining laughs than actually analyzing how religion negatively influences society.
It’s also amazing how Zeitgeist has gained so much acceptance when it’s so filled with glaring innacuracies which I fear have been transfered onto this list. The whole “Jesus was a myth” belief has been discredited by historians. It’s amazing that people will believe some tripe video made in a geek’s basement than actual experts in the subject.
April 14th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
Interesting discussion.
April 14th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
I was at school when I made my earlier post, so i can continue now: Given all that is going on these days, terrorist attacks, genocide, etc., does it not seem rather cold that god does not give me super powers? It’s not like he/she couldn’t take them back if I abused them. Unless he/she is a selfish god that just likes to watch the world burn.
April 14th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
I am a selfish god and no you can’t have any super powers. If you can get the world of warcraft servers back up immediately I’ll consider it.
April 14th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
awesomeman,
sorry. im a little confused. where u supporting determinism or free will in the first post i responded to? because i originally thought it was determinism but then ur second post made me feel like ur in support of free will. so which was it? or were u just stating points?
April 14th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
World of Warcraft sucks.
Interesting list.
#249
Rising Falls why would you get super powers? What makes you so much more deserving of super powers then me?
April 14th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
I’m in favor of free will but alas intellectually I don’t believe in it but practically I don’t think a person can live their life without at least living as if they had free will. So the answer is I have no frickin idea. I don’t see how free will is possible yet I don’t understand a world without it. I’m confused too.
April 14th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Do the math….
(Animist – x) + (polytheist – 1000) + (monotheist – 1) = atheist.
April 14th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
I’m just saying, it doesn’t have to be me. And would super powers not add more entertainment for god? Or if he/she got really bored why not come down and walk on some water for us?
April 14th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
yeah i guess i can see that. i am personally a believer in free will. i get my explanation of free will from my belief in god, but i can understand if you don’t believe in God and everything is therfore a complete series of cause and effect, then indeed believing in “true” free will would become quite difficult to believe.
April 14th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Thats strange I also believe in God which is where I get my explanation for lack of free will. Its not determination that confuses me its my self awareness or my “ego” as some have called it that confuses me.
April 14th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
could u explain what u mean by this?
April 14th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
a distinction needs to be made here. These are messianic figures not CHRIST figures. not the christ figure described in the old testament. good list though
April 14th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Can that issue be avoided, however, if we make a distinction between Christ-figures and Christ-like figures?
April 14th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
I’ve never heard of most of these people on the list.
April 14th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
you believe in God and therefore lack a free will??? I don’t understand this…could you please clarify
April 14th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
If God has created everything then he has invented your every thought process. Therefore he has already created your future. Free will relative to God does not exist. Not that that’s necessarily a bad thing – the same could be said about one’s environment.
April 14th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
sure god is the machine I am part of the machine. I have a role that is dependent on the reset of the machine. What I don’t understand is the part where I feel like an individual.
April 14th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Baxter: yes we can avoid that issue.
April 14th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
If your name isn’t written in the good book by no fault of your own you’re going to hell.:)
April 14th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
Rising Falls: really? Next time I’m staying in a hotel I’ll make sure to scribble “BAXTER” in the Bible.
April 14th, 2009 at 6:33 pm
im kind of confused how it is you think god is a machine but ill just share what i think and see what you think about it or how you relate to it. i personally think god is a loving and relational being. i believe you feel like your an individual because you are an individual and god created you that way. god, or atleast my understanding of him, is that he and his will are divine, so what he wills to happen will happen; however, i also believe god granted humans his ultimate display of power–free will, aka the ability for man to go against the will of god. this allows humans to both be capable of the highest evil and highest love that have both been demonstrated here on earth. make sense?
April 14th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
The Odysseus one is a bit of a stretch…
April 14th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
baxter,
why is it that if god creates all things he must have created our thought proccess? i think we may have a difference in our definition of creation. because he has created all does mean he decides what all does. isnt it possible that he created something with the ability to think on its own? or for it to seek out its purpose?
April 14th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
y’all niggas be postin in a troll list
April 14th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
Clearly, Glycon does NOT predate Jesus Christ since you say he appeared in the mid 100s. I guess that means you only have nine that predate Jesus.
April 14th, 2009 at 7:00 pm
You forgot on the krishna one that they both resurrected 3 day after death.
April 14th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
why, oh why, did i have 8 a.m. rotations & classes all day? i missed this?
rushfan~ a great list…love it! nice to see you writing lists again… missed ya for awhile!
randall~ you mean that we aren’t the same person? so i guess when i touch myself pleasurably you don’t experience it at the same time? what a shame…
and for the rest of ya’ll…
Zeitgeist is a great ‘film’. it’s only purpose to get people to THINK & QUESTION EVERYTHING. it does not claim to be the authority on anything…just presents ideas, facts, and speculation, and leaves the rest for the viewer to decipher for themselves.
as for those who say ‘historians’ have ‘proof’ Jesus was a ‘real person’…i say i agree. there are several students at my campus in downtown Miami who are named Jesus and they are very much real. (2 are paramedic students that are graduating this May! i guess some lucky souls will really be ’saved by Jesus’ in the near future…)
here’s my short short version on all of this… (because i have projects to finish, finals to study for, and have to figure out how i am going to manage to buy books for next semester with the $1.73 currently in my bank account…)
religion and science actually satisfy the most basic of human desires. they both answer such consuming questions as “Why am I here?” “Where am I going?” “What decisions should I make?” “Is this the right thing to do?” and the all important one…”What will become of me when I die?”
they just have different answers to these questions. i respect (and am honestly jealous) of ‘believers’. i’m too much of a skeptic, too analytical, too much of an atheist to even have an iota of belief in anything.
i KNOW i will be here tomorrow and what i do today influences some aspects of tomorrow. i KNOW that who i am today is the direct result of my decisions during the past 2, 4, 10, 20 years of my life. not because of ‘divine intervention’ or ‘blessings’, but of my own insight, by the nature of cause & effect, and fortuitous circumstances. (also, with age i have learned how to recognize opportunity and use it to my advantage; a trait i lacked during my wild, self-destructive youth)
believe what you want-you cannot prove a negative. i know that science does not have ALL the answers-but it never claims to. religion does. that alone makes me doubt it’s validity. but that is me, and not all of you.
we are a big population, with big ideas, big values, and big aspirations.(what? some 6.8 billion humans? that’s a lot of zeroes…)
just because i choose not to lie prostate before an imaginary being(who just happens to look human, have human emotions, & throws temper tantrums at will), to participate in ancient, pompous traditions (many of which where integrated or blatantly stolen by preexisting paganistic rituals), or to take advice from antiquated texts written by desert nomads who could hardly understand the concept of 1,000 goats (much less 6,800,000,000 goats),does not make my opinions and views any less valid than yours, if you so choose to believe in such things.
nuff’ said. i have to go make a parasite chart now. (FYI-if you need any ‘proof’ of evolution or God’s divine hand in creation, just take a course in Veterinary Parasitology. seriously. take it.)
ringtailroxy
April 14th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
OSIRIS! Osiris is the original resource to the Jesus legend/history!
He should be the number one! Without him this list is inutile!
April 14th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
Perhaps all religions come from the same lost source, so perhaps there is a God.
April 14th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
this is really what Jesus was about
April 14th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
lostin~
yes. that source was primitive man’s attempts to explain the natural world around him. to give meaning to the unexplained. amazingly, the first known religions we have archeological proof of where animistic. at least primitive man connected with what he saw surrounding him…he saw more perfection in the animals & trees than in his own species.
where/when did the shift occur to thinking humans where the epitome of all existence and the natural kingdom was bestowed upon man by God to do with as he wished?
ringtailroxy
April 14th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
omg
many comments ^^
April 14th, 2009 at 8:28 pm
To Liam, its a well known fact that you sir, will burn in a lake of fire for eternity….have fun…
April 14th, 2009 at 8:40 pm
one way to make sure there will be comments, post a list religion. Lets face it, there are so many different versions of the bible these days everyone is pretty much just interpreting it there own way.
If some of the comparisions seems vague its because they are. I thought dionysus and krishna stories were pretty much a combination of jesus story.
In the beggining god didnt make a freakin chisel and stone tablet so who they hell knew he did all that?
April 14th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
This whole list debunked:
http://www.zeitgeistresponse.info/
April 14th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
Warning- Not safe for work!
April 14th, 2009 at 9:47 pm
biased, Kevin. just another biased, Christian Propaganda site…
poorly articulated, as well, I might add.
interesting, though. to be a well-rounded, well-versed atheist, i appreciate the link and am now able to use said website in arguments. so, thank you!
embrace your belief system and don’t let anyone convince you or thwart your faith-for that is something only you can choose to alter or remain the same. don’t let others, including parents, church leaders,Flash animators, or politicians, TELL you their interpretations of what is ‘right or wrong’. humans already intrinsically possess such knowledge. it would have been lost to antiquity if such thinking did not help humans evolve from nomadic tribes to bustling metropolis mega-communities and i am certain there is some sticky glue of religion/skepticism that holds the entirety on humanity together…
ringtailroxy
April 14th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
Crazy number of comments on this…
They’re all good stories, but not stories you’d base your life and morals on. Religion served a purpose in its day, explaining the unexplainable. It got us to where we are today – through subjugation, holy war and random skull duggery. Will the men not work harder once a priest threatens them will hell, or more so a hanging. So many things have been done in the name of God which otherwise COULDN’T be justified – massacres, invasions, raping and pillaging – all in the name of ‘the good Lord’. I can’t name examples other than the horrendous Crusades and similar Jihads but I’m sure someone will Wiki it.
A lot of Europe has grown out of religion, the dark ages are over. The middle east has slipped back into its religious dark age, India, China and Japan all have inoffensive religions which don’t encroach upon their mental freedom and are as liberated as any.
The Americans however are a different kettle of fish… Essentially children, the bastard offspring (speaking of bastard, was Jesus technically one or can you marry ghosts?) English sailors and the world’s supply of criminals. They’ve only been around (discounting natives)
a few hundred years and they seem to be suffering for it, a fearful nation unsure of itself and thusly armed to the teeth to overcompensate. Oh how the South leans upon religion like a leper to his crutch, Creationism in schools – schools for god sake. America needs to sort itself out, or in a few generations it won’t just be the President (Bush, not Obama) who’s a puppet, people. If you indoctrinate everyone in their youth and blast them full of fairy tales about zombies, talking snakes, rib women, and (from Genesis or Epoch, can’t remember which and Bibles out of reach) a world in which the Earth is flat and the sky is a dome with 6 windows for the sun and moon to pass through – if you teach them all that in a SCIENCE lesson, as well as at whatever Bible Bantarian events you people ascribe to then by God their poor brains will be ruined and they’ll have a very much poorer understanding of the marvellous, random, bloody lucky (or not so lucky, if Meteorites really can slap down the blocks of life willy-nilly about the universe) world in which we live.
Jolly fine post by the way, some intriguing similarities from diverse cultures, though some shaky linkage at times.
Oh also, is eating the Eucharist no cannibalism as a result of transubstantiation – eating the Lord for Christ’s sake!
April 14th, 2009 at 10:02 pm
From Kevin’s website, “Horus was not the “sun” or the “light” but rather a sun god”
And the Sun God has no affinity with sun or light? He might no ‘be’ the sun or the light – but he’s a ruddy Sun God! He OWNS the sun, and the light – every photon whizzing into your eyeballs.
April 14th, 2009 at 10:03 pm
That’s better than Jesus.
(sorry for triple post)
April 14th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
AAAHHHHHHHH Sorry, Kevin’s website – this’ll scare you silly:
“Zeitgeist is leading millions of our children away from God. The film is nationally and internationally acclaimed. It is one of the most popular draws in the history of Internet. It is fodder for the impressionable, unsuspecting mass gathered at the trough of poisoned feed lots for academic ignorance….” Anne P., Chicago, IL.
Oh ‘God’, make it stop! That whole statement is so horribly twisted against logic and decensy it hurts. Are there really people like Anne P in the world? Could there be worse?
April 14th, 2009 at 10:15 pm
yeah whatever Jesus is still better
April 14th, 2009 at 11:13 pm
23. Stizzy – April 14th, 2009 at 3:27 am
“Btw, how can Glycon pre-date Jesus if he was created in the mid 2nd century, around 150 years after Jesus’ birth?”
It wasn’t until the second century(or later) that Jesus was given flesh with the writings of the first Gospel. With this, of course, is where Jesus starts picking up a lot of his mythos, and without any other reference material-what makes a god-man? Well, you’ve got all the factors here, and someone else decided to incorporate these into a snake-god-man in a well-known hoax of the ancient world performed by a “prophet” merely seeking to extort money from as many people as possible.
Proof that all of theses claims were in ancient literature without just going based off of Zeitgeist(which is very well researched, btw, and only appears crackpot conspiracy to a fundamentalist christian) can be found at http://www.pocm.info
In addition, notice that christians have the weakest resolve when it comes to religious faith-you don’t see the hindus on here complaining, or even the muslims for that matter. christians, if you could just learn to have some real faith, you wouldn’t be such fun/easy targets of ridicule.
April 14th, 2009 at 11:25 pm
You might want to be a bit more specific about dates before you make a list of Christ figures “pre-dating” Jesus of Nazareth. Buddha, and Buddhism, came after Christ, as did #4.
April 14th, 2009 at 11:46 pm
“It wasn’t until the second century(or later) that Jesus was given flesh with the writings of the first Gospel.”
People throw out information about this when there’s enough scholarly evidence to show that the first gospels were written within the 1st century. The Bible has been scrutinized for the entire history of belief in Jesus and still stands the test of time today. These kinds of critiques on it’s origins are nothing new.
I don’t see how someone wishing to give a defence for holding theif belief is having a weak resolve. You don’t see the hindus on here complaining because their belief isn’t as rigoruously ridiculed. And most people hold back from ridiculing Islam because they won’t hear the end of it.
Followers of Jesus who do have real faith and hold onto it, I find, are ridiculed even further so I don’t see how what you’re saying bears weight.
The only followers people don’t seem to bother with are the indifferent, fringe ones.
April 15th, 2009 at 12:47 am
Dear everyone arguing with smithstar15,
I am a christian and i simply cannot imagine any christian being this ignorant. My apologies. At the same point, please do not use him to argue your cases against Christianity. Being sucked into a conversation with this gentleman (whom i suspect is only on her to get a reaction) is simply making your arguments against Christianity come off as arrogant because your arguing with what appears to either be a trickster or a simpleton, or possibly a combination of the two. Just to vent, i have read a few times on here that people arguing against Christianity seem to enjoy citing verses about not being judgmental. I will be the first to say that some things in the bible are easier said than done, but it becomes difficult to not want to argue and name call when constantly being called ignorant. Although i would have never posted on here before, i have been a long time reader and respect most people on this board. I understand that some of you may have been hurt by christians that seemed to be attacking you maliciously. I totally get that you want to strike back, but most of us are genuinely decent people. Saying that all christians are judgmental hypocrites is similar to saying all white people are kkk (I love that they misinterpret the bible to advance their beliefs…really helps the cause.) Thank you for reading, sorry if you feel as though i have wasted you time, and if anyone has any non attacking questions i would be happy to do my best to answer, it probably wont convince you either way, but at least ill give it a shot.
April 15th, 2009 at 12:55 am
Interesting:”Buddha and buddhism came after Christ.”An amazing deduction.Can you name your source??
Stizzy:I am an Atheist Hindu.I am going to complain about something when I get a reason to.Besides I mock most Hindus all the time.My mom hates it when I do that.
I don’t think the story of Krishna is completely true. One reason for that is that it could be a total myth because no proof of his existence exists(though they did find the ruins of Ancient Dwaraka, it is not substantial enough). Krishna was not executed/crucified.
Personally, I don’t think we need the idea of God to ensure that the world does not go crazy.
April 15th, 2009 at 1:38 am
If Jesus’ physical existence is called into question, Muslims should be just as upset, because Islam finds it’s roots in Christianity. Logically, if christianity is bullshit, Mohammed must have been full of shit as well. The difference is that Muslims, Jews, Hindis, and Buddhists are confident enough in their faith that they don’t feel the need to defend it to anybody and everybody.
Also, there is no proof the gospels were written in the first century-I don’t know where you’re pulling this information from. Peter’s letter(Acts, mainly) was written in the first century, but here’s the thing.
Peter is a verifiable historical figure, if only based on the fact that we have writings of his that survive to this day.
Peter’s letters describe Jesus always in the light of being “the Holy Spirit”, and “the Christ”, but never refers to him as being a physical being, never refers to the virgin birth, never refers to his earthly miracles.
Peter was a Gnostic.
The four gospels were written at different times, and were commissioned works, and not necessarily written by a person named Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. They were in charge of writing a book about Jesus to sway new followers based on what would be acceptable in their regions and time frames(most likely). Only later on(during the third or fourth century) were they all compiled into the same book and called “Gospels”.
I’ve known many christians who don’t rabidly defend themselves against attacks on their religion, and it’s because they have TRUE, UNWAVERING faith-something that fundies and bible literalists seem to be severely lacking.
April 15th, 2009 at 2:03 am
266. Rising Falls wrote: “If your name isn’t written in the good book by no fault of your own you’re going to hell.:)”
followed by -
267. Baxter writing: “Rising Falls: really? Next time I’m staying in a hotel I’ll make sure to scribble “BAXTER” in the Bible.”
That was hilarious! Thanks for the early morning funny (from where I am!)
April 15th, 2009 at 2:50 am
295. bearglove: “The difference is that Muslims, Jews, Hindis, and Buddhists are confident enough in their faith that they don’t feel the need to defend it to anybody and everybody.”
Experience would seem to suggest otherwise. You’re singling out christians as an example of the “worst” of these yet you will find examples of people like this in every faith. More over, the Bible itself teaches to be ready at all times to give a defence for the hope of your faith. So christians who do defend their faith don’t necessarily do so due to a lack of it, but also because it’s part of their calling.
Afterall, how can someone sufficiently defend something they don’t even have faith in or understand?
Jesus is also a veriafiable historical figure. I’ve even heard it said that there is more evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is for Julius Ceaser, and no one denies he existed or that he was a man.
Peter’s letters weren’t gospels and they weren’t written with the same purpose. They were written to people who already knew about Jesus, about His humanity, about his birth and about His miracles. It’s written for an audience that had already accepted Him, so why would Peter need to go through all of these details with people who already knew them? There was no debate that Jesus was a man at the time, there would have been debate about His divinity however and His fulfillment of prophecy, and so it makes sense that Peter would focus on those elements.
I already explained to someone else who the gospels were written by and where their information came from. The writers weren’t commissioned to to write a book to sway people.
The book of Luke was written as part of a two-part witness (including Acts, which is NOT Peter’s letter btw) that was to be used in a trial for the defence of the apostle Paul, and was written to someone who wasn’t a follower of Jesus.
The book of Mark also was catered for those who either had no faith or faith in Jesus, and draws on the testimony of Peter. Before he died, he wanted to leave an account of Jesus’ life.
The book of Matthew was written primarily to new Jewish converts, hence the prominance of Hebrew themes.
The book of John was written later than the others when John was an old man and was written for mature followers of Jesus, as an assurance and as encouragement to continue in their faith.
The word “Gospel” means Good News, and Jesus’ message was called the good news long before the Bible as compiled. As the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were about Jesus’ ministry and His message, it goes without saying that they would be called the Good News.
Matthew 9:35, 11:5, Luke 4:43, 7:22, 8:1, 9:6, are just some of the verses that speak of Jesus proclaiming the “good news”, and the idea can be traced back even further to the book of Isaiah.
You say that Peters letters never refered to Jesus as a physical being and yet there are references to His death and His shed blood. Qualities of a physical being wouldn’t you say? 1 Peter 4:1 says:
“So, since Christ sufffered in the flesh, you also arm yourselves with the same attitude, because the one who has suffered in the flesh has finished with sin.”
You proclaim this letter was written in the 1st century, so can I assume you believe it to be historically accurate? Do these sound like the words of a Gnostic? Furthermore it attests His ressurection from the dead. Is that not one of if not THE earthly miracles?
In 2 Peter 1:15, he says:
“Indeeed, I will also make every effort that after my departure, you have a testimony of these things.”
He was speaking of his witness of the life of Jesus, a witness that became the book of Mark.
You call Peter a Gnostic and yet he condemns Gnosticism in 2 Peter 2.
I do not write this because I lack faith and need to reassure myself, but because I see a missrepresentation and I seek to correct it.
April 15th, 2009 at 3:07 am
Go back to the Bible, replace “Jesus” with “Steve.” Then go preach about Steve the Savior and see how crazy that sounds. The difference between a cult and a religion is numbers and time.
April 15th, 2009 at 3:50 am
It would indeed sound crazy if one replaced “Jesus” with “Steve” because everyone is aware that the Savior was named Jesus. If, however, His original name was “Steve” and that was what had always been written in Bibles, it would hardly sound crazy would it?
April 15th, 2009 at 4:24 am
very interesting list. i know most of this especially the Hindu gods and Zoroaster. I’m very interested in Zoroastrianism and their god Ahura Mazda and by the way, Zoroaster is their prophet.
very brave list too, i mean, most people wouldn’t post a “religion-base” list since it will create another controversial list here. but i must say, this is a very interesting list.
i can’t believe i posted a comment here after so long coz i don’t usually comments on uninteresting lists..
good job!
April 15th, 2009 at 4:46 am
Everything is crap. Why everybody is born by virgin. Is not that hypocrisy and is not that idiotic for us to believe in the shit.
April 15th, 2009 at 5:21 am
quote Stizzy: “I’ve even heard it said that there is more evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is for Julius Ceaser, and no one denies he existed or that he was a man.”
How dare you say that?
That’s like saying there’s more scientific proof for creationism than for evolution?
April 15th, 2009 at 5:25 am
Oh boy, this is brilliant.
Loved the list. I’m not going to debate about its accuracy because 1)many have done that for me and 2)I don’t know everything there is to know about Christ, nor any of the other people/gods mentioned.
I’ve read through some of the comments and while I won’t go against someone specifically, I do have some things to say.
First of all: I thought it was an accepted fact of history that Jesus Christ actually did exist. Apparently, some people still debate this, which is a bit strange to me. I don’t see any use in denying something that is a known and accepted fact (and as such, I suspect it’s been researched thoroughly enough to back it up).
Secondly: I love Greek mythology and I was pretty happy to see all these Greek figures mentioned in the list =D While not all of them are equally interesting to me, I happen to love Odysseus and his story.
It’s amazing how lists such as this one can turn anything into a religious debate. Well, I suppose it’s better to attack each other with words than with bombs.
April 15th, 2009 at 5:36 am
301. dnana – Everything is crap. Why everybody is born by virgin. Is not that hypocrisy and is not that idiotic for us to believe in the shit.
I just want to say respectfully that Whats so hard about a virgin birth? Scientists can do that now with females.
You think it would have been harder for god to bring this about with his almighty power?
April 15th, 2009 at 5:44 am
304. Cybogen: “I just want to say respectfully that Whats so hard about a virgin birth? Scientists can do that now with females.
You think it would have been harder for god to bring this about with his almighty power?”
No, but I do think it would have been harder for him to bring it about with his lack of existence.
BOOSH!
April 15th, 2009 at 5:52 am
“How dare you say that?
That’s like saying there’s more scientific proof for creationism than for evolution?”
The words of certain scholars, not mine, jus something I read once :p. And whether there’s more scientific proof for evolution than creationism is debatable.
Nevertheless, some interesting sources on Bible manuscripts:
http://www.equip.org/articles/bible-reliability
http://www.ronrhodes.org/Manuscript.html
April 15th, 2009 at 5:56 am
Isn’t the “It couldn’t happen because God doesn’t exist.” argument a bit weak?
Whether you believe He exists or not does not invalidate or dismiss the argument. First show why He most definately does not exist, then you can make such a statement. Otherwise, you’re trying to get someone to leave their presuppositions and debate you based upon your own when you’re not willing to make the same concession.
April 15th, 2009 at 6:08 am
306. Stizzy- Well said my friend! An opinion such as Baxter made is empty to it context if its own statement cant be sucessfully brought about. You said it well!
April 15th, 2009 at 6:41 am
Smithstar15 – I want you to acknowledge one fact.
People have a right to believe & practice a faith of their choice.
Would you agree? If so, that means one has no reason to diss the various religious figures of other religions. Can we not have that minimum civility?
April 15th, 2009 at 7:01 am
01. dnana – “Why everybody is born by virgin. Is not that hypocrisy and is not that idiotic for us to believe in the shit.”
It was to create a sense of the mystical by using a situation that is biologically impossible. By that I mean ‘everybody is born by virgin.’ As far as ‘believe in that shit’, I won’t venture into that….
304. Cybogen: “I just want to say respectfully that Whats so hard about a virgin birth? Scientists can do that now with females.
Not scientists but rather nature. And this only comes about in extreme situations in which mating with a male is not an option and only with specific animals like the White Spotted Bamboo Shark. Humans aren’t capable of scientifically-created virgin births. I’d broaden that even further but… come on you guys, this is a list discussing mythical and historical figures. There’s no need to bash a religion nor is there need to preach about a religion. Leave that on the back burner because both really dumb down the conversation.
306. Stizzy – “The words of certain scholars, not mine, jus something I read once :p. And whether there’s more scientific proof for evolution than creationism is debatable.”
Debatable yes, but still very weak. We’ve yet to see any true reason for including creationism in the science classroom. Told you before. Your View: Should Creationism be taught in School? Unfortunately, I won’t be there most of the day but hopefully someone will.
April 15th, 2009 at 7:10 am
Its so sad that over such a long time.. so many *prominent8 persons have tried to teach the exact same things and we still don’t get them. We make a religion out of them and then priests and temples rule our thinking rather than the actual teachings…
April 15th, 2009 at 7:20 am
Stizzy-as pointed out in a previous argument with ignorance in the posts-JESUS HAS NO HISTORICAL RECORD. THERE IS A MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTING JULIUS CESAR’S EXISTENCE, INCLUDING HIS OWN WRITTEN WORKS AND MULTIPLE ACCOUNTS BY CONTEMPORARY HISTORIANS.
Peter’s references to Jesus’ ressurection are clearly references to the journey that Jesus’ spirit took through heaven and hell.
Peter wasn’t a gnostic? Ok, maybe he’s not specifically the Gnostics you are thinking of, but the modern day interpretation by the Catholic church of the Gnostics is “one who follows Christ but does not believe in his physical existence, death, and subsequent ressurection from the dead”. The original Gnostics were a separate sect of Christianity, and Peter’s dogma eventually led to the founding of the Catholic church, but only after being modified to reflect the norms of the time-holidays centered around solstices and harvests.
The general consensus among the respected Scientific community is that Evolutionary theory is around 98% complete and accurate, whereas there is not one modicum of evidence supporting creationism as a viable alternative. to further cement the point that Creationism should not be allowed anywhere near a school curriculum, take to example my situation. I went to a catholic grade school. In second grade science we were taught about evolution, the dinosaurs(not that they were tests of god), and that the earth was BILLIONS of years old. We also had religion class that taught the creation, but it was viewed as our ancestral interpretation of the creation of all, when god really only created humans and modern animals(in their view), and the heavens. Dinosaurs and other ancient life forms had no need for good because they weren’t capable of seeing his light, so he didn’t reveal himself to them or speak of their existence to us, which is why they weren’t mentioned in the bible.
April 15th, 2009 at 7:20 am
we’re all going to burn in hell forever for reading this list… see you there!
April 15th, 2009 at 7:22 am
I don’t see why creationism has to be taught in schools anyway, that doesn’t really have to be a natural offshoot of whether there is more evidence for one than the other. And I don’t believe the evidence is weak seeing as they both use the same evidence, just different presuppositions and ways of interpreting the evidence. If the evidence for creationism is weak, it stands to reason that the evidence for evolution is also weak.
If the interpretation or the presuppositions are seen as weak, that’s another matter.
I believe that evolution should be debated in the classroom for what it is, a theory. And therefore it’s strengths and weaknesses should be evaluated so that students can objectively think about it for themselves. If this means presenting alternative theories then by all means but it shouldn’t be dogmatic.
“Humans aren’t capable of scientifically-created virgin births. I’d broaden that even further but… come on you guys, this is a list discussing mythical and historical figures. There’s no need to bash a religion nor is there need to preach about a religion. Leave that on the back burner because both really dumb down the conversation.”
What about IVF?
And I don’t see a need to leave religion out of the discussion, especially when the list is about religious figures and I don’t see why people can’t present their cases for why they believe or disbelieve in a faith. If it goes overboard, by all means people should hold back.
April 15th, 2009 at 7:25 am
Evolution is only a theory because no one can live long enough to actually watch it happen…
I love when Christians play the “prove it” game…how delightfully crazy!
April 15th, 2009 at 7:30 am
Bearglove – I honestly don’t know where you get your information from. Scholars agree that Jesus was a historial figure, and therefore a man. There are historical reports by contemporary historians, not to mention the books of the new testament themselves, written by contemporaries. Read the links I posted earlier.
Gnostics were a heretical sect who didn’t teach the same message as Jesus or the apostles.
“Peter’s references to Jesus’ ressurection are clearly references to the journey that Jesus’ spirit took through heaven and hell.”
They are clearly not because He doesn’t say so and the rest of scripture backs this. Peter refers to the letters of Paul in 2 Peter as scripture, and furthermore says that all scripture comes from inspiration by God. Paul repeatedly speaks to the humanity of Jesus. If Peter was a Gnostic and didn’t believe Jesus was a man, He wouldn’t have called the writing of Paul scripture.
“Peter’s dogma eventually led to the founding of the Catholic church, but only after being modified to reflect the norms of the time-holidays centered around solstices and harvests.”
Jesus’ teaching put forth that there is no need for festivals and holidays, and such festivals revolving around soltices and harvests didn’t come until much later.
“The general consensus among the respected Scientific community is that Evolutionary theory is around 98% complete and accurate, whereas there is not one modicum of evidence supporting creationism as a viable alternative.”
I have to ask how you arrived at that figure, what is your source? Evolutionary theory is far from 98% complete or accurate.
” I went to a catholic grade school. In second grade science we were taught about evolution, the dinosaurs(not that they were tests of god), and that the earth was BILLIONS of years old. We also had religion class that taught the creation, but it was viewed as our ancestral interpretation of the creation of all, when god really only created humans and modern animals(in their view), and the heavens. Dinosaurs and other ancient life forms had no need for good because they weren’t capable of seeing his light, so he didn’t reveal himself to them or speak of their existence to us, which is why they weren’t mentioned in the bible.”
The word Dinosaur is a recent creation, so of course you wouldn’t find mention of dinosaurs in the Bible. Are there references to creatures that sound remarkably like Dinosaurs? Indeed there are several.
The Genesis account places the creation of all land creatures on the same day, so by the time man appeared, all kinds of creatures would have been present. God wouldn’t have to reveal their existence to humans as their existence would be pretty plain to see for themselves.
April 15th, 2009 at 7:37 am
“315. bober – April 15th, 2009 at 7:25 am
Evolution is only a theory because no one can live long enough to actually watch it happen…
I love when Christians play the “prove it” game…how delightfully crazy!”
I didn’t see anyone playing the “prove it” card for evolution. Does natural selection happen? Absolutely, we can see it happen. Molecules to man evolution, however, as you’ve said is unobservable. But that’s not the only reason it doesn’t seem viable to me. Whilst it is indeed a compelling explanation for what we observe in the world, for me it falls short of a lot and is illogical in other ways.
I don’t say “prove it!”, on the contrary, I say the emperor has no clothes.
April 15th, 2009 at 7:47 am
To be fair… give credit where credit is due… it’s fundamentalism in any belief structure or ideology that leads to the stupidity of creationism and such. It’s not just christians, and it’s not just one version of god.
It’s when sad and insecure little minded people of any belief, need to force everyone to be just like them so they don’t have to turn the judging eye inwards, and face what they are really hating and loathsome of: themselves.
Finally, I hate to break it to you, but the ‘evolution is just a theory’ stuff doesn’t work, and when you use stuff like that, you only show you have no real understanding of how the concept works.
If you want to understand how the people who actually understand and study science view the people who are trying their hardest (not knowing why, only knowing their church told them to) to debunk evolution, just go and replace the word ‘evolution’ with ‘gravity’ in any creationist’s reasoning.
We cannot prove that gravity beyond a shadow of a doubt, exists in the same way throughout every part of time and the universe; what we do have is so much evidence that it becomes mathematically illogical to think that it doesn’t.
This is the same thing as evolution- the problem is you can’t teach people who refuse to even learn the most basic understandings needed in the language to converse with them, like how a theory works, how science works, etc.
But in the end, you will never convince a true believer, because in their heads, they already know everything.
Teach the controversy!!!! (Because if we stop screeching and throwing feces, we might need to provide some logic about why we aren’t primates!!!)
April 15th, 2009 at 7:47 am
http://www.pocm.info/scholarship_getting_started.html
more truth in this link than you can find if you search for years. Unless of course you look for historical record not biased by their presuppositions.
Just because Jesus doesn’t exist means you’re an idiot Stizzy, accept this and it’s a lot easier to see the truth.
We CAN observe evolution, in simple organisms. Fruit flies have been noted to evolve over the last 40 years under laboratory conditions. Natural Selection and Evolution are mutually inclusive-there isn’t one without the other. Natural selection=the favoring of certain genes over others, so that those genes are carried on into the next generation. Evolution is the eventual result of only favorable genes being passed down throughout so many successive generations that a new species comes into being as a result. Eventually those species diverge and adapt to the point that they can sometimes grow beyond the scope of their original ancestral link. Molecules to humanity doesn’t seem that unobtainable in the light of 4.5 billion years to do it in.
Also, i think that their justification was just as ridiculous as you do(the existence of dinosaurs and why they aren’t mentioned), but only because even in fourth grade even I realized there something wrong with this religion thing.
April 15th, 2009 at 7:55 am
*- doesn’t mean you’re an idiot, is what i meant to say.
April 15th, 2009 at 8:10 am
295. bearglove – Your concepts and facts of evoulution are both interesting and thought provoking with due respect. If we go back to the earliest part of history where something began the whole life portion of what we know as diferent biological life forms including us humans staring then my question to you is how did that very first bit of life matter origin start? Lets say maybe a small organism…anything you want to call it as the beginning of life. The spark if you want to call it. Just tell me this….Whatever you trace it back to that brought that single begining to appear? Where are now at your origin of evolution idea…. the first beginning if you will envision it.
Now..the first absolute beignning. What brought it into its state of existence?? I have an answer for you. Creation-GOD
April 15th, 2009 at 8:19 am
Rushfan – Thank you for a great list…I understand and appreciate your intro and think, as you do, that these are very interesting observations…. and that the truth, is indeed difficult to know for sure. Great list!
April 15th, 2009 at 9:02 am
i love all the zeitgeist copypasta without any sourcing
zeitgeist debunked by some students:
April 15th, 2009 at 9:05 am
Wow!!! I’m Catholic, but I still think this list is really cool! It is really interesting, and you can see that there are patterns in every religion that are evident and really interesting.
April 15th, 2009 at 9:23 am
What I find entertaining is that I think Smithstar15 is just playing around with everyone, trying to get as much reaction as he can. The worst is that the most like smartest commenter on this list has totally fallen for it *Randall* LOL it’s funny.
April 15th, 2009 at 9:24 am
If evolution can be defined as a process, every process starts somewhere. The questions I have are: when did it start, what started this process and why was this process started in the first place.
April 15th, 2009 at 9:34 am
Notachristianmissionaryfan: You’re either very stupid or you have not read my posts. I have said over and over ad nauseum that everyone has the right to believe whatever they want to believe–What part of that do you not understand? You can worship your toilet for all I care–I don’t know any clearer way to put it.Boy–I tell ya.There’s some smart people on here and there are really some dumb ones–Words do mean something–Read them-
April 15th, 2009 at 9:43 am
326. damien_karras – Good Point made!
April 15th, 2009 at 10:01 am
I’m not a christian exactly, non-demoninational theist, but…
I’m sorry, anyone who believes the zeitgeist to be true is absolutely stupid.
Read up on the history of just ONE of the characters and you’ll find how many fake comparisons they make.
My favorite retarded similarity in zeitgeist was:
God’s Sun = God’s Son
So if it’s so easy to do in English, it MUST be like that in every language right??!?!?
Well, in spanish sun is sol, and son is hijo.
God’s sol = God’s hijo RIGHT!?!?!? Because there’s only one letter mis- Oh wait, you mean that DOESN’T work in every language!?!?
April 15th, 2009 at 10:02 am
Whether Christianity is correct or not, Zietgeist is NOT where you want to get your answer from.
I could sh*t more accuracy than that movie.
April 15th, 2009 at 10:05 am
Well I think this is my second post. I don’t post as regularly as would like to. I am a pagan, bordering more on the Norse end of the scale. But alas, it doesn’t matter.
My point is this, to the people with certain religious beliefs, you read this list. I’m pretty sure you didn’t do it because you wanted to see what these heathens wrote about your specific deity, but you did for the reason we all do; to entertain yourself and expand your knowledge.
I’m not smart nor do I claim to be but this seems to have turned into a religious battle, and I think its pointless. No one’s going to change their mind if they don’t want to. As much as most say that they don’t care about what differing opinions say on them and their religions and/or beliefs, they still respond. It doesn’t matter with what intent, a response is a response.
It doesn’t matter what anyone calls you, but what you answer to. So let us all sit and share our opinions.
My two cents.
April 15th, 2009 at 10:06 am
Agreeing with 331 also
Get rid of that stupid creationism vs evolution stuff from here, because this list has nothing to do with it.
April 15th, 2009 at 10:58 am
Lillitt:This seems to have turned into a religious battle, and I think its pointless. No one’s going to change their mind if they don’t want to.
Actually you’re pretty smart because you are correct. No one who believes in Buddha is going to become a Christian and no Christian is going to become an atheist and no atheist is going to start believing in God because of anything said in these posts.That’s why I say,let everyone go with what they’re comfortable with and let the chips fall where they may.
April 15th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
As somebody said somewhere. Lets just believe what we want to each our own and let the chips fall where the may. Who knows the outcome of the game until the game is over.
April 15th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
@307 Stizzy: “Whether you believe He exists or not does not invalidate or dismiss the argument. First show why He most definately does not exist, then you can make such a statement.”
I agree that the question of existence is perennial at best. But I really don’t understand when people start addressing that unknown force as ‘He’. Why cannot it be a ‘She’? And that is where it dawns upon me that the religions (with He God as supreme being) were brainchild of sexist men, only thing that distinguished them from the rest of the populace was that they were way smarter than the rest of them…or should I dare say that the rest of them were way dumber?
To me, if God exists then it has a completely different definition and form. It is all the forces of nature, laws of physics – explained and unexplained, discovered and yet to be discovered, chemical reactions known to us and not yet known to us. Science is still a baby in the cradle as compared to religion, but it’s tentacles of knowledge span far beyond.
April 15th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Cybogen: I’m perfectly content with that. I would imagine that we all are strong and secure in our faiths(whatever it may be), and can’t be pushed over by a couple of posts. Not in arrogance, but confidence as were are very individual people who have differing views.
To get on the subject of the posts though. I love Anthropology, and I think that it’s fascinating that people from different lands have similar stories. Every pantheon has a different God or Goddess that serves the same purpose.
April 15th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
By the way Rushfan, great stimulating list!
I also heard some crazy guy in favor of the debate about #9 that word Christianity is a deformation of ‘Krishna’ + ‘niti’ where ‘niti’ in Sanskrit means teachings making Krishna-niti as teachings of Krishna.
April 15th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
SHUTTUP ALL OF YOU!!! jeeze. None of us (to the extent of my knowledge which is admittedly small, but based on the comments thus far) is an expert on the subject. So why make guesses? i think we need to agree to disagree on the subject and move on to arguing about metallica!
April 15th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
(or most of you at any rate)
April 15th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
wow that’s a lot of comments. i haven’t read through them, but it was quite an interesting list.
religious lists always cause quite the spark
April 15th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Neat list, and I’m a Christian! Oh, rushfan… you know how to get the comments! *wink*
April 15th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
To Stizzy and Cybogogen -
The impetus is not on me to prove that God doesn’t exist. There isn’t a scrap of evidence to suggest that he does. Therefore it is retarded to use the argument that God could impregnate a virgin because it presupposes an impossibility. I stick by my statement because it is YOU who has made the illogical assertion, not me.
April 15th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
Thanks, y’all! This list was fun to compile, and I assumed there would be tons of fun comments. To address some comments, I’m not a fan of Bill Maher. I just happen to have the same view on religion as he does. I loved Religulous. The scene in the truck stop chapel is priceless. And as far as Zeitgeist goes, I watched Part 1. Then I watched Part 2. Then I watched the addendum. I just love documentaries. I was actually trying to find a documentary called Bridge to Iran: The other side of the Burka, so I found every website I could that had documentaries you could watch online and when I couldn’t find the one I wanted, I just watched some random ones and found Zeitgeist.
April 15th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
Good list you infidel. (lol im just kidding) Unfortunately it is accurate. Coming across this and similar information (the lack of any mention of Jesus in any other source) in high school is what finally put doubt in my mind.
All religious followers live inside bubbles. How can you belief any of it?
Catholics believe in a god born in a barn.
Muslim believe that Mohammed ascended to heaven in a horse.
Mormons believe that the Isrealites came to the America’s
Jews believe they are the chosen ones and no one else.
and on and on….. I personally believe that organized religion was invented. God is not invented.
What ever you want to call him. Yahweh, Allah, Buddha, Elohim, Jehovah, it doesn’t matter. As long as you believe in something you are on the right track.
All religions are right in their message. No one religion has a monopoly on truth.
April 15th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
Rolo, you had me going there for a second! I definitely agree with your view of organized religion.
April 15th, 2009 at 9:07 pm
This list just shows how cool it is to study the similarities with religions.
The Flood Story is prevalant in almost every creation story in one way or fashion.
Son of God being present and then resurecting is clearly a pattern.
Virgin Birth being Very Very holy.
You can see in art how the Buddha’s calm hand motion in Asian art is prevelant in Jesus in Byzantine and Early Christian art.
and how uncooked foods and germs had a big influence.
I’m not saying religion is bad by any means, and I feel that religion can remind someone of ethics and morals, but if religion is taken too seriously (KKK, Neo-Nazi, Muslim Terrorists, Spanish Inquisition (no one saw it coming:p) it can be bad.
GREAT LIST and it is heating some arguemnents and making people mad.
April 15th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
Maybe this is only proof that the story of god and jesus is true but has last for many generations, cultures, names, and place.
April 15th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
Patricia: Interesting. if one guy was born a virgin birth, babtized at 30 then resurected after 3 days, maybe his story has lived on through generations of religions and cultures.
April 15th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
“I agree that the question of existence is perennial at best. But I really don’t understand when people start addressing that unknown force as ‘He’. Why cannot it be a ‘She’? And that is where it dawns upon me that the religions (with He God as supreme being) were brainchild of sexist men, only thing that distinguished them from the rest of the populace was that they were way smarter than the rest of them…or should I dare say that the rest of them were way dumber?”
I believe the Bible and that is how God Himself chose to reveal Himself. He has no sex and indeed He has qualities that are inherent in both sexes, because He created sexes. If all men and women are equal in the sight of God, one has to ask themselves, why does it matter if He is referred to as a HE?
April 15th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
Stizzy: Could not say it better. If they had reffered to ‘HE’ as ‘SHE’, well then people now would say the people back then were sexist women. if ‘HE’ was reffered to as ‘IT’ well then people would claim the old religion worshiped a Pagan God or an Animal. ‘HE’ (at least i believe) isn’t even human or is just a force, I don’t know and probably don’t want to know. whatever
April 15th, 2009 at 10:02 pm
1) I’m an atheist. Jesus was a mythologized cult leader.
2) Many of the comparisons are seriously weak to the point of laughable. Practically “Zeus breathed air, so did Jesus.” I’ve seen much better work done by a Christian conspiracy theorist who managed to make every mythological figure sound like a version of Babylon’s Nimrod.
3) Many of the comparisons are incorrect, just lies that have been perpetuated by people who lazily refuse to simply corroborate assertions: Isis was NOT a virgin, there was no star, Horus was born in a swamp – not a manger, Horus was never baptized… it’s just crap that was made up by conmen who know that some atheists are too lazy to do any fact checking.
Great article: http://stupidevilbastard.com/index/seb/comments/ending_the_myth_of_horus/
April 15th, 2009 at 10:32 pm
But then again, most of these fellas have similarities between themselves… Comparing most of these to Christ seems rather pointless and – I know I’m pushing it here – insane. Christ is NOT a god – to the best of my non-Christian knowledge – so I don’t see how he relates all that much to Horus or Dionysus. On that note, wasn’t Dionysus the god of wine or something along those lines? Doesn’t seem much like Jebus to me…
April 15th, 2009 at 11:02 pm
That’s a good point Mark, it’s just as easy to compare many of these figures between each other than Jesus, maybe even more so. Most of the comparisons are a stretch and in some cases just evidence of bait and switch.
Baxter:”The impetus is not on me to prove that God doesn’t exist. There isn’t a scrap of evidence to suggest that he does. Therefore it is retarded to use the argument that God could impregnate a virgin because it presupposes an impossibility. I stick by my statement because it is YOU who has made the illogical assertion, not me.”
But see, it is on you. You say there isn’t a scrap of evidence only because you don’t believe that what is there is evidence. You don’t believe it is evidence because it doesn’t fit your presuppositions. You say it’s retarded to use the argument that God could impregnante a virgin because it presupposes an impossibiity….well if you presuppose God’s existence and power, it’s hardly an impossibility is it? In your world view, it is an impossibility because you refuse to acknowledge anything beyond the natural.
Even on the quantum level, things get a little funky and electrons are said to be able to pop into existence (dunno bout that one, but that’s what some scientists are saying), yet according to the “laws of nature” this shouldn’t be possible. I’m no expert on Quantum Physics and Mechanics so I’m just extrapolating to the best of my ability here.
Even the issue of origins and beginnings, some scientists propose other dimensions colliding, igniting our universe. Dimensions and universes that could have completely different laws and physics, beyond what we would refer to as natural. In a sense, perhaps subconsiously, some scientists are indeed thinking outside of the natural box and delving into the realm of “impossibility”.
April 15th, 2009 at 11:05 pm
I also dunno about the whole “It’s right to follow what you believe as long as you’re sincere” thing. The different religious concepts are so diverse that it’s hard to simply marry them all if you follow me. I believe all faiths have an element of truth because I believe that if you start with the Creator God, it seems natural that over time, the original concept of Him would become distored.
Kind of like chinese whispers, anyone ever play that? :p As you go along, the original sentence may end up completely different at the end.
Also, someone may sincerely believe in a God who tells them to sacrifice their children through burning, yet even the idea of such a thing is horrific to us. Makes you wonder why? We naturally know some things just aren’t right, yet why do we propose to have a monopoly on right and wrong?
I don’t believe all beliefs can be right, but I do believe they could all be wrong.
April 15th, 2009 at 11:16 pm
354. Stizzy : If they can’t all be right – which I also believe – they can’t all be wrong. Christianity might say killing another human is wrong, but if I come along tomorrow and start a religion that says “Killing people is your salvation” (sound like any fundamentalists you know?) then one of those is wrong and one is right. Because if the opposite of a wrong isn’t a right – or even just anything else that doesn’t fall into the set of the “wrong” – then what is right?
April 15th, 2009 at 11:30 pm
Yea I’d have to say that some of your picks for the list don’t really “cut the mustard”, but it is obvious that Christianity picked up on previous religious beliefs. BTW I think your inclusion of people in this list who were born on Dec, 25th is a bit unnecessary, mainly because Jesus wasn’t born on the 25th as most scholars agree on. Jesus was born in the late spring/ summer time if I remember correctly, but the church switched this to Dec, 25th which at the time was a popular “pagan” festival, so that more people would convert to the church. Christianity = Most corrupt religion ever
April 15th, 2009 at 11:31 pm
Very good points again Mark
and I believe you’ve hit on something that most people disregard. Namely, how do we arrive at what is right and what is wrong? Which is kind of what I was getting at. In effect, I should probably take back the statement “I do beileve they could all be wrong.” Because I don’t actually believe that. It would be more accurate to say it is simply a possibility. Obviously, I belief one faith is right, and the question becomes why? What is it that gives me the sense that this is right?
I believe a belief should make sense of the world the way we see it and account for what we can’t see as well as what we can. I believe it should make sense of purpose, of intelligence, of conscious and of our senses. This should also corrolate with what we see within the world.
For example, I look at the world and I see so much corruption and so much wrong and I may be inclined to ask myself “Why is the world like this, why are people like this?”. One may say we are all really good deep down, but does this reflect what we see in the world?
As morbid as it may sound, when you observe people you have to wonder if anyone does hardly anything for truly transparent reasons, or is there an element of selfishness? I love the subcontext in The Dark Knight where the Joker brings about the creation of Two-Face, in essence saying that even the best of us can become the worst of us given the right reason and motivation. And what is it within man that makes this possible?
Are we simply animals and going by our instincts as animals in a dog-eat-dog, survival of the fittest world? In which case, everything is relative and there is no ultimate purpose. Or, were we once in a state far better and became corrupted to the deepest root of our being so that our hearts are naturally inclined to evil? The second makes more sense to me because we definately have some kind of moral and ethical scale.
If mans heart is naturally bad, it makes sense that he can take anything good and corrupt it or abuse it. It makes sense that people will look for justification to do what may be festering in their heart. Hence why someone may join a belief that says “killing is your salvation” because at some root level, there are people they know they would kill if they could.
And then I ask myself, how does one deal with this inherently bad nature? Indeed, can man do anything about it? And what form of belief provides a way to counter this inherently bad nature? Can simply doing good deeds account for it?
If a man commits a crime and then afterwards goes into charity work, it doesn’t change the fact that he’s committed a crime and is thus deserving of punishment and jail, no matter how many good things he’s done.
Similarly, if someone is inherently bad, it makes no difference how many good acts they perform, their inward nature will most likely remain the same. Polish a turd and it’s still a turd loool
April 15th, 2009 at 11:33 pm
356. Studizzle4mob : *cough* Scientology *cough*
April 15th, 2009 at 11:35 pm
Studizzle4mob: haha! There are parts of that sentiment I do agree with. As an insitutional religion, Christianity (or Churchianity as i sometimes like to call it) has become incredibly corrupt.
What do you think of Jesus Himself Studizzle?
April 15th, 2009 at 11:42 pm
357. Stizzy : You wouldn’t happen to be on the wrong side of 70, British and living in Chile would you? That comment just wreaks of Anon, not in a good way either. Very long-winded, true eloquence is saying what is necessary and nothing more.
People do what they do because it’s best for them. You might say “What about those people giving up any chance of being rich or even comfortable doing work in Africa or Asia?”, well they’re doing what IS best for them. Helping people makes them feel like fame or riches might to us. People aren’t inherently “bad”, because what is bad, as you and I are both saying.
Which brings me to my cynicism on human nature, is what is best for you best for me? If not, will it hurt me? If so, how much? So in the end, was what you did bad, good or indifferent? People aren’t inherently bad, just not in complete agreement and taking the most natural and obvious course of action, what is best for them.
April 15th, 2009 at 11:54 pm
Nope, I am not
frankly I dunno what all that is meant to mean anyway. Wasn’t trying to be eloquent or anything, just saying what I think on the matter hehe.
People may do what they believe is best for them, but what we think is best for us isn’t always what’s good or best for us. Incidentaly, we live in a society where we think more of what’s best for us than for others. We think less of how our actions can affect the lives of other people and the people around those other people.
Indeed what is bad? On our own, I think we are hard pressed to define what is bad and what is right and so often we’ll relegate to what feels good and what doesn’t, what’s possible and what’s impossible. Often what feels right and doesn’t do us harm, we assume is good.
I believe there is a reference for good and bad, and by that definition, no one is truly good through and through. Definately we have good aspects and we can genuinely do things from the heart that are good, but overall we still remain far from it.
What it boils down to to me, is that we need guidance, and I’ve found no better source or authority for that guidance than Jesus Himself.
April 16th, 2009 at 12:04 am
361. Stizzy : No, what we think is best for us isn’t always so. But you must take into account the placebo effect, I mean, you and your buddies have been living off it for over 2000 years already
Not everyone needs guidance, and I myself prefer to just use music as a tool. It doesn’t “guide” me, it doesn’t affect the way that I act when I’m not playing my guitar or listening to some ‘knot of Zeppelin. But it does get me through the day and make me feel good.
I’m sure for that matter that there are plenty of better role models that could be used for guidance than Jesus. Mother Theresa, Nelson Mandela, bust out all of the cliches. At least they’re modern examples, unlike your buddy.
April 16th, 2009 at 12:15 am
Not everyone needs it or not everyone wants it? Afterall, if someone doesn’t believe they need it they certainly aren’t going to want it. And if something gets you through the day and makes you feel good, fair enough and I think it’s good in particular not to be influenced by just anything. But I wonder what the connotations are for humanity as a whole and the fate of the individual.
And I don’t see why Mother Theresa or Nelson Mandela being “modern” makes any difference. People always assume that modern equals better :-p When you do find a better role model, do let me know though
I’d be eager to meet them. Whatever other role model there may be, however, whatever they may speak of in terms of guidance in life, they won’t be able to account for life beyond death. This life is but a blink in the face of eternity.
April 16th, 2009 at 12:25 am
363. Stizzy : Not needing belief is an alien concept to you, that’s obvious. But to some (ME!) needing belief is just as strange. There aren’t any sinister connotations attached to that, it’s the way it’s always been. It’s not a modern phenomenon attached to the alleged “degradation” of the human races conscious. The world isn’t nearly as “bad” and “evil” as a lot of people seem to think, there are just as many nice people around as ever. Ever heard of the Romans? Were they particularly nice to Jebus? What about Hitler? Shouldn’t we have 5 of him running around by now if the world is THAT fucked up?
Modern does equal better in a role model, a modern role model is more relevant. Which is obviously a plus, right?
April 16th, 2009 at 12:32 am
Maybe we do have 5 of him running around, they just aren’t in a position of power :p or maybe one of them was until January loool.
How do you define whether a modern role model is more relevant, relevant in what sense?
April 16th, 2009 at 12:39 am
365. Stizzy : Aww, trying to get the Republicans to come out and play? Haven’t there always been 5 there then by that logic?
Ok, well, let’s say that there was a guy just like Jesus but he was your age, lived where you live, same job, same everything. But he acted like a perfect being, wouldn’t he be a better role model than Jesus because his actions can be better compared to yours?
April 16th, 2009 at 12:48 am
Hitler may have been the mind behind the atrocities, but it wasn’t him getting his hands dirty at the end of the day, it was the people on ground level, the people who not long before that would have been ordinary joes. He gave them a reason to unleash something that came from within themselves.
As for Jesus, if it’s his nature that makes the person who he is and drives them to act that way in the context of their surroundings, it wouldn’t matter what time period or society they lived in. Jesus’ message primarily dealt with the internal condition of people by addressing the pitfalls of human nature, and human nature is as relevant now as it was 2000 years ago because human nature has remained consistant.
It would be easier to see how that nature would manifest in a modern context if there was a guy just like Jesus who lived today and all that, but that wouldn’t make him a better role model would it? The actions come as a result of that nature.
April 16th, 2009 at 12:51 am
Man, Jesus is such a copycat. Get a life, man.
April 16th, 2009 at 1:10 am
367. Stizzy : You say people “need” belief essentially, well what do you think those people obeying Hitler’s orders were doing? They adored him, they worshipped him as a God almost. There’s your belief, it’s not just human nature that does that. If those people had gone “Hey, wait a second, why am I doing this?” rather then “Ok, I’ll do it for you Adolf” the world would’ve been a lot better off.
A role model is used as a guide, if the guide is set 2000 years in the past it’s going to be harder to follow.
April 16th, 2009 at 1:24 am
Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true. Peoples beliefs are based on their pressupositions and what they presuppose influences how they interpret what they observe or hear.
If the right presuppositions were in place, people when stopping to ask why they were doing something may have found themselves justifying why they’re doing it because of what they presuppose. Indeed, if they had stopped to consider whether their presuppositions were well grounded, the world may have been better off.
I don’t recall actually saying people need belief, although I did say they need guidance because what one believes may not necessarily be true, or how they act on their belief may not be in line with that they base that belief on.
If the guide is indeed an eternal being, their place in human history would hardly affect the relevance of their message. If the message is essentially how we treat others, loving and caring for those around us even if they don’t deserve it, I don’t see how that will be harder to follow whatever point in history the idea entered society. In and of itself, it’s timeless.
It may be harder to enact depending on the society surrounding you, but it still remains inspirational and something worthy to aspire to. Furthermore, if this eternal being also offers to literally dwell within you in order to help facilitate that aspiration, you have on heck of an assurance.
Of course, how much they will do is dependant on the choices we make.
April 16th, 2009 at 1:36 am
370. Stizzy : You’re being thick, I don’t know if it’s intentional of not but you are. Here it goes, if Jesus lived today and acted the way he did RIGHT NOW, it would be easier for you to take guidance from him and his actions and messages. This is quite simply because the context is one that you are used to and will be using the guidance in. 100% of the time this will be true, it’s simple logic. If all you take from Jesus is “loving and caring for those around us even if they don’t deserve it” then you don’t take “guidance” from him, you’re sticking to a creed that he also did. It’s not guidance, it’s a coincidence.
April 16th, 2009 at 2:01 am
I didn’t say that that’s all I’ve taken from his teaching, that was just one example and a very compacted one. Shame on me for trying to present a watered down message.
“…if Jesus lived today and acted the way he did RIGHT NOW, it would be easier for you to take guidance from him and his actions and messages.”
The fact remains that Jesus was born 2000 years ago and He indeed does live today and acts the way He did RIGHT NOW, and it is because of this that there are millions of people across the planet who consider Him the Lord of their lives and trust Him with their entire being. They are uncritically and unquestioningly devoted to Him despite their context. Every person on this Earth is untrustworthy in comparison and Bible itself affirms “Let God be true and every man a liar.”.
Whether I would receive and understand His message quicker if He lived today does not change the fact that He Himself is a perfect example of living and that I believe, trust in and aspire to be like Him and so do many, many others.
What you’re saying is akin to saying that someone who speaks a language other than yours can’t be as good a role model compared to someone who does speak your language. I don’t understand the logic in that.
April 16th, 2009 at 2:09 am
372. Stizzy : No, now you’re paraphrasing me. What I would be saying is, someone who speaks the same language as you is generally going to be a better role model. If you had a choice between a Spanish speaking Jesus and an English speaking one you’re going to take the English one 10 times out of 10. So don’t try and paint me as the one who’s discriminating.
The people who do trust and believe him completely – note I don’t capitalize “him” – are morons. You can’t love the person who’s about to rape your wife, you can’t afford to “do unto others…” to the guy who’s just about to kill you children and you sure as Hell can’t care about that man sticking an AK-47 in your face. Because if you do, just think about what happens.
April 16th, 2009 at 2:26 am
It’s not paraphrasing if I said it’s akin to something else. If it’s someone’s character and action that is the measure of their weight as a role model, this is hardly dependant on their language is it? You individually may not be able to understand them until they learn your language or they learn yours, but this in no way diminishes how great or not so great a person they are.
You may pick the english speaker over the spanish, but is that because they’re a better role model or because it’s simply easier for you to go to the english speaker than learn spanish, even if the spanish speaker IS better?
Depends what you mean by “love”. In english, we use this one word to account for a multitude of meanings whereas in the language Jesus was speaking, He would have used several different words to describe different kinds of love. Indeed, I wouldn’t expect you to develop a friendship or relationship with that person, how hard would that be?
But perhaps, to care about their wellbeing and ultimate fate might be another matter, should they be killed, stripped of their humans right or tortured? Despite the pain they may have caused, you may not personally wish pain on them or others. Incredibly hard, but not impossible.
You say you can’t afford to “do unto others…”. If I were about to kill a man’s children, I would expect him to do whatever in his power to make sure I don’t. So if a man were about to kill my children, he shouldn’t expect me to just sit back and do nothing. And because I wouldn’t want someone to kill my children, I wouldn’t go and try to kill someone elses child.
And why can’t you care about the person sticking an AK-47 in your face? Can you not think about why he is pointing that gun in your face, what could have led him to this course of action? Can you not hope that whatever he does to you, he will eventually find peace, he will have enough to eat and his family will be well provided for? and if in the end, he kills me, I have nothing to fear because I know I’m entering into eternal peace.
Consider that moronic if you will. Maybe you can’t do any of these things and indeed what man, of his own strength and will, can? With man it’s impossible, with God all these things are possible.
April 16th, 2009 at 3:00 am
374. Stizzy : Are you serious? Of course you have to understand them and what they are saying and doing for them to be a good role model. I’m sorry mate but it seems insane that you could believe anything else
Thanks for the detailed replies to my hypotheticals, but they weren’t really necessary. Rhetorical questions don’t go down so well on LV, too many smart people around
So, you’d be fine with that guy raping your wife over killing him because the ultimate consequence of you killing him is worse than him raping your wife? Seems a bit harsh to me…
If I was about to kill someone’s children I’d have a damn good reason – refer to your next answer, bit of a slip up there – and I wouldn’t be trying to kill them as a form of indirect suicide. I actually find it hard to believe that anyone would…
LOL, I tell you what, I do think that answer is moronic. Sure, you could “care” about him to an extent, but even a Christian wants to live…
Eternal peace, now that’s touchy, that’s where you lose me. The difference between cherry-picking the “good” teachings of Christ and believing what the Church tells you is a fine one I guess, and you’re on the wrong side. If there is an afterlife, then why is suicide bad? Sure, it’s a good teaching, “don’t kill yourself”, but doesn’t God want you to be with him?
April 16th, 2009 at 3:33 am
I don’t believe it’s understanding them that makes THEM a good role model, it’s understanding them that determines how well YOU are able to imitate them. You get what I mean?
“So, you’d be fine with that guy raping your wife over killing him because the ultimate consequence of you killing him is worse than him raping your wife? Seems a bit harsh to me…”
On the contrary, what kind of person would be ok with that kind of thing? Undoubtedly I would be deeply grieved, hurt and would probably want to lash out in some way. What I do with my feelings is very important. I’d have to ask myself if killing him would be the only choice in order to stop him. If the act was committed without my being able to stop it, it would be down to me to deal with my grief. I would obviously want to seek justice, but vengeance is another matter.
“If I was about to kill someone’s children I’d have a damn good reason – refer to your next answer, bit of a slip up there – and I wouldn’t be trying to kill them as a form of indirect suicide. I actually find it hard to believe that anyone would…”
What do you think would be a good enough reason to kill someone’s children? And I dunno what slip up you’re referring to, I’ll have to re-read hehe. Also dunno where the indirect suicide bit comes from so I can’t really answer that.
“LOL, I tell you what, I do think that answer is moronic. Sure, you could “care” about him to an extent, but even a Christian wants to live…”
I believe it was the apostle Paul who said something along the lines of that if he has to stay on earth, he’s happy to do so, but to be with God would be far better.
“Eternal peace, now that’s touchy, that’s where you lose me. The difference between cherry-picking the “good” teachings of Christ and believing what the Church tells you is a fine one I guess, and you’re on the wrong side. If there is an afterlife, then why is suicide bad? Sure, it’s a good teaching, “don’t kill yourself”, but doesn’t God want you to be with him?”
I don’t understand the reference to cherry picking good teaching and believing what the church tells people. To what exactly are you referring to?
I believe that at the culmination of history, Jesus will create a new universe and a new Earth to dwell on with His people. This is what I refer to when I say eternal peace.
What happens to another individual upon death isn’t for me to know or for me to judge because I don’t know the status of their heart or their mind. God knows, and God is just & merciful, therefore I know He will do and judge rightly in such matters as suicide. That said, our lives are not our own and life is a gift from God, and with our lives and our bodies we are meant to honour Him. So it could be said that suicide is a dishonour to Him. With this in mind, no matter how much God wants us to be with Him, I don’t see Him condoning suicide, especially if the circumstances don’t lead that person to being with Him.
April 16th, 2009 at 3:59 am
376. Stizzy : I do get the first point, but without someone to imitate them, they aren’t a role model, just a good person. For example, I’m a far from perfect sportsperson, I play futsal and cricket with limited skill (OK I’m good at club level, but when I play rep I struggle), but I’m a role model to my brother much more than the other, more skilled players he’s seen playing with me. See how being “good” and being a good role model can be two completely different things?
Let’s just forget about my stupid hypotheticals – I’m not conceding a “verbal” outmanouvering, but it’s tiring me and I’m going to be getting off soon anyway.
Taking guidance from Jesus and believing in an omnipotent being called “God” CAN be seperated. That’s all I was saying. I think that’s how we have “CHRISTian” scientists, of course they know that God as he appears in the bible is full of crap, but Jesus could’ve just been a really great guy.
And I’m really not in the mood to argue with a “jesus-freak” – gotta love Pi – right now, WAY too distracted.
April 16th, 2009 at 4:19 am
376. Stizzy- Excellent points you brought up and I enjoyed your comments! Its good to be your Christian brother mate!
April 16th, 2009 at 4:22 am
378. Cybogen : Oh no, no no no no, where’s one of the A-Patrol when you need them? I don’t want to walk out here – which I do fully intend on doing – because then you two will start talking Christian and then I’ll have SO much to reply to in the morning :’(
April 16th, 2009 at 4:56 am
If a role model is defined as someone worthy of imitation, they don’t need to have imitators to be a role model. The fact they are worthy of it is seen as enough. Obviously your brother deems you as worthy of imitation rather than more skilled players. I have younger brothers so I know what you’re talking about, you often wonder why on earth they look to imitate you and often I’d rather they didn’t looool. Obviously they see something in us we don’t and that they don’t believe they can find anywhere else
I know where you’re going with the seperation of Jesus and God thing, although what you say about Christian Scientists I think is a bit presumptuous. That said, if Jesus wasn’t God, and is just reduced to a man or “really great guy”, He can’t really be called a really great guy because of the things He claimed. Either He really believed He was something He wasn’t in which case He was at the least, misguied and at worst insane and therefore unreliable. Or He knew that He was speaking falsehood in which case He was hardly a great guy. This leaves just one other option, that He was and is God.
Any scientist who calls themselves Christian is just using a title.
If you wish to depart please feel free to do so
you don’t have to reply to anything else if you don’t want to.
Cybogen, much appreciated
April 16th, 2009 at 4:57 am
342. Baxter – April 15th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
To Stizzy and Cybogogen -
The impetus is not on me to prove that God doesn’t exist. There isn’t a scrap of evidence to suggest that he does. Therefore it is retarded to use the argument that God could impregnate a virgin because it presupposes an impossibility. I stick by my statement because it is YOU who has made the illogical assertion, not me.
Yes I made this assertion coming from Bible scripture which was ASKED OF to me to provide as support to gabi319.
Even if I didn’t believe it to be true its not my original assertion to say either way. It comes from the Bible. So I hope that clears up how that came about.
April 16th, 2009 at 5:04 am
whoops, need to clear up suttin
*Any scientist who calls themselve Christian yet denies Jesus is God is just using a title.
hehe, my bad.
Also to add, if without imitators a person is not a role model, do you think that would mean that without worshippers, God wouldn’t be God? By His nature alone He’s more than deserving of worship and He doesn’t need people to be who and what He is.
April 16th, 2009 at 5:09 am
380. Stizzy : We’ve just miscommunicated on the role model thing, I agree with you in what you’re saying. My definition of role model however is a practical one in which they actually ARE imitated.
Are you saying that there is no room for science and Christianity to overlap? Because if not, then I’m afraid your “type” are ultimately doomed.
I’ma gonna go watch telly, if I don’t reply to anything else c’yall tomoz
BTW, Jesus could’ve just been a guy who wanted people to act well during life and not be afraid of death. If he knew the “God” crap he was spewing up was crap then obviously he was lying, but if it was concocted by him and it’s now helping people like you, was that wrong?
April 16th, 2009 at 5:12 am
353. Stizzy – By the way…That comment on #353 was very good. I like your reasoning and I think you have it all understood. I… just like you have no doubts about what we say. Yet I think we have all ( well most of us) shown some good debate here. I am glad to eread your psts and everyone elses on here. Its all about us communicating our feelings. We say what we feel and thats our freedom here.
April 16th, 2009 at 5:13 am
382. Stizzy : Well, I guess I can reply to one more before I leave
If God had no worshippers would it even matter? On this Earth it wouldn’t – unless God is the jealous type, then some people could die
– but after this… Well is he really going to send everyone to Hell? Sure God would still be God, as a true role model without “followers” would still be a “role model”, just not actually being emulated.
April 16th, 2009 at 5:33 am
385. Mark- Hello Mate. I read your comment and its a good question. If you don’t mind I give you my thoughts as to why GOD made us. As i’ve been taught (its only my opinion ) is that GOD created us (as long as you believe about creation that is ) to glorify HIm and to share the Love that HE is infinitely indwelled with. HE also wanted for us to share the Love and Creation that HE brought about togive purpose to HIS ability to Love but ALSO to be Loved. He is infinitely merciful and loving!
He is not necessarily jealous but HE is angered by some humans belief in other GODs.
Its like if you had children born unto you then they came home but went to live with your neighbors (example here) and your children recognized them as their parents and loved them in the same way as you. It would make a parent sad and yet jealous when that parent did everything to show their child love but only to be betrayed by going to live with your neighbor instead. (i hope you see what I mean cuz its the best example I can say to portray GODs view of us not believing in HIM or loving hIM as HE Loves us.) I liked your question and thanks for reading my comment mate!
April 16th, 2009 at 5:38 am
“Are you saying that there is no room for science and Christianity to overlap? Because if not, then I’m afraid your “type” are ultimately doomed.”
That was a typo hehe, I corrected it afterwards. I do definately believe there can be overlap
“BTW, Jesus could’ve just been a guy who wanted people to act well during life and not be afraid of death. If he knew the “God” crap he was spewing up was crap then obviously he was lying, but if it was concocted by him and it’s now helping people like you, was that wrong?”
For a man who claimed to keep all the commandments of God, one of which being not to life, for Him to lie would definately be wrong and to knowingly lead billions of people to believe a falsehood would also be wrong. I believe it was Paul again who said something along the lines that if Jesus didn’t rise from the dead, we would be pitied above all men. But the quality of His message I believe negates the possibility, and I don’t believe it would be helping me if indeed the power of God didn’t exist.
Afterall, we’ve all seen what religion can do right?
I like to define religion as man trying to build a stairway to heaven. It’s an impossible task because it’ll never reach there!
“If God had no worshippers would it even matter? On this Earth it wouldn’t – unless God is the jealous type, then some people could die – but after this… Well is he really going to send everyone to Hell?”
When I posed the question I meant it more in the sense that if God had never created the earth and people to worship Him :p but what you say is also very interesting. It wouldn’t matter in the sense that God doesn’t NEED us, but it would matter in the sense that He WANTS us. It would matter to Him because it would be heartbreaking to Him knowing what would be everyone’s fate. I mean, imagine how many people could already have been sent to hell throughout the entirety of human history? The thought alone is shocking and tragic!
And the Bible does say the God is a jealous God :p not jealous in the sense of envious, but jealous in the sense that we belong to Him and therefore He is jealous for us. Same way you would expect a husband to be jealous for his wife as opposed to being envious of another’s wife.
Until next time dude
great talking with you as always.
Definately Cybogen, there has been some excellent debate here and carefully crafted arguments from both sides. I love these kind of debates
although they don’t half take a lot out of you haha.
April 16th, 2009 at 5:48 am
Should probably clarify some definitions of jealousy and envy here actually.
Jealousy referring to the thoughts, feelings and actions that occur when one believes a valued relationship is threatened. So God being jealous for His people is basically saying He doesn’t want anything to threaten His relationship with them.
Envy on the other hand is to do with spiteful, resentful and grudging admiration of another or the desire to have something that belongs to another. Since we are God’s creation and belong to Him, He can’t have that envious kind of jealousy.
April 16th, 2009 at 5:58 am
OOUCHAN- Good Morning to you Senorita~
April 16th, 2009 at 6:21 am
386. Cybogen : The more I talk to you people the crazier you sound
God is all powerful but he can’t keep his children’s attentions? Seems a bit dodgy to me…
387. Stizzy : You might not believe it, but if God isn’t real, then it is helping you regardless so don’t stress. I was just throwing the idea out there. What I really meant about the Jebus thing was just a really manipulative sort of guy, sure what he was doing was “wrong” by “his” standards but in the end, they would help make a bettere world – or so he thought. Either that or he was just completely insane
The fact that an omnipotent being would screw up that badly – as I said above – is hard for me to fathom personally though, but I guess if you can believe it…
Oooooh, next episode of Law and Order starting, bye again.
April 16th, 2009 at 6:31 am
If He were a guy who did think that, then He definately would be insane
Even at His trial, Jesus wasn’t found by Pilate to be guilty of wrong or evil, and Herod dismissed Him as insane. No one considered Him just some guy.
And it isn’t the Omnipotent being that does the screwing up is it? :-p it’s His children who are given the ability to choose. He could have created robots who just obeyed, but you want children to WANT to love, trust and obey you and to do so, they have to choose to.
It’s not the fault or failure of God that we choose not to pay attention to Him. Could He force us to pay attention to Him? Probably, but then it wouldn’t be our choice and it wouldn’t be true, and God wouldn’t cheat or lie to Himself in such a way. Just not in His nature
Such is His faithful nature that He will allow people to follow the paths they choose, even if they lead to their destruction. He won’t force Himself on anyone, but He will try and disuade one.
April 16th, 2009 at 6:39 am
391. Stizzy – Yes, as you said it is not that HE cannot make us obey or pay attention. That would be so easy and would not allow us free will to show real Love.
Its a force you to say you love me or obey by either some way of brainwashing you or manipulating you or putting a gun to your head. Would I expect then that you really love me or obey me cause you want when you say it as you tremble in fear? Nah. but if you say it or act out your love for another through your desire to do so then thats TRUE love and obedience and thats what GOD wants from us!
April 16th, 2009 at 6:50 am
Cybogen…morning, dear! I missed alot while I was sleeping. Give me a few to catch up on this interesting conversation!
April 16th, 2009 at 6:51 am
391. Stizzy and 392. Cybogen : Ok, now you two have completely lost me and my interest. I don’t really want to argue about the way God works seeing as it’s evident that no matter what I say you’ll be able to twist it to fit your beliefs. It was good fun though, I dare say I’ll catch up with both of you some time in the not too distant future.
April 16th, 2009 at 7:02 am
No worries Mark
indeed it’s been fun. Until next time 
April 16th, 2009 at 7:11 am
Yes Mark! See you around these parts soon. Good day Mate!
April 16th, 2009 at 8:03 am
Wow…I missed some good stuff here. I hate when I miss out. I am not going to try to catch up, but think that everyone made some good points…cybogen, mark and stizzy. You kept it civil and nice. Unlike others.
I did want to answer this question….the one about “turning the other cheek” in regards to rape vs vengence vs murder subject. If it were my daughter, they wouldn’t find any trace of his body. Period. Hell would be too good for him.
April 16th, 2009 at 8:15 am
397. oouchan : Yeah, that’s what we’ve come to expect from you though, good to see you didn’t disappoint
April 16th, 2009 at 8:19 am
As I have pondered and studied searching for “Truth” with all my heart, (after all, if there is a God I want to know Him), I have come across these and many others not on this list. It is most mysterious that cultures separated by, at the time, incrossable divides, all come up with similiar stories, I.e. the “Flood Myth and the Creation Stories). Deucalion of Greek mythololgy, Uthapishtim of Gilgamesh’s epic, and Noah all build arks anticipating a world wide flood. Now as I study Plato I am reminded to keep a child like attitude so that I may learn. I am also reminded that everything is not always as it appears. (The Myth of the Cave). I advocate asking questions and being teachable. Throw a prayer up to an unknown God and wait. You may be surprised.
April 16th, 2009 at 8:22 am
Mark….well poo. Didn’t realize I was so predictable. (hehe)
April 16th, 2009 at 8:29 am
400. oouchan : About most things you’re not (TRUST ME!), but your daughter, well, let’s settle with ultra-protective?
April 16th, 2009 at 8:32 am
hahaha! I agree.
April 16th, 2009 at 8:36 am
Wow some good debate. To be honest the one source that made me completely accept the existence of a higher being is “Summa Theologica” by Thomas Aquinas.
Especially the section on the Proof of the existence of God.
I was raised Catholic however in my teenage years I began to have my doubts. I read the “proofs of god” when I was 19 or 20 and I have never doubted since.
God’s existence is so fundamentally necessary that there can not be any scenario where there is not an infinite entity from which everything originated.
And this entity is infinitely intelligent.
Its one of the greatest works of philosophy ever written and if you haven’t read it yet, I STRONGLY recommend it!!
April 16th, 2009 at 8:42 am
By the way I no longer consider myself catholic. The catholic church is a sham (with all due respect to any catholics). I do not recognize the authority of the pope. Im sorry but in my heart I feel that NOBODY is any closer to god then I am. Besides where does he get off telling people about what they should or shouldn’t do with their bodies? Thats between you and your savior. Not some guy with an expensive hat.
April 16th, 2009 at 8:45 am
404. Rolo Tomasi : Oooh, don’t forget the pretty robes
April 16th, 2009 at 8:51 am
404. Rolo Tomasi: or the Pope-mo-bile!
April 16th, 2009 at 8:54 am
406. oouchan : Yeah, he actually drove around Sydney in that! The Pope, in Australia, lols.
April 16th, 2009 at 9:39 am
I never could understand this whole business with the Pope, I believe it does go against what scripture implies. No other man is any closer to God in this respect than anyone else, and the idea of the Pops infalibility is just like, eh? There’s a lot that confuses and astounds me about the Catholic church.
Mousey, I’ve read some excellent articles around the flood legends throughout the world, that almost every culture has a similar story and many of them agree on several points.
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=341
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v20/n3/china
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=414
To name a few.
Rolo, I will definately have to check that out. Read a brief bit about the five proofs and they’re fascinating! And idea of a good source to get a hold of the whole thing?
April 16th, 2009 at 10:04 am
371. Mark -
The people who do trust and believe him completely – note I don’t capitalize “him” – are morons. You can’t love the person who’s about to rape your wife, you can’t afford to “do unto others…” to the guy who’s just about to kill you children and you sure as Hell can’t care about that man sticking an AK-47 in your face. Because if you do, just think about what happens.
You use extreme examples here. I am sure nobody thinking logically would let their loved ones die when a moment of defense to a criminal arises. When endangered by threat of yourself or another. An act of protecting a victim from a criminal is an act of kindness. If a criminal happens to die because he was to take the life or cause severe trauma to an innocent victim then swift and violent action in response is necessary. Its very much common sense to anybody!
April 16th, 2009 at 10:11 am
408. Cybogen : It is against what you claim your beliefs to be, either you would be going against your beliefs OR you don’t truly hold them, simple as that.
Now then, 3:10am in the morn, I think I need a little sleep before dawn. Catch you all later
April 16th, 2009 at 10:23 am
Stizzy- Do you know what the heck Mark is talking about in his comment below? If you read mine on 408 and some you have written I think we can to some logical answers to his confusion Where is he coming from ?!?!?
Perhaps he does need his rest. It must be cause of his lack of sleep and he’s confused moreso…POOR CHAP
409. Mark
Cybogen : It is against what you claim your beliefs to be, either you would be going against your beliefs OR you don’t truly hold them, simple as that
Now then, 3:10am in the morn, I think I need a little sleep before dawn. Catch you all later
April 16th, 2009 at 10:42 am
I assume he means that if you chose to defend another by killing the attacker, you would be going against the command now to murder. Although this does depend on how you define murder, as murder would involve intention and premeditation. If, in trying to defend another, the attacker is killed without intent or premeditation, you might question whether it’s murder or manslaughter.
I don’t believe this excuses such actions that would lead to manslaughter, afterall even governmental law considers manslaughter a punishable crime, however I do seem to recall in the old testament that there was a specific kind of punishment for manslaughter that wasn’t the same as murder. Murder was punishable by death whereas I believe for manslaughter the person was to be banished to a specific city or something.
When Jesus came, many things changed and He spoke of even hating another in your heart as committing murder. So even by wishing to do so, you’re guilty in God’s eyes. As for manslaughter, I guess we could only appeal to the mercy of God Himself, however I believe it would be wrong of us to determine within ourselves before hand that should someone try to do something we may kill them. That’s murderous intent right there.
So I believe this is what Mark is getting at, that to say you would probably kill someone who did attack your loved ones is to go against what you believe, so to say you would do so is to premeditate killing someone and if you believe that’s ok, you don’t truly belive in “You shall not murder” He makes a good point.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:47 am
Randall, I bow to your superior wisdom and knowledge and to ContinuousStudent and hope others will emulate you in the search for enlightenment. I personally find that, the more I learn the more ignorant I become!
Just a thought to stir debate; since God is an alien (not human) and since we can now, not only clone humans but also grow a foetus outside the womb, would that not costitute virgin birth?
Perhaps we have been visited many times in the past by aliens, who with advanced knowledge were able to perform so called miracles! If we were able to time travel to distant pasts with our technology, we would be regarded as GODS!!
Another thought, if Roman soldiers were mostly illiterate, they were lead by men of learning who were sought out to be converted and by assimilating the pagan beliefs were able to subvert the men under their command.
The Roman senate took advantage of this to exert contol over this ‘new religion’ by adopting it and created the new Church with its headquarters in Rome.
We are all atheists since we disbelieve in all prior religions! I prefer gnostic, as I believe we must search for truth and not follow dogmas with blind obedience, be they Jew, Muslim, Christian or other. IMAGINE, truly a song of wisdom. I lean towards Buddhism as the most benign to our planet and fellow humans. All life should be respected and honoured, as your bible states; ‘Do unto others as you would unto thyself’. Strive for peace and love will surely follow.
IF one wishes to believe in alien gods, okay by me, I am not preaching only asking you to seek knowledge with an unbiased mind.
Peace and love to all (we need all we can get!!)
April 16th, 2009 at 10:59 am
hey lostatsea….don’t forget your towel!
April 16th, 2009 at 11:11 am
That might be considered an insult to those of the Sikh faith!!
April 16th, 2009 at 11:18 am
Have you ever heard the logic question? Either Jesus Christ is who he said he was, or he was a lunatic, or he was a liar. He left no other option open for us. So give him up as mad or evil but you can’t write him off as just a moral teacher. He claimed deity ,”I am the Light of the World…Before Abraham was I am….. I and the Father are One…… Those who believe in Me will have eternal Life. “. Only a madman would make these claims or the most evil kind of imposter. Or………….. He is God.
April 16th, 2009 at 11:20 am
lostatsea: it would, but since it has to do with hitchhikers, then it’s all good!
April 16th, 2009 at 11:20 am
Or was she quoting Towlie on Southpark ?
April 16th, 2009 at 11:26 am
Yeah Mousey, I used that very same logic question when debating with Mark, although I’ve noticed most people say “Or there’s a 4th option, He was just a guy/prophet/good man.”
April 16th, 2009 at 11:44 am
mousey: or he was an alien, who was created from DNA (cloned!) from ‘The Father’!!
Since we discovered Quantum Physics we begin to question Reality and as we are constructed from atoms, does that make each of us Gods to the multiverses within us?
oochan: lucky me, I have a lifeboat of love to see me through the perilous waters of life and the belief that love will win over this darkness that overshadows us all.
One has only to look at Africa, Middle East and Gaza to see the evil perpertrated by forces in world governments and religions that seek to control and divide us from the true purpose of love and respect for all life on our biological entity we call Earth (which should really be called WATER as it covers most of this planet!).
April 16th, 2009 at 11:49 am
I saw both films too. Unlike any cult members, I always research information myself, so I can formulate my own opinion, not what a cult leader tells me I should think. I hope other people will view this with an open mind. Excellent post!
April 16th, 2009 at 11:53 am
“or he was an alien, who was created from DNA (cloned!) from ‘The Father’!!”
He didn’t leave that option open either, as He was fully man. BUT, He was the full embodiment of God.
April 16th, 2009 at 11:57 am
Worlds in Collision has an interesting theory of our planets colliding with another galaxy thus propagating the floods and reports of the sun staying in the sky for two days while legends from the dark side mention also a night of lasting darkness. This would account for the reversals in the magnetic field as our core would still spin on its axis as the crust stopped due to gravitational forces exerted. This may have separated the continents to where they are now, check geological evidence of African geology on east coast of Americas.
April 16th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Stizzy: Who’s to say aliens couln’t replicate human form?
I believe the bible says that ‘angels’ slept with human females and that their offspring were Giants and GOD was displeased!
April 16th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Yeah, that’s angels not aliens. Jesus wasn’t an angel and Jesus did’t replicate human form, He actually had human form. Alien beings from other worlds don’t make sense in the Biblical world view. The entire universe was subjected to the same diminishing curse as mankind. Therefore, were there intelligent beings on other worlds, they would be subject to corruption and in need of salvation. And because they wouldn’t be human, Jesus would have to be incarnated and die for each of them. The Bible explicitely says that He died ONCE and for all.
April 16th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Were ‘angels not aliens?
April 16th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
RUSHFAN- Quite the list you made. We will probably hit 500 comments before days up and maybe 700 before the end of the week.Whenever religion is the flavor of the day you see this happen and to tell you truthfully…its very interesting and cool to see peoples thoughts.
April 16th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
No, angels were angels. They were spiritual beings who serve God, deliver messages and sometimes are agents of healing and judgement. The word “angel” means messenger.
April 16th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Obviously everyone does not view the Bible as the authority on mankind. I find it hard to believe that anyone with some semblance of intelligence could actually interpret the Bible literally, and not question anything in it. That frightens me. In Christianity and every other cult one of the major themes is “our way is the only way”. That’s sheer insanity!
April 16th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Amazing how cocksure some people are and unwilling to even try to formulate a different point of view for the sake of discussion,only the bible tells me so! BTW Angels are not human ergo aliens.
April 16th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
403 Rolo Tomasi: God’s existence is so fundamentally necessary that there can not be any scenario where there is not an infinite entity from which everything originated.
From your book? Sounds like a load of tripe to me. From whence did this infinite entity originate? Oh, it’s infinite. Gotcha. Might as well just say: “when we don’t know or can’t comprehend the answer, it’s ok to make something up”.
April 16th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Are you trying to formulate a different point of view for the sake of what I’m saying? I’m entertaining what you say, I simply don’t agree with it and I’m speaking to you from my world view. I’m not going to put that aside to discuss the matter because it is based on the Bible that I interpret what I see. And I’m telling you how it is according to the Bible. From the Biblical stand point, there are no aliens in the sense of beings from other planets. I understand what your getting at with the notion of Alien in the sense that extraterrestrial can mean one not from Earth, but it confuses the issue and it seems more like trying to make a way to insert aliens from other planets into the Bible.
“Obviously everyone does not view the Bible as the authority on mankind. I find it hard to believe that anyone with some semblance of intelligence could actually interpret the Bible literally, and not question anything in it. That frightens me. In Christianity and every other cult one of the major themes is “our way is the only way”. That’s sheer insanity!”
Obviously not everyone does view the Bible as authority, but I do. And the entire Bible isn’t literal. It is a library of literature of several different genres. Some are songs, some parts use figurative language, and you interpret based on the context and in light of other scriptures. This isn’t taking everything without question, indeed Paul when preaching encouraged people not just to take what He said at face value but to actually search the old testament scriptures to see if what he said lined up with them. God many times answered the questions of people who had them, and we are told to work out our salvation with fear and trembling, as in with respect and reverance but not to walk in blind acceptance.
To blindly accept something is to not understand it, and if you don’t understand it you can hardly live, talk about and practice it correctly.
I don’t believe it’s fair of you to question anothers intelligence because they don’t hold they same presuppositional beliefs that you do. Say what you will about the institution of “Christianity” but I’m speaking from the Bible here. Jesus Himself said “I am the Way the Truth and the Life” And as was pointed out before, either He was telling the truth, He was lying, or He sincerely believed it but was wrong in which case He was insane and it would all be insanity.
All beliefs can’t be right, and all beliefs cant be wrong. There has to be A right in there somewhere because nothing else makes sense of the universe. And indeed, does every belief say “our way is the only way”? Because what is “the way” in other beliefs? Do they all have the same intent and destination. Hardly. Do they all have a concept or the same concept of God? No. Do they all have an afterlife? No. So not every belief would even claim to be “the way”.
I will say this though, in no other belief does God promise to come and dwell with His people and live within them.
April 16th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
“From your book? Sounds like a load of tripe to me. From whence did this infinite entity originate? Oh, it’s infinite. Gotcha. Might as well just say: “when we don’t know or can’t comprehend the answer, it’s ok to make something up”.”
The “entity” Himself is the one who proclaims Himself to be eternal, so it wouldn’t be making it up.
If the Creator made the universe, He made space, time and matter. If He made time, it means there was no concept of time before He made it. There was no beginning, no middle, no end until He made it so. Therefore, there were no origins or beginnings until He created time, hence He doesn’t “originate” from anywhere. “Anywhere” originates from Him. One who exists outside of time has no beginning because a beginning would be within time. One who exists outside of space can’t come from anywhere per se, because that would be to have a location within space.
In saying “where did this entity originate” you are trying to define the entity according to the bounds of our universe and according to our human perspective.
April 16th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
I also believe we exist in hell and to seek heaven must work to educate and inspire hope and love in others so we might create heaven out of this hell on earth in which we live. Mankind has since the dawn of history warred and enslaved their neighbors, many times under the banner of Christianity, it seems evil has won. Jew, Muslim or Christian seem to not follow the teachings of their faiths and instead embrace evil to denigrate any who do not follow their respective tenets. Love thy neighbor, do not kill, etc. etc.
April 16th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Why can there be only one right way? I believe you are brainwashed, thereby rendering you incapable of considering that you may indeed be very wrong in your beliefs. This should be a stimulating, thought provoking discussion, not an attempt to proselytize.
April 16th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Indeed Jesus did promise that heaven will one day exist on Earth after He remakes it. And I also believe that His mission that was handed down to His followers is to inspire hope and love in others in spite of the hell we are making on Earth.
You’re absolutely right that since the dawn of history mankind has sought only evil. I believe the Bible says something akin to “Every intent of the heart of man is evil from his birth”, as in we are predisposed to rather choose darkness over light, for indeed we hate the light lest our evil deeds be exposed.
And you’re right again that under the banner of Christianity as well as other belifs, evil has prevailed across the Earth. I believe it is inherent within human nature for people to seek a means to justify the darkness they know is within them. They may want to hate one different from them and so they will grasp any authorative means that allows them to do so. So yes, the embrace evil to denigrate any who is different from them.
It’s such a tragedy that people have fallen so short of the example Jesus left for us to follow and have heaped their own wrappings upon what was Good News. The Good News has become the Bad News that nobody wants to hear and people are now throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Very intuitive response lostatsea.
April 16th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
sallie (435):
It´s not brainwashing, it´s called FAITH.
And derogatory comments do not lead to “stimulating, thought provoking discussions.” Lead by example.
April 16th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
433 Stizzy: The “entity” Himself is the one who proclaims Himself to be eternal, so it wouldn’t be making it up.
He did? Or did someone just make that up?
April 16th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
“Why can there be only one right way? I believe you are brainwashed, thereby rendering you incapable of considering that you may indeed be very wrong in your beliefs. This should be a stimulating, thought provoking discussion, not an attempt to proselytize.”
There is too much disagreement between these beliefs and contradictary elements for them all to be right. I say either write them all off, or accept that only one of them is truly viable.
Just because I don’t believe my belief is wrong it doesn’t make me brainwashed or incapable of considering the possibility. Even the apostle Paul said that if Jesus didn’t rise from the dead, we would be pitied above all men. The implications of it are indeed staggering. If my belief is wrong, indeed I would be a pitiful man.
I’m not attempting to proselytize, I’m simply explaining what I believe and why and how the issues relate to the Bible. I don’t see why every time someone tries to explain their faith view, they’re accused of trying to proselytize. I have not asked anyone to believe in Jesus or accept Jesus or to accept that the Bible is the authorit and that is that. I’ve simply stated that for me, it is so and that I have accepted Jesus. You are free to take it or leave it.
When someone speaks from their atheistic point of view, they are not told to stop proselytising or preaching.
April 16th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Also, rather than accusing me of trying to convert people, why not at least just discuss the issues that I’ve raised or try and refute them if you will?
April 16th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
“He did? Or did someone just make that up?”
For the sake of what I said afterwards, consider that He did. What do you believe that would say for the rest of my argument? Rather than just insisting that it makes no difference because He is made up and doesn’t exist etc etc, give me reasons for why He was made up and doesn’t exist, and see if you have an answer to what I proposed
April 16th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
I did not intend to insult your intelligence and apologize if I did, but your dogmatic approach using your book to back your arguments is counter productive to a discussion.
In my 61 yrs baptised a Presbyterian(Scottish, the strict type!) I have tavelled to many countries who did not share my religion and have seen the same slavish devotion to their books. Who is right? Have all these followers of God been banished to Hell?, if so must be pretty crowded!
All those poor souls that existed before Jesus, because they didn’t know Christianity were they also condemned? Does’nt make GOD very compassionate does it?
April 16th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
It’s impossible to discuss a topic like this with someone who continually resorts to the Bible as the final word on whatever point they’re trying to convey, or whatever another attempts to refute. I apologize for accusing you of attempting to convert people. Would you even consider viewing Zeitgeist & researching the subject matter presented? I know what the Bible says..I want to know what other people think, not what they’ve been programmed to think.
April 16th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Stizzy: At least you are being level headed about this.
I don’t believe in all this (many here know that already!) but I say “to each their own”. Each person is allowed to believe what they will and shouldn’t suffer for it. (should see the fiasco on the atheist page!)
I personally believe in spirits and the like. I follow Inari and the Shinto religion. It’s very laid back…perfect for me.
April 16th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Stizzy: I agree with your point that you should be able to share your beliefs with open and intelligent discourse. However, I think the issue with your stance is that you are transferring the burden of proof. Since that belief system is built on conjecture and speculation, the burden of proof then falls on the believer. The only reasonable response to why an individual disregards that belief system is the lack of empirical evidence to substantiate some pretty wild claims. Ultimately, I think that faith can be virtuous, but only to the extent that it yields to reason and scientific fact. Reason must supersede faith lest we give way to the slippery slope of theocracy.
April 16th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Sallie: Apology accepted, no worries, although in light of that, you then assume I’ve been programmed to think what I think. I think what I do because I have carefully and tirelessly researched the subject. Obviously we won’t both come to the same conclusions.
I don’t find it impossible to discuss a topic when people continually resort to scientific journals as their final word on whatever point they’re trying to convey. The point is, I trust the Bible far more than I do the words of people. Sorry if that makes it difficult for you to discuss the matter, but other people seem able to manage.
lostatsea: It’s cool
And I guess what I said above also applies here. I’m sorry if the fact that the Bible is my foundation makes it difficult to discuss the issue, but I do believe that the universe and creation itself speaks to the truth of the Bible and so I believe there are principles and ideas that can be taken away and tested to see if they fit what we observe in the world. I believe the Bible fits what I observe in the world, and what we observe is the closest we can come to facts without a definite and dependable source of authority.
I believe there is also a scripture that refers to Jesus going to speak to the souls of those who perished in the flood, perhaps to give them the opportunity to accept Him. Also, there is such a thing as the righteous dead who looked forward to the fulfillment of God’s promises that were realised in the life of Jesus. Though they didn’t see Jesus, their faith in God was credited to them as righteousness, a right standing with God. They slept until after the ressurrection of Jesus where the Bible says that the tombs were opened and many people of old came out and appeared to people within Jerusalem.
April 16th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Raj: I believe that reason and faith can go hand in hand. Indeed, you have to reason about matters of faith before you can even begin to understand.
I also believe that indeed observations or “facts” must be taken into account. However, for one who believes in Jesus and believes in God to in effect, yield between how people interpret facts and what the Bible says, it would be a dishonour to God to do so and we would be placing out trust in man above our trust in God. I don’t think it’s a matter of yielding to reason or fact, but reasoning whether the facts can be explained through the Biblical world view. I’ve been trying, to my ability, to explain how I find that the Bible explains what I interpret in the world.
April 16th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
oouchan: I try hehe
hate to think that I’m being too overbearing or boardering on arrogant, because I see others of my brethren do as such and it really does irk me, especially when I see the effect it has on others.
So if I have offended any, I am deeply remourseful, as I do not wish to do so.
We’ve all been given free will and that includes free choice. To be tolerant is to accept anothers right to choose whilst acknowledging that you don’t necessarily agree
So definately no one should have to suffer for their view.
April 16th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
In my travels I have seen much which defies logic, including UFOs while at sea in the Med also an encounter with a Moray-eel who showed me an ancient causeway off the coast of Bimini whilst Scuba diving. So I base my thinking by the premise ‘the more I learn, the more ignorant I become’. I admire your faith but hope I have provided a pleasant banter.
BTW the bible was created by men for men and relegated women to possesions. Women are still not allowed freedom in many parts of the world, so the bible was not the first to use this tactic to subdugate women or the only one.
Man also worshipped the Sun in one form as Horus who fought Set the embodiment of darkness. The Sun (son!) in heaven fighting darkness on Earth(devil?).
So many questions!! and Christianity DID adopt many Pagan festivals and beliefs contrary to Christian ones!
April 16th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
christianity wasnt real, there was a man named christ but he wasnt a christian nor did he start christianity.
here is the proof http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/rr.html
April 16th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
I have to disagree with that sentiment on the Bible
in no means did it relegate women to possessions. Husbands are told to love their wives as Christ loved the church, as in be willing to die and live their lives for them. And women are told to honour their husbands as they would God. God created Eve from Adams rib. He could’ve picked his head for woman to be above him or his feet for women to be his footstool, but he chose the rib. By his side, close to his heart.
Men and women compliment each other, they are two that become one flesh. And the Bible has many powerful examples of women. Indeed women are given a prominant place in the book of Luke. For every parable about men, there is one about women and often they come across better!
A female prophetess was one of the first to announce Jesus was the saviour when He was circumcised.
The first Samaritan convert and evangelist was a woman. Jesus broke through social norms to speak to this woman who had two strikes against her. She was female and a samaritan.
When Jesus was hanging upon the cross, it was the women who didnt abandon him and stuck with Him til the end. And it was the women who were the first to see Him raised again. He told them to go and tell the disciples He had risen.
Also, many women were His disciples. Mary, sister of Martha sat at Jesus’ feet to be taught. This was a term at the time to describe a disciple, and many women who travelled with Jesus and His followers actually funded them!
And these are just a few of the examples of empowered women within the Bible.
Indeed women are still not allowed freedom in many parts of the world, but I don’t think you can blame this on the Bible, but on the hearts of men.
What do you think?
And indeed Christians adopted many pagan festivals, although it’s interesting now to see that Jesus is being taken out of such festivals
I believe it’s God’s way of saying He was never meant to be there in the first place. To one person, one day is blessed above others, to another every day is blessed. Both give their praises to God for such a day and both are right in what they do.
April 16th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Are you aquainted with Quatum theory?, it postulates a Multiverse,of which we are only one of many, or Black Holes, Anti Matter or the thought that our universe was created from a Black Hole or Worm Hole from a parallel universe? The universe is a vast and unknown quantity and we live in a obscure and irrevelant galaxy, it would be arrogant of us to presume God exists or that he was human in form, while I have no wish to shake your faith even you must admit that in life only death and taxes are reality.
BTW even ancient cultures believed in life after death as do many other religions today.
April 16th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
“christianity wasnt real”
Indeed there was no religion called Christianity before Jesus or indeed directly after.
“there was a man named christ but he wasnt a christian”
He wasn’t actually named Christ. Christ is a title coming from Messiahm which means Anointed One. He was a Jew and followed Judaism.
“nor did he start christianity.”
Indeed, He did not come to start a religion.
April 16th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
433 Stizzy: For the sake of what I said afterwards, consider that He did.
Why should I consider that? I’m not trying to be disrespectfully argumentative to you, but really, why should I consider that to be a true statement? The rest of what you said after there was circular reasoning and based on the assumption of your first statement being true. I’m not saying it’s not true. Just, why assume it to be true?
If the Creator made the universe, He made space, time and matter.
Where was he and what was he doing before that?
If He made time, it means there was no concept of time before He made it.
No concept of time? Ok, but “time” itself can’t *not* exist. If that were the case, what was it then “before he made it (time)”. Something we can’t conceive of? You’re right, I can’t conceive of “no time”, because it is fundamentally impossible. Oh, but I say that because I’m thinking “according to the bounds of our universe and according to our human perspective”? Hmm, how convenient.
One who exists outside of time has no beginning because a beginning would be within time. One who exists outside of space can’t come from anywhere per se, because that would be to have a location within space.
Brilliantly circular.
give me reasons for why He was made up and doesn’t exist
I can’t say he doesn’t exist because of course no one knows. No one can know. My reasoning for “why he was made up” is basically: for lack of a better answer, but that for some reason we feel the need to have an answer. That particular answer though IMO is no better than FSMism or IPUism or any other made up thing.
These exact same debates have raged on in other LV threads and folks are likely tired of it by now, so my apologies if that is the case.
April 16th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
“Are you aquainted with Quatum theory?, it postulates a Multiverse,of which we are only one of many, or Black Holes, Anti Matter or the thought that our universe was created from a Black Hole or Worm Hole from a parallel universe?”
I’m aware of it, however isn’t this all speculation and just things people have calculated but haven’t actually been proven, such as a multiverse, worm holes an parallel universes? The question would have to arise as to the origins of said multiverse. Are there other dimensions or realities? Well God refers to three Heavens, the first being the universe, the second being the domain of Spirits and the third being the place of His throne. So a “multiverse” in that respect is possible
“The universe is a vast and unknown quantity and we live in a obscure and irrevelant galaxy, it would be arrogant of us to presume God exists or that he was human in form, while I have no wish to shake your faith even you must admit that in life only death and taxes are reality.
BTW even ancient cultures believed in life after death as do many other religions today.”
Would it not be arrogant of us to presume to know enough to say that God doesn’t exist and that He didn’t come in human form? Or that we know enough about the universe to know we are in an obscure and irrelevant galaxy? This too is speculation and from what you can observe in the universe, we seem to be in a very very privaleged position and we seem far from being obscure.
April 16th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Then why are Women excluded from the priesthood in the Catholic church? Men separated at both Muslim and Jewish worship? Obviously not following the teaching of Christ!
Was Christianity not formed from the Old Testament?
April 16th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
449. lostatsea
OK, now this irks me a little bit… “The Sun (son!) in heaven fighting darkness on Earth”
Really? So we use the similarity in the words in English? So it would hold true in Spanish: SOL (sun) and HIJO (son)? Or in French: SOLEIL (sun) and FILS (son)?
April 16th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
“Where was he and what was he doing before that?”
I already addressed the question of “where” and technically without time, there would be no “before that” anyway.
“No concept of time? Ok, but “time” itself can’t *not* exist. If that were the case, what was it then “before he made it (time)”. Something we can’t conceive of? You’re right, I can’t conceive of “no time”, because it is fundamentally impossible. Oh, but I say that because I’m thinking “according to the bounds of our universe and according to our human perspective”? Hmm, how convenient.”
No time may be impossible in the bounds of our universe that is defined by time, but it’s hardly impossible outside of or without the universe. Just because you can’t conceive it, doesn’t make it impossible. Indeed, it’s something beyond or comprehension, as God indeed is. And I don’t know why people always say “how convenient” when there’s an answer to something they may have been thinking. It doesn’t dismiss the argument in anyway, it just sounds like you simply don’t want to entertain the thought for the sake of it.
“Brilliantly circular.”
Would make sense that for an eternal being who has need of nothing, any attempt to explain his transcendance and eternal nature would seem circular. Does this in any means refute my conclusion though?
“I can’t say he doesn’t exist because of course no one knows. No one can know. My reasoning for “why he was made up” is basically: for lack of a better answer, but that for some reason we feel the need to have an answer. That particular answer though IMO is no better than FSMism or IPUism or any other made up thing.”
God Himself has said that we can know because His invisible attributes are clearly seen being made clear to creation, because God has made it clear. So your reason for why He was made up is that you think people need to have an answer? Because there’s a desire to know whether there is a creator, He must have been made up? Maybe it’s because of what I just said above, maybe because we are ALL instilled with an awareness of God from birth and that we by choice suppress this knowledge throughout our lives. But at least you acknowledge that it’s not a particularly good answer and so I can only ask that you think about the issue
As for me, tis time for me to depart
tis bin awesome peeps! I’m off to me bed.
April 16th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
454. Maggot:
“No concept of time? Ok, but “time” itself can’t *not* exist. If that were the case, what was it then “before he made it (time)”. Something we can’t conceive of? You’re right, I can’t conceive of “no time”, because it is fundamentally impossible.”
OK, so what´s the alternative? Science has so far come up with the Big Bang as the beginning of the universe so what was happening before then? You dont want to believe in Faith and that´s fine but then what is the alternative?
April 16th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Thank you for reminding me that I need to be more tolerant of other people. Believe it or not, I am very cognizant of it, and am working on it. I, too apologize if I have offended anyone. Unfortunately, I live in the most intolerant, bigoted part of the country and it is definitely wearing on me. I must get back to homework. I’ve enjoyed the discourse. Peace, love and light to all of you.
April 16th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
“Then why are Women excluded from the priesthood in the Catholic church? Men separated at both Muslim and Jewish worship? Obviously not following the teaching of Christ!
Was Christianity not formed from the Old Testament?”
The practices of seperation within the Mosque and the Synagogue isn’t reflective of the church or Jesus’ message. And the Catholic church does a lot of things that aren’t in line with scripture but it doesn’t change the spirit of it. You’re right that they’re obviously not following the teaching of Christ. And what Jesus taught has its roots in the Old Testament, but Jesus came to fulfill it and so not everything has passed on into the new covenant, written in His blood. He has broken down the walls of seperation between sex, class and ethnicity. Any who put those walls back up are going against the principle that all are equal in the sight of God.
April 16th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
459 GTT: Science has so far come up with the Big Bang as the beginning of the universe so what was happening before then?
I don’t know.
You dont want to believe in Faith and that´s fine but then what is the alternative?
The alternative *for me* is to accept not knowing, rather than making something up (or accepting something on blind faith) just so I can say that I know.
And by “accept”, I don’t mean to say that I am happy to accept that, and nothing matters. I’m curious as hell. But it’s just that I have no other logical choice but to accept not knowing until I/we learn differently. In this context, having “faith” isn’t learning.
April 16th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Posit this; if the universe came from a finite point with infinite energy(sounds like a black hole to me), then it must have originated in another universe so time in our universe did not exist until that moment(Big Bang) and an advanced civilization in that universe found a way to connect with ours THEY would be GODS to people at those times these Christ like figures appeared. Hard to deny the many references to Gods riding in fiery chariots or the strange figures in ancient rock paintings. Too many reports from obscure peoples ie. the Dogan tribes of Africa who knew Sirius had a companion star from aeons ago and which with the Hubble have only recently been discovered. Piri Riis an ancient navigator copying an even more ancient map showing Antartica ice free and with detail only a ariel survey could produce or the Nazca lines of Peru only visible from the air or machines made before the advent of metalworking. Can the bible explain those? Since you admit God is an alien, is it too farfetched to say he came from another universe before our time existed? How about aliens creating humans from Neanderthal stock by adding the extra chromasone that separates us from apes?
Too many imponderables to query a rigid belief in only the one source, at least for me! All others are welcome to their own views and hope I have played the devils advocate in at least considering the options!!!
April 16th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
458 Stizzy: I already addressed the question of “where” and technically without time, there would be no “before that” anyway.
And I already addressed why I think that is fundamentally impossible.
Just because you can’t conceive it, doesn’t make it impossible.
Doesn’t make it possible either.
it just sounds like you simply don’t want to entertain the thought for the sake of it.
Well the point of my argument is that “entertaining the thought of something for the sake of it” is akin to “making it up”. I can entertain the thought of any ol’ silly deity or explaination (FSM, IPU, etc.), and just as easily write those off as being silly, and you’d probably not disagree. So why can’t I do that with this particular one?
God Himself has said that we can know because…
You’re just going back to the original assumption of something being “true” in order to support the statements that follows. If the first assumption is incorrect or “not true”, then what follows is nonsense.
April 16th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Stizzy: BTW Black holes are a proven fact, we have one at the center of the Milky Way. Query if God made man in his image is God then an amoeba as evolution posits? The earth is 6.5 billion years old, why did God wait so long? The universe is over 16 billion yrs not 6 days as told.
April 16th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Jessy, the car company is named after Ahura Mazda – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazda#Name
April 16th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
There may be similarities but for sure, most of the figures mentioned are mythical and Jesus, on the other hand is real.
April 16th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
cool list
April 16th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
good list except for the fact that heracles and odysses are far reaching comparissons, isn’t zoraster after christ???
April 16th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
nevermind i as thinking of someone else, don’t ask who though cause i don’t know, i do that sometimes, relate someone something and then completly realize i was completly off base, oh wait that is exactly like this list, huh someone else out there like me
April 16th, 2009 at 9:26 pm
lostatsea: IF the universe came from one point, it must have originated in another universe, why? Scientists are clear they DO NOT KNOW what could have happened before that.
“Can the bible explain those? Since you admit God is an alien, is it too farfetched to say he came from another universe before our time existed? How about aliens creating humans from Neanderthal stock by adding the extra chromasone that separates us from apes?”
Many ancient civilizations also have an account of creation, an account of the fall of man and the account of a global flood. And yes the Bible can account for beings riding on “chariots from the stars”, it was brought up earlier by yourself I believe
Angels once disobeyed God, leaving their habitation to cohabit with humans. They didn’t just do this BEFORE the flood, it’s quite likely they did it again afterwards as well, as the Bible says there were giants in those days and AFTER.
When God created man, He said that it was very good. When He formed man, He formed Him complete. He didn’t take another animal and create man. The process of evolution involves death and destruction and would hardly be “very good”. Furthermore, there is a lot of evidence to suggest that neanderthal man isn’t even a seperate species, but is in fact just another strain of human. Did anyone see the recent image scientit composed of neanderthal man? He looked like a cross between an native american, a middle easterner and someone of oriental descent, which I thought was fascinating.
And I also never said black holes don’t exist, I specified which ones are theorised.
Maggot:
“And by “accept”, I don’t mean to say that I am happy to accept that, and nothing matters. I’m curious as hell. But it’s just that I have no other logical choice but to accept not knowing until I/we learn differently. In this context, having “faith” isn’t learning.”
You only have a logical choice to accept not knowing because you have chosen what explanations you will and won’t accept. You assume that those who believe in the existence of God believe so blindly. Of course, even we don’t have all of the answers and so there is an element of accepting that what we don’t know and having faith that one day we will.
Similarly there are gaps in many scientific theories, and people accept that we don’t know everything and have faith that one day science will explain these things. So faith isn’t limited to those who believe in God
Indeed, I think believing in molecules to man evolution requires immense faith.
“And I already addressed why I think that is fundamentally impossible.”
Actually you didn’t, you spoke about time and then ignored the rest.
“Just because you can’t conceive it, doesn’t make it impossible.
Doesn’t make it possible either.”
If it’s not impossible, surely that makes it possible. If it’s probable that something isn’t impossible it opens the door to possibility rather than just completely shutting it as you do.
“Well the point of my argument is that “entertaining the thought of something for the sake of it” is akin to “making it up”.”
Well entertain this thought. How do you account for the apparent design in the universe? How do you account for the origin of information, intelligence and meaning?
Information requires a sender of that information. That sender must be either an intelligent, creative mind or something created by an intelligent, creative mind that sends a copy of the information but can’t create it. Information requires a receiver. That receiver must be either an intelligent, creative mind, or something created by an intelligent, creative mind.
April 16th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
Also, what does the image of God have to do with an amoeba? Why would God be an amoeba?
We are created in the image of God not physically but in terms of nature. We are triune beings, body, mind and spirit working in union. We are endowed with attributes of creativity, intelligence and emotion. We are a likeness of the nature of God. WE are three dimensional beings living in a three dimensional universe.
It only makes sense that God could be an amoeba if you ascribe to evolutionary theory. Yet moelecules to man evolutionary theory doesn’t jibe with God.
April 16th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
Hercules on there is really pushing it, I don’t think he really had any of the characteristics of Jesus. Just because he went to the underworld, meh so did alot of other greek heroes. But the rest of the list is good.
April 16th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
471. Stizzy : “…The process of evolution involves death and destruction and would hardly be “very good”…” I think we both know why that is a flawed statement
You might say that for the universe to come out of a single point then where did that come from? That in itself is a great point, but once you say that the Bible and Christianity can explain this better, that’s when you lose me. Where did God come from? ’nuff said…
April 16th, 2009 at 9:59 pm
Oh yeah, if you say “He’s always been there”, then I’ll shove it straight back in your face (obviously, just wanted to point it out). And then if you say something about “Why did the point of infinite density etc choose to explode then”, then of course I can say the same thing about God. Neither of us have the answers as to where it all began and you know it.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:35 pm
471 Stizzy: You only have a logical choice to accept not knowing because you have chosen what explanations you will and won’t accept.
No, I have concluded that faith-only based explanations have no valid reason to be accepted. I’m not choosing to not accept them. I’m saying give me a reason to accept them. Because god says so? Not good enough.
people accept that we don’t know everything and have faith that one day science will explain these things. So faith isn’t limited to those who believe in God
You’re using the word “faith” there in two different contexts. Clever, but transparent. It’s not “having faith that science will explain”, but rather, it’s the understanding that if science finds an answer (to anything), it’ll be based on evidence, not faith.
Actually you didn’t, you spoke about time and then ignored the rest.
Sorry, didn’t mean to. I just assumed you’d understand that I would use the same argument for “space” vs “no space”. If there is “no space”, then what is *there*?
If it’s not impossible, surely that makes it possible.
Sure. Falls into the realm of “anything is possible”. Even made up stuff. It’s a nice little catch-all phrase that way. FSM is possible, isn’t it? The gods Jupiter or Zeus are possible, aren’t they? After all, anything is possible. That’s what you’re basing your faith on? Ok then.
Information requires a sender of that information.
No it doesn’t. Why would you say that? Well I guess I should ask – what do you mean by “information”? If the information is a sound wave for example, then yes something sent it. If the information is the color or texture of an object for example, then no. That information is just there for the taking. Not sure what you’re getting at here.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
476. Maggot : “…You’re using the word “faith” there in two different contexts. Clever, but transparent. It’s not “having faith that science will explain”, but rather, it’s the understanding that if science finds an answer (to anything), it’ll be based on evidence, not faith….” I think you misinterpreted that, if science couldn’t explain everything, then we’ve been sitting here saying “It’ll be all sweet, just give it time and they’ll know we were right”. So essentially people like you and I who do “believe” that science will explain everythin eventually are putting our faith in science aren’t we?
“…No it doesn’t. Why would you say that? Well I guess I should ask – what do you mean by “information”? If the information is a sound wave for example, then yes something sent it. If the information is the color or texture of an object for example, then no. That information is just there for the taking. Not sure what you’re getting at here.” Actually a sound wave could be made by something that doesn’t fall into the subset of “intelligent” as Stizzy was trying to say. Just being a bit picky
April 16th, 2009 at 11:19 pm
“Sure. Falls into the realm of “anything is possible”. Even made up stuff. It’s a nice little catch-all phrase that way. FSM is possible, isn’t it? The gods Jupiter or Zeus are possible, aren’t they? After all, anything is possible. That’s what you’re basing your faith on? Ok then.”
Many things are possible but not all things are probable and not everything that’s possible is certain. I believe the existence of one, super intelligent being beyond the bounds of time and space is more probable than Jupiter or Zeus. I believe that this same intelligence being responsible for life and creation is more probable than it all spontaneously coming into existence from nothing.
“Information requires a sender of that information.
No it doesn’t. Why would you say that? Well I guess I should ask – what do you mean by “information”? If the information is a sound wave for example, then yes something sent it. If the information is the color or texture of an object for example, then no. That information is just there for the taking. Not sure what you’re getting at here.”
By information I’m referring to the following (to quote from Dr. Werner Gitt):
“Distinction according to aspect: statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics
Distinction according to purpose: constructional/creative information, operational, and communication information
Distinction according to direction of flow: transmitted or received information. ”
Also Copied Information (identical propagation of existing information), Reproduced Information (Such as the distinction between a composer and a performer of music.), and Creative Information (Something new is produced)
He also puts forth two theorum:
“Every piece of creative information represents some mental effort and can be traced to a personal idea-giver who exercised his own free will, and who is endowed with an intelligent mind.”
“New information can only originate in a creative thought process.”
Colour is what it is, but our intelligent minds are able to perceive, interpret and give meaning to colour, defining it by it’s relation to other contrasting colours.
Let’s say colour is information, that would mean it has a function which would imply purpose. Purpose would imply intention and determination, characteristics of intelligence. Can that function arise out of nothing do you think?
Colour can be defined as a visual attribute of things that results from the light they emit or transmit or reflect. So light could be called the carrier of that information and the object is the sender. So light carries a copy of the information inherent to the object, and that fits with what I was saying before. The object may not be intelligent, but as a transmitter of information, it would need an intelligent source.
Hope I didn’t muddle that too much haha.
You say the information is just there for the taking…well that’s my point, how did the information get there in the first place?
April 16th, 2009 at 11:22 pm
Looking back, it probably would have been simpler to define information as a message received and understood hehe or data.
April 16th, 2009 at 11:36 pm
475. Mark
“Oh yeah, if you say “He’s always been there”, then I’ll shove it straight back in your face (obviously, just wanted to point it out). And then if you say something about “Why did the point of infinite density etc choose to explode then”, then of course I can say the same thing about God. Neither of us have the answers as to where it all began and you know it.”
Perhaps we could say that either the universe and time and matter is eternal and has no beginning or end, or there is an outside entity that is eternal and has no beginning or end. Either one would require some infinite or eternal source. So then it becomes a question of which source is better at accounting for what we see?
April 16th, 2009 at 11:44 pm
480. Stizzy : Well if time and matter – to an extent, the universe probably isn’t – is eternal then that’s all good. But for God to ALSO be eternal there has to be something else doesn’t there? I mean, we know that matter and time exists – or at least we think we do, not up for debating solipsism at the moment though.
God is mutually exclusive, my theory works without him, yours doesn’t. It’s as simple as that in that regard.
April 16th, 2009 at 11:59 pm
478 Stizzy: I believe that this same intelligence being responsible for life and creation is more probable than it all spontaneously coming into existence from nothing.
Only because, to you, having an answer is better than not having an answer. But your answer is a figment of imagination.
April 17th, 2009 at 12:09 am
This list shows two things.
First, that the churches have taken many old legends and applied them to Jesus, just to make it easier for people of other religions to convert to so called ‘christianity’. For example, Jesus wasn’t born on the 25th of December, he’s not part of a trinity (simply because the trinity is not biblical), he was purely human, not a god-human, oh, and of course, Jesus wasn’t crucified, he was hanged from a pole, not a cross. All these elements that were falsely tied to Jesus have roots in other religions.
Second, all of these lack the one thing that Jesus came to the earth for, the thing that really matters: to give his life as a ransom sacrifice, to create an opportunity for mankind to have a good relationship with God.
Also worth mentioning might be that a lot of the elements that are proposed as similarities here were foretold in the old testament up to 1500 years before Jesus was even born, and any person or cult from less than 1500 years before Jesus was born could’ve just applied these prophecies to themselves or any character (fictional or not) that they chose to.
Besides, a some of the similarities are just too vague or general to be considered as striking. Fasting? Millions of people do that up to today. Wonderous healings? Many thousands of figures from the past have claimed to be able to do that. Wanting to be welcomed home? My estimate would be that this applies to close to all of the 7 billion people living on earth now.
All in all, this list doesn’t prove much about Jesus, but more so does about the origin of the 10 discussed figures and about the churches who applied anything they deemed useful to their cause to Jesus.
April 17th, 2009 at 12:11 am
Well I don’t believe that time and matter is eternal, I believe they have an eternal source and as near as we can tell through our observations of the universe, time and matter have a beginning. Therefore, could it not be argued that in fact your theory doesn’t work without a source for time and matter? Both time and matter have boundaries and confinements and in fact relative time is affected by the presence of matter. Near as I know, there isn’t an infinite abundance of matter in the universe is there? Do you think something that isn’t infinite can be eternal?
If time and matter exist within God, they come from eternity but they in themselves are not eternal without His say so.
To say there is no God is to say you have enough knowledge to know there is no God. You would have to know everything because anything outside of your knowledge could include God. You would have to be everywhere, inside and outside the universe at the same time because if there’s anywhere you can’t be, God can be there.
To be everywhere and know everything is to be like God and no one who denies He exists can claim total knowledge. Since no once can prove He doesn’t exist, the question becomes irrelevant whether you can have everything, all of creation without God. Therefore, Creation can’t be ruled out as a potential alternative.
What’s more logical – that matter eternally existed or came into existence by itself for no reason, then arranged itself into systems of information against everything we observe? Or that an intelligence created information systems for life to exist, agreeing with what we do observe?
April 17th, 2009 at 12:19 am
482. Maggot
“Only because, to you, having an answer is better than not having an answer. But your answer is a figment of imagination.”
How can you say my answer is a figment of imagination? Do you know all things and possess all knowledge to know that it is a figment of imagination?
And how can you say that it’s ONLY because to me having an answer is better than having no answer? If you don’t even have an answer or something you turn to for an answer, and you subscribe to simply not knowing everything or enough, how can you then turn around and proclaim to know that it is a figment of imagination? Your argument is self refuting in that you claim not to know everything but claim to know enough to know something outside your understanding is a figment of the imagination.
April 17th, 2009 at 2:00 am
wow! for stizzy mark and whoever else, you guys are arguing yourselves in circles here, how about we each accept that we believe different things, obviously arguing about points in which no one can prove is getting all of us no where…
April 17th, 2009 at 2:08 am
Well when you think about it, the whole point of a debate is to propose and discuss opposing propositions. So from the outset it’s clear that each party believes different things, so these things don’t necessarily have a conclusion to reach. The conclusion would probably be the same as the start, namely “We disagree on this…”, a debate is about looking at why, and then from that people can decide for themselves which side of the debate they favour
Often, as is clear, this can lead to things seeming to go round in circles hehe but it can still be stimulating and very interesting but not everyone’s cup of tea…or coffee.
April 17th, 2009 at 2:14 am
wow a debate on topics of debates… i am not dissing the idea of a debate and learning from each side of a particular topic, what i am saying is that you have each reitterated a certain points numerous times, debates are topic, present your side, rebuttal and a rebuttal for that rebuttal, conclusion (wherein there may be allowed one more rebuttal), thats it, not rehashing singular poitns over and over again
April 17th, 2009 at 2:19 am
not 400 comments…
April 17th, 2009 at 2:20 am
349. Stizzy: As Buddha would have said that I cannot enlighten someone who is so dogged about a book that was compiled eons ago, enlightenment comes from within through self realization. Similarly I would say that I wouldn’t try to force my opinion on you.
If you look at history the cultures that these books were composed (revealed in your terminology) in waere highly patriarchal, men dominated the society, women were looked down upon, pillage, plundering, looting and rapes were commonplace. To quote “Some sages even argued that women were a distraction from godliness, that they promoted witchcraft or that they were such untrustworthy creatures that it would be absolutely foolish to have any more around than absolutely necessary” [Judaism Before Jesus By Anthony J Tomasino]. I am siting this text assuming that it should atleast be historically correct and just not written in this book to tarnish Judaism. Islam originated from within the same culture why is it then Quran (“His” revelation) requires women to be in ‘hijab’(well, may be not best example for Islam as some would argue that even men are required ‘hijab’) and not men as well when according to your logic men and women are created equal in “His” eyes? Also, why have there not been any church leadership for women in Christianity itself then? Was it because God thought that they were some lesser beings?
Where did this implication about God being neither ‘He’ nor ‘She’ nor ‘It’ came about? It’s, in my opinion, one of those things where Christianity had to save face as it started to find itself in a dig just like the fact that they were unrelenting at believing that heliocentrism was even a possibility. By the way I am no scholar on Christianity but isn’t traditionally God referred to as ‘God the Father’? Doesn’t your book somewhere says that God created man as His own image and woman was created from man’s rib?
In retrospect, I believe, this whole post of mine is a waste as I don’t want you to change your stream of thinking, cause if that were to happen I would definitely loose one more color from my present and only life – enjoying an argument with someone like you!
April 17th, 2009 at 2:44 am
Talking about what the Quran says about the place of women doesn’t really have any bearing on Jesus’ message, as from the Biblical standpoint, it wouldn’t be a book from God even though it has lifted elements from the Bible. They are different, complimentary and equally worthy roles, if not equal in substance.
As for not wishing to tarnish Judaism, one of the things that has always astounded me about the Bible and helped towards it’s authenticity in my mind is that it is brutally honest and doesn’t try to gloss over details to make people look better. If anything, it paints a terrible picture of Judaism, Jews and humanity as a whole. I do not believe though that religion was God’s intent, but relationship. As Abraham was not a Jew and didn’t follow Judaism, yet God called him His friend and a righteous man, and Jesus said to the Samaritan woman that the time was coming when true worshippers of God wouldn’t worship on mountains or in temples but would worship in spirit and truth, as God is spirit and seeks people like this to be His worshippers. One can’t please God without faith in Him.
That said, the whole thing about patriarchy has always seemed to me more to be a reflection of the nature of humanity rather than a reflection of what the Bible message is.
As for issues of leadership, people assume that to have equality of worth equals equality of roles. If a man is appointed as say, the head of the family, he can’t even hope to do his job effectively without the love and support of his wife. And a wife, as a nurturer, can’t do her job effectively without the love and protection of her husband.
God is spirit and therefore He has no sex, but He has attributes that we associate with masculinity and femininity. He refers to Himself as the Father, yet He gives birth to creation like a mother. He gives discipline like a father, but wants to gather his children like a goose gathers her chicks. He has maternal as well as paternal attributes, yet when applied to Him, these attributes go far beyond our human perspective.
For God to be a father is to be far more than a human father could ever be. God indeed created MANKIND as in humans in His image. That includes men and women. If God has both maternal and paternal attributes, to make man and woman would be to make them in His image. And it’s these attributes which are the image He has imparted onto mankind.
One reason I believe there has always been this attitude towards women is that many look at the account of the Fall and assume that Eve and therefore woman was to blame for sin entering the world. However, what’s interesting is that the Bible says that through the sin of one MAN, sin entered into the world. The universe didn’t become corrupt when Eve ate the fruit, but when ADAM ate the fruit. Eve ate the fruit out of ignorance and it was Adam’s job not only to protect her but to educate her. He failed to do so. When he picked the fruit, he didn’t do so out of ignorant but out of intent.
After this fall, it was through the woman that God promised salvation would come. For He said “Her Seed”, when seed usually would be referring to the male.
It’s just a shame that throughout history people have put women in a place of subjugation and have tried to force submission upon her. Yet if a woman is truthfully and devotingly loved, she would wish to serve her husband not out of obligation but simply because it pleased her to do so out of love.
April 17th, 2009 at 2:47 am
* As for issues of leadership, people assume that to have equality of worth equals equality of roles. If a man is appointed as say, the head of the family, he can’t even hope to do his job effectively without the love and support of his wife. And a wife, as a nurturer, can’t do her job effectively without the love and protection of her husband. They are different, complimentary and equally worthy roles, if not equal in substance.
Don’t know how but that last sentence ended up at the end of the first paragraph, should have been there hehe
April 17th, 2009 at 3:10 am
“It’s, in my opinion, one of those things where Christianity had to save face as it started to find itself in a dig just like the fact that they were unrelenting at believing that heliocentrism was even a possibility.”
Also should address this point, from the Old Testament, the concept of God being sexless was made clear and didn’t begin with Christianity. Whether “christians” were unrelenting about belief in heliocentrism doesn’t change the fact that the Bible described the earth as a sphere and the heavens expanding long before people insisted the earth was flat. It used poetic language when describing “four coeners” of the Earth, something that is still used today. We still use the words “sunrise” and “sunset” even though the sun doesn’t really rise but just appears to do so from our perspective. The Bible never disagreed with heliocentrism, so those who did were most likely speaking out of ignorance.
April 17th, 2009 at 3:11 am
your copy and paste technique not working too hot for ya
April 17th, 2009 at 3:21 am
Not sure what you’re referring to there dbrownl
April 17th, 2009 at 4:15 am
quite obvious,
“Don’t know how but that last sentence ended up at the end of the first paragraph, should have been there hehe”
April 17th, 2009 at 4:16 am
That would be because I kept going back and forth over my paragraphs to add to what I was saying. Mistakes happen
Either case, it’s irrelevant to the argument.
April 17th, 2009 at 4:37 am
When it comes to the possibility of God’s existence, the Bible says that there are people who have seen sufficient evidence, but they have suppressed the truth about God. On the other hand, for those who want to know God if he is there, he says, “You will seek me and find me; when you seek me with all your heart, I will be found by you.” Before you look at the facts surrounding God’s existence, ask yourself, If God does exist, would I want to know him? Here then, are some reasons to consider…
1. Does God exist? The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today.
Many examples showing God’s design could be given, possibly with no end. But here are a few:
The Earth…its size is perfect. The Earth’s size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth’s surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter.3 Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life.
The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. Even a fractional variance in the Earth’s position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day.
2. Does God exist? The universe had a start – what caused it?
Scientists are convinced that our universe began with one enormous explosion of energy and light, which we now call the Big Bang. This was the singular start to everything that exists: the beginning of the universe, the start of space, and even the initial start of time itself.
Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow, a self-described agnostic, stated, “The seed of everything that has happened in the Universe was planted in that first instant; every star, every planet and every living creature in the Universe came into being as a result of events that were set in motion in the moment of the cosmic explosion…The Universe flashed into being, and we cannot find out what caused that to happen.”
Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in Physics, said at the moment of this explosion, “the universe was about a hundred thousands million degrees Centigrade…and the universe was filled with light.”
The universe has not always existed. It had a start…what caused that? Scientists have no explanation for the sudden explosion of light and matter.
Does God exist? The universe operates by uniform laws of nature. Why does it?
Much of life may seem uncertain, but look at what we can count on day after day: gravity remains consistent, a hot cup of coffee left on a counter will get cold, the earth rotates in the same 24 hours, and the speed of light doesn’t change — on earth or in galaxies far from us.
How is it that we can identify laws of nature that never change? Why is the universe so orderly, so reliable?
“The greatest scientists have been struck by how strange this is. There is no logical necessity for a universe that obeys rules, let alone one that abides by the rules of mathematics. This astonishment springs from the recognition that the universe doesn’t have to behave this way. It is easy to imagine a universe in which conditions change unpredictably from instant to instant, or even a universe in which things pop in and out of existence.”
Does God exist? Unlike any other revelation of God, Jesus Christ is the clearest, most specific picture of God revealing himself to us.
Why Jesus? Look throughout the major world religions and you’ll find that Buddha, Muhammad, Confucius and Moses all identified themselves as teachers or prophets. None of them ever claimed to be equal to God. Surprisingly, Jesus did. That is what sets Jesus apart from all the others. He said God exists and you’re looking at him. Though he talked about his Father in heaven, it was not from the position of separation, but of very close union, unique to all humankind. Jesus said that anyone who had seen Him had seen the Father, anyone who believed in him, believed in the Father. He said, “I am the light of the world, he who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.” He claimed attributes belonging only to God: to be able to forgive people of their sin, free them from habits of sin, give people a more abundant life and give them eternal life in heaven. Unlike other teachers who focused people on their words, Jesus pointed people to himself. He did not say, “follow my words and you will find truth.” He said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father but through me.” What proof did Jesus give for claiming to be divine? He did what people can’t do. Jesus performed miracles. He healed people…blind, crippled, deaf, even raised a couple of people from the dead. He had power over objects…created food out of thin air, enough to feed crowds of several thousand people. He performed miracles over nature…walked on top of a lake, commanding a raging storm to stop for some friends. People everywhere followed Jesus, because he constantly met their needs, doing the miraculous. He said if you do not want to believe what I’m telling you, you should at least believe in me based on the miracles you’re seeing.
Jesus Christ showed God to be gentle, loving, aware of our self-centeredness and shortcomings, yet deeply wanting a relationship with us. Jesus revealed that although God views us as sinners, worthy of his punishment, his love for us ruled and God came up with a different plan. God himself took on the form of man and accepted the punishment for our sin on our behalf. Sounds ludicrous? Perhaps, but many loving fathers would gladly trade places with their child in a cancer ward if they could. The Bible says that the reason we would love God is because he first loved us.
Jesus died in our place so we could be forgiven. Of all the religions known to humanity, only through Jesus will you see God reaching toward humanity, providing a way for us to have a relationship with him. Jesus proves a divine heart of love, meeting our needs, drawing us to himself. Because of Jesus’ death and resurrection, he offers us a new life today. We can be forgiven, fully accepted by God and genuinely loved by God. He says, “I have loved you with an everlasting love, therefore I have continued my faithfulness to you.”18 This is God, in action.
GOD does not force us to believe in him, though he could. Instead, he has provided sufficient proof of his existence for us to willingly respond to him. The earth’s perfect distance from the sun, the unique chemical properties of water, the human brain, DNA, the number of people who attest to knowing God, the gnawing in our hearts and minds to determine if God is there, the willingness for God to be known through Jesus Christ.
April 17th, 2009 at 4:45 am
486. dbrownl : Yay for the fool that steps in and tries to destroy a polite and interesting debate. It wasn’t an argument and we definitely do respect each others’ views, we’re just trying to keep ourselves entertained.
I didn’t see either of us trying to push our POVs’ onto anyone else by the way, but if anyone did it was the Jesus freak
April 17th, 2009 at 4:54 am
Haha! Charming Mark
if I was at all heavy handed, please accept my humble apologies. It has been highly entertaining though hasn’t it? I just checked the dates and we’ve been talking over this since monday 
staggering loool
April 17th, 2009 at 5:12 am
500. Stizzy : Charming? Well then I hope your genitals don’t dangle, or else I’m in trouble one of two ways *shudders*
You haven’t been all that bad, for a Jesus freak
– I’ve only been going at this since the 15th, I don’t know who that other Mark fella is, but we don’t share the same views thankfully. He keeps popping up everywhere 
It sure is entertaining, and that’s all I’m here for really.
April 17th, 2009 at 6:11 am
Stizzy; I see you did not respond to my reference to Piri Riis or the Dogon’s knowledge of Sirius’s companion star.
Also the discovery of 3.5 million yr. old footprints in Africa or Leakey’s Lucy an early hominid also from Africa, Paleotologists have proved we came out of Africa millions of yrs. ago, or that earth is 6.5 billion yrs old, so were adam and eve negro? Creationists seem to believe dinosaurs existed along with modern man when fossil remains clearly show otherwise. How can you believe God created all this in 6 days? when science has shown that the universe is over 16 billion yrs?
April 17th, 2009 at 6:36 am
Forgive me for not addressing it
I hope you extend the same courteousy to things I’ve said.
“Too many reports from obscure peoples ie. the Dogan tribes of Africa who knew Sirius had a companion star from aeons ago and which with the Hubble have only recently been discovered. Piri Riis an ancient navigator copying an even more ancient map showing Antartica ice free and with detail only a ariel survey could produce or the Nazca lines of Peru only visible from the air or machines made before the advent of metalworking. Can the bible explain those?”
What does this show? It shows that man was incredibly intelligent. Can the Bible explain this? Indeed it can. When mankind were created, they were perfect.
Adam and Eve would have contained, within themselves, the genetic information for every person on the planet. They would have been geniuses! They could have been capable of things we can’t even imagine, and it stands to reason that over time, this knowledge steadily decreased. You ask me if the Bible can explain this, but can evolution explain this? It can’t, because the further back you go according to the theory, the more primitive people should be.
The Bible reports the Cain’s descendents (before the global flood) built cities, and were the first to use metals in construction and weapons, build tents and keep livestock.The knowledge of metal working was lost during the flood for a very long time. After the flood came the incident at Babel. With the seperating of languages, people spread out across the earth according to families and different groups of people would have taken different knowledge with them. The more knowledgeable would’ve established the amazing ancient civilizations we see, such as the egyptian, incan and mayan civilizations.
You could see the familiar traits that were carried between them with them all building pyramid like structures, and it’s theorised that the tower of Bable was a Ziggurat.
Those without such knowledge weren’t as lucky. Due to limited resources after the flood, they may have had to forage a way for themselves using stone tools and living in caves.
The Bible gives the only viable explanation for the incredible ingenuity of ancient man, and doesn’t have to rely on aliens to be the ones to do it.
As for Lucy, Lucy was clearly an ape that scientists have tried to pass off as human.
As for the “cradle of civilization”, if you consider that the Ark landed on the mounts of Ararat and that Babel was built in what is now Iraq, it makes sense that the “early” traces of life would be found in places such as Africa as mankind began to spread out.
The timing that scientists use to date the universe, the earth and fossils are based on flawed methods. Radiometric dating was performed on material that erupted from Mt St Helens in the 1980’s. The material, which should have dated within 25 or so years ended up giving several varying dates ranging from a few to a few hundred million years! Radiometric dating is based on an assumption. Scientists assume to know that the rate of radioactive decay has always been at a constant rate, yet experiments have shown this isn’t necessarily so.
Fossils show millions of dead creatures buried in layers and layers of sediments. They don’t come with labels saying how old they are. There are examples of creatures being found in layers they shouldn’t be in, of marine creatures on the top of mt everest, of fossilised trees going vertically through several layers of strata, of rock layers bent and curved at angles that would be impossible without fractures accuring.
Fossilisation requires the rapid covering of creatures with sediments and water. Creatures have been fossilised giving birth, eating and even fighting. Had they simply died and slowly been covered, the likelyhood is they would have decayed before they could be fossilised or their remains would have been eaten.
There are examples of soft tissue such as from Jelly fish being preserved, which is highly unlikely. And of course, there’s the recent find of soft dinosaur tissue within a fossil.
Can the Bible account for this? Yes it can. A cataclysmic global flood that would have annihilated all life and sorted it in layers of sediments before sea levels dropped and mountains rose. Creatures appear ordered because they were buried according to habitat! “simple” marine creatures at the bottom, going higher and higher up until you reach the more “complex” land creatures.
You’re unlikely to find human fossils because for starters, 95% of all fossils are of invertibrate and marine creatures. Many fossilised creatures are identified and “reconstructed” often from a single bone fragment or tooth! And also, humans would likely have survived the longest in the global flood, fleeing to higher ground and escaping being caught in the intial throws of the flood, being buried in the sediments. Furthermore, human bodies float, and upon death they would become bloated and float even more so, quickly decaying.
April 17th, 2009 at 6:38 am
*CORRECTION, Lucy was clearly an ape that scientists have tried to pass off as a human-like ancestor.
April 17th, 2009 at 7:01 am
Stizzy:
…Are you serious? Honestly, do you really believe this crap, or are you trying to simultaneously convince yourself and others of less-than-adequate brain function that it’s true? Flood Geology is an absolute disgrace; in no way, shape or form is it, or will it ever, be considered science. The same goes for Intelligent Design. The same goes for Creation Science.
You and your creationist ilk have an extremely devious and convincing way of twisting and manipulating half-truths and ambiguous statements in order to convince others that you know what you’re talking about. You quote-mine, which is basically scanning books for snippets of sentences that you then take out of context and publish in order to fool people that scientists of a caliber you will never attain agree with you. Creationists, flood geologists, intelligent design advocates and creation scientists are a very small but extremely loud minority who hold absolutely no academic sway or influence and never will. It is not because there is some conspiracy amongst the scientific establishment to keep you down. It’s simply because you are conniving, devious and selfish people who don’t want to adhere to the scientific method but instead want to bully and shout their way into public schools.
You can twist it however you like. You can throw in misquoted, taken out of context sentences and try to fool people into believing them, but it won’t work. You can throw in as much scientific-sounding language as you want, but it still won’t convince any well-educated scientist OR critically thinking citizen that you know what you’re talking about. What it boils down to is this; you believe in the Bible, which is contradicted be MASSIVE amounts of evidence. Instead of changing your beliefs, you instead try to change evidence. That is abhorrent, devious, selfish and mean-spirited. The sooner the tiny minority of extremely loud morons like yourself just shut the hell up and go away, the better.
April 17th, 2009 at 7:08 am
So rather than attacking me, and others, do you actually have any evidence to refute anything I’ve said?
And it seems a bit offkey to me for you to simultaneously say anyone else who may be reading this has less-than-adequate brain function.
Simply calling it “crap” and calling people “devious” and “selfish” isn’t addressing the issue.
I have no desire to bully anyone and not all advocate for creationism to be taught in schools. On the contrary, they simply call for a true, objective search for truth and that the problems with evolutionary theory should be examined alongside it’s compelling analyses. In other words, they’re simply calling for a non-bias approach.
Might also say, if creation science won’t ever be science, you might want to start by not referring to it as such
Hows about you let people go and look into the issues raised themselves?
April 17th, 2009 at 7:09 am
“Instead of changing your beliefs, you instead try to change evidence.”
No one is changing the evidnce, they are using the same evidence. What changes is interpretation of that evidence. People interpret what they see based on their presuppositions and those with certain presuppositions will only pay attention to what fits their world view.
The Bible is not contradicted by “MASSIVE amounts of evidence” but by peoples interpretation of that evidence.
April 17th, 2009 at 7:16 am
Definition of a Scientist:
a person with advanced knowledge of one or more sciences
Definition of scientific method:
A method of discovering knowledge about the natural world based in making falsifiable predictions (hypotheses), testing them empirically, and developing peer-reviewed theories that best explain the known data.
Can you show how any of the ID advocates or creation scientists you know don’t fit or adhere to these definitions?
April 17th, 2009 at 7:17 am
505. Matt Howard : Take a chill pill bro. I hate fundies as much as the rest of the general population, but going off at one of the more open-to-reason among them isn’t going to change their minds. Well, not their minds on God anyway, but maybe how the look at the rest of us. So consider everyone else before you let your head asplode into LV, it’s really annoying to a lot of people.
506. Stizzy : Have you looked at the “Your View” topic? Boy did I get cut down to size for trying to stand up for your side of the argument.
507. Stizzy : That’s ever so slightly fallacious and ambiguous, but I’ll let some other pissed off LVing atheist explain why… Too lazy to do it myself
April 17th, 2009 at 7:20 am
Actually the birth of the universe was calculated using the speed of light as a constant which I believe you agreed with! Gilgamesh predates Noah and as I said earlier could have been caused by a near collision ala Velikofskey sp? in ‘Worlds in Collision’ also ‘Chariots of the Gods’ VonDanecken’s book about signs of extra-terrestial visits.
Been fun albeit a rather one sided one!! Its so easy to dismiss all with an all powerful God and use the bible to interpret all these imponderables with such certainty. I do not know the answers for the more I learn I realize how ignorant I am and try to keep an open mind. Perhaps there is a cosmic consiousness relating to all life forces that may be construed as GOD and by respecting all life forms as divine in origin is akin to your beliefs! Love and peace to all.
April 17th, 2009 at 7:25 am
Stizzy:
Radiometric dating – an extremely useful and reliable collection of methods (yes, methods, not just one) for determining age. You dismiss it because a handful of improperly performed tests showed anomalies. I heard a bus broke down the other week in my area, guess I’m never going to be using a motor vehicle again, hey?
Flood Geology – I don’t have to provide any evidence to refute this. It is beyond belief that people still believe it happened 6,000 – 10,000 years ago. Again, refer to said examples of Radiometric dating of rock and meteorite material, geological processes, plate tectonics and, for want of a much better phrase, common sense. Please explain to me how stalagmites and stalactites formed in such a short period? The Earth has had the same amount of water for around 2 billion years. Where did all this extra water come from and then go? It is up to YOU to provide this evidence, not me.
“As for Lucy, Lucy was clearly an ape that scientists have tried to pass off as human.” – As I suspected, a sly jab at Evolution here. Refer yourself to the masses of DNA evidence linking humans to the great apes (and all other life on Earth). Again, too much to list here, a very basic high school biology textbook should suffice.
The Tower of Babel? …you’ve got to be kidding, right? While I don’t doubt people have tried to built big towers, I highly doubt they constructed one that threatened to reach heaven, resulting in God destroying it, turning people into different races, then changing their language so they couldn’t coordinate building The Tower of Babel II: Return of the Killer Tower of Babel.
I realize my phrasing was wrong. You don’t change evidence. Ignore it, yes. Dismiss it without proper reason, yes. Try to sabotage it be labeling it ineffective or useless (radiometric dating, evolutionary theory), yes.
You have come back at me demanding I provide evidence. Unfortunately, I do not have a spare 5 years to send you a list of all the scientific texts I could reference. Reliable, peer-reviewed, criticized and accepted texts. It is YOU who has to provide evidence for a worldwide flood. It is YOU who has to falsify evolution. It is YOU who has to prove the friggin’ Tower of Bable is responsible for the spread of language. It is YOU who has to find Noah’s Ark then prove that it carried two of every single specie known to man, including ones we haven’t found yet, ones that dwell in the deepest jungles of Africa to the coldest peaks of Siberia. YOU have to provide evidence for YOUR radical statements, not me.
April 17th, 2009 at 7:27 am
I don’t believe I said anything about the speed of light but I’m not gonna argue that point. Interestingly though, the big bang model for the universe does have a problem with how light has managed to reach us. Can’t remember the details but tis worth looking into.
There have also been comparative studies on the epic of Gilgamesh and Noah, which hold up Noah as the more reliable account.
Mark: Can’t say I have hehe can’t even find the Your View :S
April 17th, 2009 at 7:31 am
510. lostatsea : There most likely is a “GOD” – as you put it – but I doubt it’s om the image the churches or even Jesus was selling.
511. Matt Howard : Fair enough you can sit there and lay the burden of proof squarely at his feet, but in case you didn’t notice it the Catholic Church are cruising at the moment. Most fundies and just Christians in general aren’t in a rush to prove God because they have faith, to them that means trusting without knowing. So you can sit there all you want saying “You have to do it ‘cos you said it!”, OR you could do something useful and constructive and try to disprove him instead?
April 17th, 2009 at 7:31 am
There are far better people than me who have dealt with these issues Matt
so I shall refer you to them. You don’t have 5 years to send me lists of scientifics texts, neither do I.
http://creation.com/
http://www.icr.org/
hhtp://www.answersingenesis.org/
Are a few of the insitutes that are experts in this field. I refer you to them.
April 17th, 2009 at 7:32 am
“Definition of scientific method:
A method of discovering knowledge about the natural world based in making falsifiable predictions (hypotheses), testing them empirically, and developing peer-reviewed theories that best explain the known data.
Can you show how any of the ID advocates or creation scientists you know don’t fit or adhere to these definitions?”
ID advocates can’t falsify their predictions. Michael Behe recently admitted defeat when it came to the Evolution of the Eye, only to push it back and say that Light-Sensitive cells are too complex to Evolve. If that isn’t an example to un-falsifiability, simply claiming that ‘God dun it’ when proven totally wrong, I don’t know what is. He was proven wrong, and instead of accepting it, he simply said “well God did it anyway”. Un-falsifiable.
Name a peer-reviewed scientific journal such as Nature or New Scientist that has corroborated one aspect of ID. Even a smaller, less well known journal. Don’t point me to a publication by ID Advocates; that is the equivalent of getting a reference from your mother for a job interview.
Name an experiment that can be devised in order to test their theory. Apart from standing in a field shouting “Oh, Intelligent designer! Design me a tree!”, there isn’t really any text you can devise.
Oh, and for before, me calling creation scientists ’scientists’, I was sticking to their label that they concocted in the 1960’s. Trust me, I don’t consider them anywhere near scientists.
April 17th, 2009 at 7:35 am
Mark: Stizzy’s views on flood geology, Evolution and Tower of Babel type explanation have been disproven more times than I can count. People like Stizzy simply dismiss it. I’m not trying to disprove God. I don’t care about that, I made my mind up about his (lack of) existence years ago. What I care about is this Fundamentalist bullcrap about worldwide floods being taught as fact! It simply isn’t.
April 17th, 2009 at 7:41 am
Your hostility isn’t really doing your point any favours Matt.
Not aware of what you say about Behe although I’d be interested in reading about it if you can refer me
And as far as I know, Behe doesn’t even believe in God, he isn’t a creationist. And you didn’t really answer my question, you just picked out one person who made a mistake and held that up as proof.
You ask me to name a peer reviewed journal and then you set the standard for what this peer reviewed journal should look like and be called. You’re trying for force it all into a box of your own construction.
And simply saying something has been disproven doesn’t really say anything. From what I’ve seen, when people claim to have refuted or disproven something, they’ve done nothing of the sort.
April 17th, 2009 at 7:46 am
“Don’t point me to a publication by ID Advocates; that is the equivalent of getting a reference from your mother for a job interview.”
Also, isn’t asking me this akin to getting a reference from the person who wants to keep you unemployed for a job interview?
April 17th, 2009 at 7:49 am
512. Stizzy : Useless fundies… Makes me wonder why I bother
– http://listverse.com/your-view/your-view-should-creationism-be-taught-in-schools/
515. Matt Howard : I do agree with your POV on this subject – tacitly – but I wonder why sometimes. Stizzy’s right, take a chill pill – didn’t I just tell you to do that somewhere else? I can’t remember, it might have been another fundie knocker – because you hostility and aggressiveness aren’t doing you justice (because your points are solid) let alone any favours.
516. Stizzy : Good points, I’m sure some atheistic scientists have screwed up to, but that doesn’t make them all useless does it? And you shouldn’t have to give something that’s been published in a journal per se, religion has a dogma attached to it that would make that practically umpossible. AND Matt’s “These things have been disproven.” thing was rather lazy, not wrong per se, but lazy.
April 17th, 2009 at 7:53 am
Damn, won’t be able to read it now, bout time for me to scoot off hehe. But will try and get around to it.
Been fun as always
I posted some links but think they’re taking awhile to show through.
Toodles!
April 17th, 2009 at 7:54 am
517. Stizzy : Crash and burn! Crash and burn! If Matt doesn’t point it out I will… Hurry up Matt
April 17th, 2009 at 7:57 am
519. Stizzy : There’s over 2.5k posts, you won’t have time to read it *period* (I hope, or else maybe you need a life)
Catch ya!
April 17th, 2009 at 7:58 am
Seeing as Behe is a leading, if not THE leading advocate of ID, I will refer to his opinion as one of the leading authorities. I’m not questions his belief in God or creationism, I questioning his method of establishing criteria for advocating ID.
I made my point about falsification quite clear. You can’t falsify it. No way. Tell me exactly how you could falsify it? Any type of evidence that is provided by Evolutionary theory is dismissed, as Behe did. I could easily falsify Evolution. Easy! Show me a rabbit fossil from the pre-Cambrian era. I guess you have to accept the ages of era’s for this to make any sense….
Reference: http://www.arn.org/docs/mm/vidgraphics.htm
It’s isn’t biased. That is and ID Advocating website. Read the page carefully until you see Behe ask “where did light sensitive cells come from?” It’s a massive argument from ignorance; if I can’t comprehend how it happened, it MUST have been a big, spooky sky man who dun it!
Yes I set that standard in regards to peer-reviewed journals. That’s what peer-reviewed journals are; the best STANDARD for assessing scientific validity. Any nutcase with a bit of cash and a printing press can publish their own ‘journal’. It is the reputation and process of the journal that counts. I will defend my decision to set the standard of journals you need to reference.
It comes down to this. You are advocating things that are radically different to what established mainstream science advocates. Not trivial things, but MASSIVE things like the invalidity of evolution, or the age of the Earth. Extraordinary claims require massive amounts of extraordinary evidence, and if you’re going advocate that the Earth had a giant global flood 6-10,000 years ago, you need to demonstrate with SOLID evidence how, where and when the water came from and how, where and when the water went away. If you can’t do that, which I strongly suspect you can’t, then you have no right to tell ME to disprove it.
April 17th, 2009 at 8:01 am
Mark: I know I was being lazy…1am in the morning and I already feel like I have no life being on this site;) I’m not going to look up the thousands of texts that disprove a global flood, I can’t be bothered at the moment. I know that’s inexcusably lazy, so I ask for your forgiveness:)
April 17th, 2009 at 8:29 am
To my fellow Christians, it’s just a list of similarities. Don’t get so worked up about it. If a list threatens your faith, then you need some serious re-assessment of your beliefs. To the non-believers (my wife is among you, so I’m not judging), be fair and try not to blame Jesus for the bad behavior of his followers. Wasn’t it Gandhi that said, “I like your Christ, but I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ.”? My point is, whether you like Christians or not, don’t blame Christ, and don’t lump us all in the same pile. We’re not all loons. All this being said, I now must defend my fellow evolutionists. Stizzy, you said, “Adam and Eve would have contained, within themselves, the genetic information for every person on the planet. They would have been geniuses! They could have been capable of things we can’t even imagine, and it stands to reason that over time, this knowledge steadily decreased. You ask me if the Bible can explain this, but can evolution explain this? It can’t, because the further back you go according to the theory, the more primitive people should be.” First, I don’t see how containing a lot of “genetic information for every person on the planet” makes you a genius. Second (and most importantly) no single person can contain all the “genetic information for every person on the planet.” Humans are diploid. So we can have just 2 copies of every gene (2 alleles). Thus, if Adam and Eve were human, they could not have had any more than that. Maybe each had two different alleles for each gene (but this also isn’t possible, but let’s play pretend and say it is), that’s still only 4 different alleles, not enough for every human on the planet… UNLESS EVOLUTION + MUTATION LENDS A HAND. But the more appropriate conclusion is this: instead of saying, “Evolution can’t explain this, so evolution false.” maybe you should stop begging the question and say, “Maybe there wasn’t just two humans to begin with. Maybe there was no Adam and Eve.” Seriously, though, geniuses? If so, then why was Eve tricked by a snake? And evolution can also reduce the need for some traits, intelligence included, so saying that people should continually be smarter every generation is bunk. Oh so many things wrong with what you said. Gandhi would not like you.
April 17th, 2009 at 10:50 am
Mark: stop being such a pussy about Matt’s so-called hostility. If anything, it’s “hostility” borne of frustration. The frustration of dealing with ID and YEC nitwits over and over again. Don’t let Stizzy’s apparent open-minded and pleasant demeanor fool you. It’s simply a passive form of his own aggression. I’m sure he’s a nice guy and all and I have nothing personal against him, but strip the personalities away and it’s still the same load of easily refutable crap being trotted out. We’re being again pointed to the propagandist AiG website, which has been debunked several times already on LV alone. Shall we post up the opposing scientific-based information sites yet again?
Are “we” changing anything by shouting down these singular nutjobs one by one? In the big picture maybe not, but that doesn’t mean the nonsense they spew should just be ignored, or their voices will grow and threaten to (as Randall likes to say, and I’m paraphrasing) send us back to the dark ages.
April 17th, 2009 at 11:29 am
Stizzy; actually ancient humans seem to have had knowledge of a great many things which were destroyed by the Christian church as blasphemy, thus heralding the dark ages of man. Many an educated person was burned at the stake for so called heretical sins, such as saying the earth was round or it orbited the sun! So much knowledge and human history destroyed by the Christian faith, shame!!
Rushfan; has been fun reading all comments and coming to grips with intransigence.
April 17th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
@ Stizzy:
“Yet moelecules to man evolutionary theory doesn’t jibe with God.”
And this is where you lost me. I have a firm belief in God and yet I also think evolution is as factual as you can get. It´s likfe denying gravity. Why do we have to take Genesis literally? Why does Man have to have been formed IN HIS CURRENT STATE? Personally, I see God in evolution. So what if it´s taken him 4.5 billion years? Who knows if He´s even done? What´s a few billion years compared to infinity? And who are you to say that he should hurry up?
*****
“Can the Bible account for this? Yes it can. A cataclysmic global flood that would have annihilated all life and sorted it in layers of sediments before sea levels dropped and mountains rose. Creatures appear ordered because they were buried according to habitat! “simple” marine creatures at the bottom, going higher and higher up until you reach the more “complex” land creatures.”
How does this make sense? In a great cataclismic flood wouldnt you expect everything so be all jumbled up? Massive amounts of water washing away almost all life and yet orderly enough to lay down clear layers? You´re kidding, right?
April 17th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Oh, and one more point regarding my post 528:
Even IF the layers had all settled in an orderly fashion, wouldnt you expect the really heavy animals to sink to the bottom? So you would essentially have from heaviest to lightest which is not the case. It just doesnt make any sense….
April 17th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
The Bible has never been proven wrong. When archeologists begin a dig in the Middle East, they consult the Bible. It is very clear about geneology and where cities were located. When archeologists follow a Biblical “map” they find their sites. Archeologists believe the Bible.
Also, science has proven that the universe had a definite beginning. No big bang theory. They figured that out in the ’80s. Scientists agree that the universe came to be because of a well defined plan by a well defined planner. Scientists believe the Bible.
The Old Testament gives many prophesies about the Messiah. Jesus is the ONLY person in HISTORY to foot the bill on each and every one of these prophesies. Some of the other people mentioned above may have some similarities to Jesus, but none of the others come from God’s chosen people, from the lineage of David. Prophesies lead to Jesus.
Also, the gospels were all written in the 1st century. According to theologians and historians alike, the accounts were taken from those who were actually there. They are like interviews, with the authors being the interviewers. Theologians and historians believe the Bible.
For those who keep trying to rationalize or deny the Bible and its truths, faith is defined as (paraphrased) believing in what you cannot see and knowing that it is real. I’ve SEEN what Jesus can do in one’s life. I believe the Bible. I’ve seen faith work.
The mythologies of ancient dieties from past cultures which no longer exist never helped anyone do anything. They are liars.
April 17th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
530. kathy
Ha ha ha … Normally I let the religious ranters continue on but now that you’re trying to fit science into your rant…
The Bible has never been proven wrong. When archeologists begin a dig in the Middle East, they consult the Bible. It is very clear about geneology and where cities were located. When archeologists follow a Biblical “map” they find their sites. Archeologists believe the Bible.
Never, huh? Considering it contradicts itself on numerous occasions without outside help. Clear about genealogies when the Matthew traces 41 generations between Jesus and David while Luke counts 77? So much for clear genealogy. ‘Where cities were located…’ is not remarkable. Scientists have been able to do that with the Lasceaux Cave Paintings as well.
Also, science has proven that the universe had a definite beginning. No big bang theory. They figured that out in the ’80s. Scientists agree that the universe came to be because of a well defined plan by a well defined planner. Scientists believe the Bible.
I’d like peer-reviewed sources on this. Creating a generalization such as “Scientists believe in the Bible” implying that all scientists believe in the Bible is simply asking for trouble. The 80’s you are vaguely hinting at is nothing more than a religious right movement to try to reintroduce creationist ideas into the science classroom by giving it a fancy new name like “Intelligent Design.” I say subterfuge because it is technically illegal since the 1987 Supreme court ruling in Edwards v. Aguillard denying religious ideas to be taught in the science classroom. ID has yet to create any real scientific background which is the reason why it is still not an acceptable topic for science classrooms.
The Old Testament gives many prophesies about the Messiah. Jesus is the ONLY person in HISTORY to foot the bill on each and every one of these prophesies. Some of the other people mentioned above may have some similarities to Jesus, but none of the others come from God’s chosen people, from the lineage of David. Prophesies lead to Jesus.
Third time I’ve seen this. Most notable prophecy touted is the Book of Micah but this prophecy is heralding the coming of a military leader who defeats the Assyrians. Neither applies to the life of historical Jesus. Need I continue on? But why? Here I was reading another almost interesting debate and there you go trying to segue the conversation into religious belief and open the door for bible bashers to come in and dumb things down as well. Nice going.
Also, the gospels were all written in the 1st century. According to theologians and historians alike, the accounts were taken from those who were actually there. They are like interviews, with the authors being the interviewers. Theologians and historians believe the Bible.
No. Not all gospels were written from first hand accounts. Average lifespans of individuals prior to recent past (I’m saying around the late 18th/early 19th century) were roughly 30-40 years. The Gospel of Luke alone is thought to have been written somewhere between 70-100 AD – meaning well PAST the death of historical Jesus. While I can’t factually prove it wasn’t written of first hand accounts of those alive during Jesus’s teachings, you also cannot factually prove they were.
For those who keep trying to rationalize or deny the Bible and its truths, faith is defined as (paraphrased) believing in what you cannot see and knowing that it is real. I’ve SEEN what Jesus can do in one’s life. I believe the Bible. I’ve seen faith work.
Oh, so because YOU’VE seen Jesus, I’m supposed to willingly believe? Sorry, I don’t work that way, especially given what information I have to go on about you. I see you’ve been spending this entire comment trying to rationalize the ‘truths’ of the Bible as you see it and then end the comment by demeaning those who tried to do the same. Spiritual truths… you can have them all to yourself but these ‘scientific truths’…I bust them as I see them – regardless of topic.
The mythologies of ancient dieties from past cultures which no longer exist never helped anyone do anything. They are liars.
‘They are liars.’ Try looking into the mirror when you say that. I don’t mean all Christians. I mean you.
Alright, what I’m trying to get at here is this: believe in your faith if you want but don’t go asking for trouble by filling in the gaps with facts that are completely erroneous. I try to leave religion alone for the most part as it should be a personal, individually introspective adventure but I do have issues with those who believe in a strict adherence of the Bible as it was written by men and I believe a spirit-based faith needs a stronger foundation than that. Trying to pass off specific ideas as factual when your only source is a single book written centuries ago and unwilling to be contested throughout those centuries is a very dangerous path to tread. It’s not just because of my spiritual belief or lack of it that has come to this conclusion. A.J. Jacobs, author of “The Year of Living Biblically” as well as a Jewish Rabbi who’s name escapes me but was so inspired by the book that he attempted a biblical year as well BOTH say follow the faith rather than strictly follow the word.
April 17th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
530 kathy: The Bible has never been proven wrong.
So then:
Homosexuality is an abomination?
Slavery is ok?
Incest is ok?
Oppression of women is ok?
Multiple wives are ok?
Corporal punishment for disobedient children is ok?
Tell me when to stop…
April 17th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Oh dear… This is when I think I should just get out. I´m Catholic, I have faith, I believe in God. I try to come to these debates and argue in favor of my faith. However, people like kathy sometimes just want to make me throw in the towel.
kathy (530): This is an interesting, intelligent debate not a chance for you to proselytize. Thanks.
*****
Maggot (532):
Just out of curiousity, where does it say that the oppresion of women or multiple wives are OK? I want to look that up.
(I´m thinking that may come off as sarcasm but it honestly wasnt…
)
April 17th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Maggot: Thanks for the defense. I don’t really want to continue debating Stizzy. It should be painfully obviously that he lacks any kind of scientific credibility by now, but referring me to AnswersinGenesis as an actual source is the final nail in the coffin. I just take solace in the fact that while real science is continuing to expand and grow, solving old mysteries and uncovering brand new ones, people are finally starting to get sick and tired of religion dressing in a cheap tuxedo and trying to masquerade as legitimate academia. The clock is ticking for places like Answers In Genesis, and the sooner that this educational disgrace bites the dust the sooner the world will be a more intellectually honest place.
Kathy: Absolutely ridiculous. Just totally asinine. Kathy is the kind of person who doesn’t tread the fine line between science and religion, but bulldozers over it, and considers using intelligible language and bold assertions as justification. Archeologists believe in the Bible? I think Stephen Jay Gould might have disagreed with you there. Gabi319, well done for taking the time to dispel all the conniving assertions Kathy tried to con people with.
April 17th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
526. Maggot : I’m not being a pussy, are you jumping on the bandwagon too? Everyone seems to be going off their faces in the comments at the moment
All I was saying is that arguing is always going to be better with two people discussing the relative merits of their hypothesis with cool heads, that’s a fact. If you can’t convince the fundie nut by doing that, then don’t bother. It’s as simple as that, because being aggressive and hostile towards them might seem like something that needs to be done to a person like you, but just step back and think about it a bit harder for a second. At the end of the day, you haven’t changed anything, all you’ve done is decrease the chances of you convincing some – maybe even only one – of the fundie nuts that, well, maybe they’re wrong.
Also take note, that there is no *proof* that you’re right. Sure all the evidence points towards it – I don’t want to go there, please – but if you are wrong about the grand scheme of things, boy you’re screwed.
532. Maggot : Just needed to clarify something :
“Multiple wives are ok?”
Is there anything inherently wrong with that one? I mean, I agree with the others, but the only reason you say that is because of – funnily enough actually – the Christian, and most other religion’s – way of union. If you cast of what just “is” and think about it for a second – or just think about why what is, is – then I don’t think that that statement in itself helps to prove your point.
534. Matt Howard : All I can say is that if you were here just to “Prove the nutcase wrong” you were wasting your time. I think Maggot also misses the point in that regard. Stizzy and I weren’t trying to push our POVs onto each other or anybody else here, we were just having an interesting debate – which I learned a lot from. It’s not the end of the world and maybe you should stop bothering if you’re trying to achieve the aforementioned results.
April 17th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
you know what i have to say? *sticks tounge out* THHTHHHHHHHHHHPPPPPPPPP
April 17th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Mark: I will stop. Trying to change a Fundies useless mind is about as fruitful as trying to find scientific evidence in the Creation Museum in Kentucky. It just feels good once in a while to unleash a few tidbits of hostility towards Fundamentalist/ID advocates. They deserve it, after all. Anyone who tries to subvert the scientific method due to their own personal religious beliefs is bad enough. Anyone who tries to get this crap taught in public schools or even viewed on the same level as Evolution on Geology deserves all the scorn they get.
April 17th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Littleboots (189) your comment was far and away the best thing written on here.
Some people here really like the sound of their own voice!
April 17th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
530 – by saying the bible has never been proven wrong you are saying it is inerrant?
I believe I dealt with that WAAAAY up the list, but for your benefit, and the benefit of other deluded individuals such as yourself I shall repeat myself.
“ 146. cymraegbachgen87 – April 14th, 2009 at 10:28 am
Of course the bible is not 100% accurate, just like it is nowhere near inerrant.
People don’t realise that the bible was compiled by the romans at the first council of nicaea, and any gospels that made jesus look mortal were left out.
For god sake, the Bible claims that rabbits chew the cud, that the pattern of goats’ coats can be changed by what their parents look at while copulating, that only dead seeds can germinate and that ostriches are careless parents.”
Right. On to the rest of your idiotic post.
“Also, science has proven that the universe had a definite beginning. No big bang theory. They figured that out in the ’80s. Scientists agree that the universe came to be because of a well defined plan by a well defined planner. Scientists believe the Bible.”
The Big Bang Theory is curent. It has not been disproved. As a scientist myself I am disgusted and insulted by this sweeping statement. I would dearly LOVE to see your evidence for this statement. BTW, the BBT IS a theory of how the universe STARTED. What did you THINK it was? You clearly have zero knowledge of Science.
“The mythologies of ancient dieties from past cultures which no longer exist never helped anyone do anything. They are liars.”
Past cultures? You mean like Roman Judea right? Buddhism and Hinduism are still going very strong thank you.
“Also, the gospels were all written in the 1st century”
Really? When do you think the Bible was compiled? Seeing as it was compiled in about 325 by Constantine I at the first council of Nicaea, anything up to that date could be included. It was also here where any gospel that portrayed jesus as mortal was removed from the bible. You have zero knowledge of history either.
April 17th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
well done, btw, gabi.
Just wanted to throw my two cents in (as the americans say)
GTT (529) “So you would essentially have from heaviest to lightest which is not the case. It just doesnt make any sense….”
Even if it were smallest to largest, you would also expect small mammals in with small fish, crustaceans, reptiles etc and we don’t see it. We should also see metal arrowheads in there too and we dont. The flood has been very well handled on the creationism your view.
April 17th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
537. Matt Howard : While that may be all well and good, don’t forget that Stizzy never advocated anything like that – I think
April 17th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
MARK! Nice to see you again! I thought you had vanished into the annals of LV history!
(I shall have to pay that assassin more next time…)
April 17th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
542. cymraegbachgen87 : Thank you? But I’m not ready to be the next Anon-LV-folk-hero yet, so I’m back. I just had a really busy week doing some sports. But don’t worry, I’m back to regain my No.1 posters spot.
April 17th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
Yeah what happened to Anon? I didn’t want to ask…LV has been different without his sagely advice and comments…
I do hope you are not here to regain no1 spot. I was going to take a crack at it next week.
May the best welsh man win
April 17th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
Thank you guys! and an additional two cents worth of thanks to Matt Howard and cym for the extra angles. Honestly, I sit amazed at just how many wrong ‘facts’ kathy could manage to squeeze into each individual short paragraph that it was hard picking and choosing what to refute without making myself sound as crazy as she!
April 17th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
544. cymraegbachgen87 : Yes, I will thank you
April 17th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Re: Anon
I’ve been asking about him too and even trying to tease him out of hiding should he be doing that but no response yet? A couple weeks ago, he did mention trying to organize work-related field trips, so if that’s what’s what then hopefully he’ll be back soon with stories to share.
April 17th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
Next list should be top 10 erroneous posters.
Ideas on submissions?
April 17th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
547. gabi319 : But… But he didn’t say good-bye :’(
April 17th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
LOL.
Just read stizzys posts. Ignorant in the extreme. But at 2.30am I am not going to take each individual point that I have already, with the help of many others, destroyed and shown to be false on the creationism ‘your view’
I hope he reads it and is enlightened. His knowledge of science is dreadful. He would certainly benefit from reading even a tenth of those posts
A hint – once it gets to cookery, there is no more debate; but that isnt til about comment #2000 or so
April 17th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
550. cymraegbachgen87 : Yeah, but I think the best part was that 2000-2500 conversation…
April 17th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
@505. Matt Howard: Matt, you wrote exactly what I had in mind but didn’t want to write…call me lazy
Here’s the thing with Stizzy, he/she writes that heliocentrism was there in Christianity well before but was rejected/misinterpreted before being proven by Copernicus and Keplar et. al. in the 15th and 17th century. Well one thing is for sure is historically true that the concept of a possibility of heliocentrism existed during the time of ancient Greeks and Vedic India. Now, given that, Stizzy, your statement does not relly translate that theory being adapted by Christianity. Well you cared to state so that this was done merely on a poetic level but you fail to provide any relevant references to support your statement. I would be glad to see those psalms or verses where your view is supported. If not I can defnitely provide you with verses where it is clearly written that Earth does not move and Sun and Moon are standstill. That verse, was fucking brilliantly non-poetic!
Well Christianity always, (and I really mean it) always believed in a theory that was correctly proven so by science. It is preposterous that it uses the same tools (science) to prove itself right against attacks from philosophies that are inherently scientific, and in doing so it has enshrouded itself with such a strong sheath (science) that not even scientific reasoning can touch it now. In that sense, Christianity has definitely eveolved as a desert chameleon, changing colors to stay alive. Islam, in that perspective, has been more or less stubborn, and stayed medieval.
NOTE: I would like to mention that neither heliocentrism nor geocentrism is correct however former is lesser so as Sun is not center of this universe yet Earth and other planets revolve around it. I am sure creationists would have tried to argue based on Michelson-Morley experiment’s result involving fringes that Earth indeed is stationary. On a lighter note I assert creationists would also have tried to expliot relativity theory when they “reinterpreted” their verses about geocentrism
April 17th, 2009 at 10:03 pm
knight_forked, Gabi: thanks for the compliments. Unfortunately I just checked back on my previous posts and can see the effects that trying to argue and sound reasonably intelligent simply doesn’t work at 1.30am (here is Australia:)) Some of my sentences don’t even make sense! That’ll teach me for trying to be smart whilst my eyes are failing to stay open:P
I think I have a problem. I always swear once I’ve debated with a Creationist and gone through point after point of refutations, clearing up terminology, pointing out why it isn’t science, that is that. I won’t do it again. But I always do! Whenever I see a YEC or ID advocate try and worm their way into a legitimate discussion I always end up sitting at my keyboard furiously typing away, getting myself wound up and annoyed until they shut up. It’s an addiction, methinks. Can anyone give me a cure?:)
April 18th, 2009 at 12:55 am
totally wrong descriptions about the buddha….
April 18th, 2009 at 1:12 am
Wow…seems the recession is nearing it’s end. Folks seem to have a lot to say….
April 18th, 2009 at 1:36 am
533 GTT: Just out of curiousity, where does it say that the oppresion of women or multiple wives are OK? I want to look that up.
Multiple wives:
http://www.biblicalpolygamy.com/polygamists/
A few examples of female oppression:
1 Corinthians 14:34-35
1 Timothy 2:11-12
Colossians 3:18
Ephesians 5:22-24
April 18th, 2009 at 3:28 am
Predecessors before Christ- Many will try butnot one will succeed. The whole world shall see Him coming on the clouds of heaven in glory soon.
April 18th, 2009 at 3:42 am
556. cybogen : Oh for crying out loud, add something or don’t say anything at all
April 18th, 2009 at 3:44 am
553. Matt Howard – “that is that. But I always do!…It’s an addiction, methinks. Can anyone give me a cure?”
No. There is no cure. I believe, I’ve tried to give it up. I’ve tried to at least keep it contained in the Your View: Should Creationism be Taught in Schools? but I am extremely unsuccessful. Whenever I see the “I didn’t come from no monkey” argument, I see red. Can’t help myself.
Even if you don’t think what you wrote made sense, you did a vastly better job than many of us! Stizzy simply has this crazy circular logic and excessive need to use questions that honestly makes me dizzy.
April 18th, 2009 at 3:49 am
558. gabi319 : Am I the only non-Christian here who enjoys conversing with ol’ Stizz?
April 18th, 2009 at 3:51 am
Correction
*Believe me, not I believe
554. kumari. – “totally wrong descriptions about the buddha….”
Would you like to write an addendum rather than vaguely and needlessly criticize?
555. heavybison – “Wow…seems the recession is nearing it’s end. Folks seem to have a lot to say….”
Perhaps that depends on where you are, heavybison. At least where I’m at, they believe the worst is past but we’ve still got a ways to go.
April 18th, 2009 at 3:55 am
560. gabi319 : I think we’ve still got a bit to go before we hit rock bottom here in Aus, because if we don’t then this “crisis” was more of a “joke”.
April 18th, 2009 at 3:55 am
Matt:
Nope, not the only one. Cymraegbachen87 had a rather good conversation with Stizzy a week or two ago. I will read and enjoy the conversation but prefer not to get in discussion with Stizzy. I’m so focused on making sense of Stizzy’s comments that I concentrate more on that than on the actual topic. It’s quite a fascinating and aggravating distraction technique he/she’s got.
April 18th, 2009 at 4:05 am
Gabi: Glad to hear someone else is in the same boat as me. My particular pet peeve is when a YEC trots out the old “well, Evolution is ONLY a theory” chestnut. Gets me every time.
April 18th, 2009 at 4:11 am
562. gabi319 : I don’t know about that. I find him relatively easy to understand… Oh noes…. Maybe I’m turning into… A FUNDIE!!!
April 18th, 2009 at 4:18 am
Matt:
re econ crisis:
It’s a global issue, but I don’t think absolute destitution is the end result for every nations’ economy. That is merely grossly overdramatized situation presented by the media. Even where I am (in the US), there was panic and whispers about it a good six to nine months before the general public were personally affected when their banks when some banks failed. Aside from the bank issues in California, most the banks in most other places saw a mere transition in ownership and nothing more. I’m not downplaying the situation; I’ve seen plenty of people lose their jobs and as of last night when I was stumbling through some more news articles, America has 5.1 million recently unemployed citizens. However, part of me wonders how much of that was truly necessary and how much was a result of the hype brought on by the words “economic crisis”.
re YEC pet peeves:
The thing that drives me crazy is “If it weren’t for my bible and my god, I would freely embrace evolution.” …why place such limitations on knowledge? Cymraeg was looking into that AiG site when it was first given to us and he noted that anyone publishing on the site had to sign a form stating their unwavering belief in the inerrancy of the bible. That alone should be enough to warn people that there’s a strong bias shown in that website.
April 18th, 2009 at 4:20 am
haha Mark, yes Stizzy’s easy to understand. He’s well-spoken and presents a great argument for his side. It’s just my personal weakness that cannot stand the excessive question talking and nothing more.
April 18th, 2009 at 4:31 am
565. gabi319 : It’s all a plus for me, both of my parents have secure jobs and we have *enough* money – just – to get us by. And it all makes for very interesting discussions in Economics
566. gabi319 : Meh, everyone does it don’t they? I know I do. Wouldn’t you do it if it helped win you an argument? It tires people out so well don’t you think?
April 18th, 2009 at 4:43 am
Mark, you’re a jerk.
haha…I mean that with the utmost LOVE and AFFECTION.
April 18th, 2009 at 4:50 am
568. gabi319 : BWAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! You’re stuck with me Gabi, for as long as I wanna be here, this is going to be fun.
By the way, very important announcement. I am back in the No.2 spot, yay! Gonna take over oouchan within a coupla days and then everything will be back to the way it should be
April 18th, 2009 at 4:56 am
Remember, that list determines quantity and NOT quality of comments
Sometimes I despise LV… Yet again I’m going to be almost late to the gym. Breast cancer fundraiser today so I really can’t be late… Have fun, all. And please keep the crazies from writing anything stupid. I can stop by before work but won’t be able to rant
April 18th, 2009 at 4:59 am
571. gabi319 : Ooooh, burn… Did you just call oouchan’s comments poor-quality? Now that was uncalled for
Don’t worry, I’ll be on guard. Although, I don’t think I’ll be doing your ranting so well. Yet again, where’s Pi when you need him?
April 18th, 2009 at 6:12 am
Funny how your mind leaped to me, Mark. I will admit at least that not all of my comments are “on topic” or of “relevent” value, but I like the conversations here.
Since I don’t know much about the bible (having locked that part away from my early childhood) I can’t get involved in the debates as much here. So having said that, thank you Matt for the enlightning read.
April 18th, 2009 at 6:17 am
573. oouchan : Hey, if we’re talking about off-topic comments I’m the last to be pointing the finger – except Anon
I know jack-all about the Bible too, I’m only 16 remember
April 18th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
@Travisthechimp
By what absolute truth do you assume that one’s day can be blessed?
April 18th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
572. Mark – “Ooooh, burn… Did you just call oouchan’s comments poor-quality? Now that was uncalled for ”
Touché, Mark.
April 18th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Mark, you directed some comments towards me earlier in this thread but my attention got misdirected (both here and offline) so I didn’t have a chance to respond yet. Sorry, I wasn’t ignoring you or your points.
477: I think you misinterpreted that, if science couldn’t explain everything, then we’ve been sitting here saying “It’ll be all sweet, just give it time and they’ll know we were right”.
Nah, I don’t think evolutionists or the science community in general have that kind of revenge-oriented agenda. Maybe some small minority do, I don’t mean to imply that as an absolute. On the contrary though, I think the other side definitely does think this way towards non-believers.
535: but if you are wrong about the grand scheme of things, boy you’re screwed.
Meh. See above.
(re multiple wives) Is there anything inherently wrong with that one? I mean, I agree with the others, but the only reason you say that is because of – funnily enough actually – the Christian, and most other religion’s – way of union.
No, that’s not the reason I included it. It’s a model based on male chauvinism, which IMO is wrong, and the Bible is wrong in condoning it.
All I can say is that if you were here just to “Prove the nutcase wrong” you were wasting your time. I think Maggot also misses the point in that regard….It’s not the end of the world and maybe you should stop bothering if you’re trying to achieve the aforementioned results.
I can’t speak for Matt or cym or gabi or anyone else that shares my POV, but I just don’t think that kind of crap should be allowed to spew unabated in this type of public forum. So what if all it does is drive a particular nutcase further into their own stubbornness. May another reader or participant who might be on the fence will see the fallacies for what they are. If you think it’s a waste of time, so be it. I don’t think it is.
April 18th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
Mark c/o Maggot 577: I can’t speak for Matt or cym or gabi or anyone else…
Maggot: Speak on my behalf freely because that is what I think as well on pretty much any topic where I feel lies are being told as truth. On another list, someone had an issue with the fact that I corrected his comment. If he wants to believe crap that isn’t true, then fine, but if he wants to tell people to believe that crap then I feel obligated to step in.
Mark: Express opinions without coming to a mutual conclusion. Fine. See another person’s point of view. I do that all the time, Mark. But to sit complacently to the side while someone tells lies that someone else may believe as truth? Well, that, I just won’t do.
As far as you being put off by the tone of Maggot and Matt Howard…It’s like I told you elsewhere: “I call it as I see it.” and I’m sure that’s what these two are doing. Given that they’ve presented these same points ad nauseum, the frustration’s bound to get the best of us at times, particularly with those who are stubbornly believing fallacies and twisting words and evidence to fit conclusions (No one DARE mention ‘presuppositions’. I think I get angrier about that now than the ‘man from monkey’ nonsense). You can’t tell me you haven’t felt frustration like that before, Mark. Perhaps not on LV but elsewhere? You see, there are always certain issues that get people riled up and Creationist Fallacies appears to be a hot button issue for a number of us.
April 19th, 2009 at 7:31 am
with god, there is no such thing as “Christ like figures who predate jesus” no one was like Jesus, no matter how “good” they were or how many simalarities they shared.
April 19th, 2009 at 9:03 am
Stizzy; you make me dizzy!!
Max Plank in 1900 found that light was composed of photons and was the father of quantum mechanics. There is a good documetary on CBC on Velikofsky ‘Bonds of the past’ which deals with the catastrophies in not only the bible but also in Egyptian scrolls. Our universe is not a stable entity but one of instability where collisions between galaxies is the norm. God seems to have done a poor job at creation where so much instability happens!! There have been many collisions with comets and asteroids in Earths history and the major ones actually changed the shape and tilt of our planet. That is fact and not fiction. Adam and Eve, really, that is fiction.
I realise that your dogmatic literal reading of the bible and use, to counter any attack will only entrench your intransigence. As we have seen in recent times earthquakes create tsunamis and asteroids or comets able to change the surface crust would displace enormous volumes of water, so heavenly bodies did cause floods but it was not God which did it!
April 19th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
hehe I love you guys
you guys are awesome.
April 19th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
A note on the Bible btw, there are things that are descriptive, not prescriptive. It’s clear from Genesis what the prognosis was on marriage. One man and one woman shall become one flesh. Anything beyond that was outside of God’s will, so to say that the Bible was male chauvanistic is to be ignorant of the Bible.
If you don’t mind me saying, there seems to be a lot of mudslinging going on here and a lot of posturing but nothing much beyond that.
Lostatsea: Yes the universe is disordered and in bad shape. I believe I mentioned elsewhere that with the fall of man came the fall of the universe. God didn’t create it so out of wack, it became that way due to the actions of man. What we see now, even in it’s beauty, is a shadow of what once was.
And people always take the actions of God and reduce them to “God waving a magic wand”. There may be natural causes for catastrophies, and whos to say God that in this particular instance, it happened by God’s leave? Does it always have to be a purely supernatural event to warrant God’s hand? Saying Adam & Eve is fiction doesn’t make it fiction, show me why.
April 19th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Stizzy; the universe fell because of man!!! Just how old do you think the earth is?, or the universe for that matter?
Calling you intransigent is not mudslinging just frustration with someone who disavows anthropological evidence.
April 19th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
(582) Ya might want to think twice about calling others ignorant, Stizzy.
April 19th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
I would like to congratulate everyone who has commented on this list it takes up 174 pages on microsoft word. size nine font. if you want a [edited for spelling and some punctuation] manuscript of it email me at mblechdog@gmail.com (if you are wierd about this kinda stuff like me)
April 19th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
never mind editing takes too much time.
April 19th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
Stizzy, explain how eating fruit from a tree by Adam and Eve messes up the universe. I truly want to know the answer to this.
April 19th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
577. Maggot : “…Nah, I don’t think evolutionists or the science community in general have that kind of revenge-oriented agenda….”
I didn’t mean it in a revenge orientated manner, just in general. If you are wrong and science doesn’t explain everything, then you are screwed – to an extent – or at the very least you were very mistaken.
“…No, that’s not the reason I included it. It’s a model based on male chauvinism, which IMO is wrong, and the Bible is wrong in condoning it…”
Yes, chauvinism may be a bad quality in a man – unless your name happens to be James Bond – but why is having more than one wife chauvinistic, in itself?
“…I can’t speak for Matt or cym or gabi or anyone else that shares my POV, but I just don’t think that kind of crap should be allowed to spew unabated in this type of public forum. So what if all it does is drive a particular nutcase further into their own stubbornness. May another reader or participant who might be on the fence will see the fallacies for what they are. If you think it’s a waste of time, so be it. I don’t think it is.”
It’s not a *complete* waste of time, just just using as much time and energy as some of you here do is. I can understand that you don’t want others to come here and be “corrupted” by what Stizzy is saying, but you only need to work so hard to prevent it. I think I was doing enough by myself to present the other side of the argument, then you all barge in here and start insulting the guy… Hardly seems fair…
April 19th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
578. gabi319 : “…You can’t tell me you haven’t felt frustration like that before, Mark. Perhaps not on LV but elsewhere?…”
No, I’ve definitely felt it on LV before – Creationism thread for just as sec, and pretty much all of the music threads I’ve foolishly commented on – so I do understand. But the thing is that before I start writing every comment like Maggot and Matt I’ll take some time out, go play some guitar, listen to some music, study a bit, *then* I’ll come back and comment. That’s how I avoid being too hostile and making a fool of myself.
April 19th, 2009 at 8:16 pm
581. Stizzy : Yep, I know I am
584. Maggot : In practice there are many things worse than hypocrisy. The advice he gave wasn’t bad in itself – you just have to read into it to get it – keep an open mind. Because after all, if Stizzy came in tomorrow and proved that God was real, would you believe him?
April 19th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
People can believe this or not, it’s independently verifiable:
People have increasingly tried to use December 25th as an “angle of attack” on Christianity due to alleged similarities with “other similar figures”.
A quick Google search of “debunking Jesus similarities” should offer quite a bit of insight into this.
In the first 200 years of Christian history, no mention is made of the calendar date of Jesus’ birth. Not until the year 336 do we find the first mention of a celebration of His birth.
So these alleged similarities are done post hoc.
Speculation on the proper date began in the 3rd and 4th centuries, when the idea of fixing Christ’s birthday started. Quite a controversy arose among Church leaders. Some were opposed to such a celebration. Origen Adamantius (185-254) strongly recommended against such an innovation.
“In the Scriptures, no one is recorded to have kept a feast or held a great banquet on his birthday. It is only sinners who make great rejoicings over the day in which they were born into this world” (Catholic Encyclopedia, 1908 edition, Vol. 3, p. 724, “Natal Day”).
If Origen Adamantius (Christian church father and philosopher) had his way, we would still have
Christianity, just no Christmas, and certainly no Dec. 25th.
During this time (3rd and 4th century) eight specific dates during six different months were proposed by various groups. December 25, although one of the last dates to be proposed, was the one finally accepted by the leadership of the Western church (which is to say Rome).
For several hundred years various Churches celebrated the birthday of Jesus on different dates. The eastern Churches kept it on January 6th, now the Epiphany. Other Churches chose April 24th or 25th and some placed it in May. Only in 354 AD did the Church choose December 25th as the date to celebrate the birth of Christ.
LET’S DRAW A REAL PARALLEL:
Presidents day, was originally a commemoration of George Washington’s birthday in 1796 (the last full year
of his presidency). Washington, according to the calendar that has been used since at least the mid-18th century, was born on February 22, 1732. According to the old style calendar in use back then, however, he was born on February 11. At least in 1796, many Americans celebrated his birthday on the 22nd while others marked the occasion on the 11th instead.
By the early 19th century, Washington’s Birthday had taken firm root in the American experience as a bona fide national holiday. Then along came Abraham Lincoln, another revered president and fellow February baby (born on the 12th of the month). The first formal observance of his birthday took place in 1865, the year after his assassination, when both houses of Congress gathered for a memorial address. While Lincoln’s Birthday did not become a federal holiday like George Washington’s, it did become a legal holiday in several states.
In 1968, legislation (HR 15951) was enacted that affected several federal holidays. One of these was Washington’s Birthday, the observation of which was shifted to the third Monday in February each year whether or not it fell on the 22nd. This act, which took effect in 1971, was designed to simplify the yearly calendar of holidays and give federal employees some standard three-day weekends in the process.
While the holiday in February is still officially known as Washington’s Birthday (at least according to the Office of Personnel Management), it has become popularly (and, perhaps in some cases at the state level, legally) known as “President’s Day.” This has made the third Monday in February a day for honoring both Washington and Lincoln, as well as all the other men who have served as president.
April 19th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
Mark: I do actually agree with your philosophy. I mean I was harsh and I realize that, and it would serve me better in future to do what you suggest and take some ‘time out’ before I reply to a creationist in haste. I also think I read somewhere on here that you’re 16? Correct me if I’m mistaken. My point is that Stizzy seems like a genuine guy. He most likely is an extremely flattering and sincerely nice person, a person you could easily get talking to in a pub and strike up a friendship. Maybe your youth is a factor in believing Stizzy’s personality makes up for his abhorrent scientific beliefs, but that sounds pretty condescending and I wouldn’t necessarily use that as an argument against you, more like a compliment for the nonjudgmental nature of young people (again, if you’re over 16, I apologize).
There is something more sinister going on with creationists though (When I say creationists, I mean young Earth, global flood, no Evolution types). I don’t mean to sound like a doomsayer, or a fear monger (watch out! The scary creationist will get ya!). What I’m taking about is the purposeful and quite devious way that creationists go about their ‘research’. Their most common argument is that they interpret evidence differently. Stephen Jay Gould interpreted the evidence differently from Richard Dawkins (punctuated equilibrium, more or less rapid evolution in a short period of time followed by long periods of stability). Newton interpreted evidence differently from Einstein. Ptolemy interpreted evidence differently from Galileo and Copernicus. What creationists do is IGNORE the evidence. They IGNORE evidence such the layers of re-frozen ice that can be COUNTED (not dated, incase I get the common argument against radiometric dating again) up to 40,000 years ago. They IGNORE evidence of past Egyptian civilizations that existed at the time, and didn’t mention the global flood was supposed to have happened. There are so many, innumerably many pieces of evidence that they ignore in regards to Evolution and the Age of the Earth. In fact, in the Creationist Journal ORIGINS, creationists ADMIT THAT THEY CAN NO LONGER DEFEND A YOUNG EARTH! Here is the source:
http://www.grisda.org/origins/19087.htm
Creationists operate by this one rule. The Bible is the ultimate authority, and if the evidence contradicts ANYTHING in the Bible, then it is the evidence that must be sacrificed, not their beliefs. They will sacrifice the evidence by either ignoring it or trying to ‘twist’ it to conform to their way of thinking (Stizzy actually made this mistake in his big post I initially responded too. He claimed that the fact that there are marine fossils on the top of Mt Everest is proof of a global flood. In fact, and he stumbled through the point completely obliviously, marine fossils on the top of Mt Everest is concrete proof that the mountains once DID exist at sea level, before continental plates, over millions of years, collided together and formed the Himalayas).
I guess the defense of my initially angry response was that too many times I have heard the same old refutable arguments trotted out by creationists who are just too damn stubborn to realize that EVERY SINGLE ONE of their points have been scientifically destroyed. Yet they still keep doing it. That is not something to be respected, and certainly not something that can be justified by the person in question having a nice personality. I’d rather be horrible to people, yet completely honest, than nice to people and purposefully deceitful. Wow. That was a long rant:P
April 19th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
Faith is to be respected concerning just about anything,not just religion.
April 19th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
588 Mark: at the very least you were very mistaken.
I’ll take my chances.
why is having more than one wife chauvinistic
It’s just not an arrangement based on equality. They’ve become property, to be acquired. And (typically), they’re arranged hierarchically. It’s really another form of oppression. It just fosters a strict patriarchal way of thinking.
then you all barge in here and start insulting the guy
It’s a public forum. He was insulting our intelligence. Albeit, in a “nice” way.
if Stizzy came in tomorrow and proved that God was real, would you believe him?
What kind of proof are you talking about? Well, I think that is all anyone is asking for: proof – empirical evidence acquired via scientific method. Why would I or anyone else not believe that? As has been explained time and again, research scientists aren’t afraid of finding an unexpected answer. It would just change the path going forward for continued research. Why aren’t you holding Stizzy to that same standard?
(if you are and I missed it, sorry. I honestly didn’t get thru your and his entire exchange).
April 19th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
Bigski: What do you mean? If I sit in my car, knowing full well that my engine has been removed by thieves, and I have faith that I can put the key in the ignition and start it up, is that to be respected?
April 19th, 2009 at 10:28 pm
If you think it is alright for a man to have more than one wife, then it should also be alright for a woman to have more than one man. Imagine if two women married the same two men, so that both men are married to the same two women. Nice combo, eh? It’s only fair.
April 19th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
592. Matt Howard : I am 16, but I don’t think my youth has anything at all to do with this matter. Sure, life experience helps, I understand and accept that – I don’t have a choice with a bunch of old people around, I say that with the greatest affection LVers
– but this isn’t a matter of cooking myself dinner or picking fruit from the supermarket. This is a matter of intellect and opinion, I don’t have a pre-made, definite opinion like almost everyone else here, that does not make me stupid. On the contrary I believe that I argued quite capably for your side of the argument further up. I do respect you for not saying that my youth *is* the reason I’m not going off at Stizzy, almost all other LVers that know much about me would be. Don’t look at me like that, you’ve all done it, Anon – wherever he went – Gabi, oouchan, Maggot, that’s a *relatively* comprehensive list.
Maybe you’ve heard it a million times, maybe a billion. But when you first went off at Stizzy how many times had you heard it from him? I’m not saying it’s a poor excuse on your behalf, just maybe more calmness would make this thread a bit easier to follow for those of us here purely out of interest. Not to mention that aggressive hostility isn’t going to help you convince those people on the fence.
April 19th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
594. Maggot : “…It’s just not an arrangement based on equality. They’ve become property, to be acquired. And (typically), they’re arranged hierarchically. It’s really another form of oppression. It just fosters a strict patriarchal way of thinking….”
Who said what the arrangement was? I’m not referring to the one (many?) in the Bible, I’m saying that in general, having more than one wife is not inherently wrong or bad.
“…It’s a public forum. He was insulting our intelligence. Albeit, in a “nice” way…”
At least he did it in a nice way
“…Why aren’t you holding Stizzy to that same standard?…”
Because him and I didn’t discuss any physical evidence in our earlier debates. He only really tries hard to convince the hardcore, prove-the-fundie-wrong group of people like you and Matt of God’s existence. All him and I really discuss are more theoretical, philosophical aspects. That’s why I talk to him, it’s enjoyable
596. Rising Falls : Of course it’s fair, and why not? Sure you have an increased chance of catching something, but by using that as an argument you would be almost conceding that having a one partner that you have sex with for enjoyment is also unnecassery and pointless. What other decent reasons are there for only having one spouse?
April 19th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
Mark: I know my point was a little condescending, and trust me, from reading your previous posts I realize that you are more than capable of defending yourself intellectually. I respect you for that. I still defend my point, however, that no matter how accessible, kind or polite a person may be, intellectual honesty alone should be the yardstick by which to measure their character. As YEC’s are at the very least dishonest, not to mention some other stronger criticisms that for the moment I will bite my tongue in order not to mention, I reserve my right to not respect them in the slightest. I will forever respect their rights to hold them views, but I will never respect the views themselves.
I will take your advice, though, and from now on I’ll be more restrained and polite:) I will not, however, respect Stizzy’s creationist arguments scientifically or philosophically, as I think arguing from the standpoint of an inflexible and intrinsically authoritative source that hasn’t been proven and is contradicted by every piece of scientific evidence is dishonest and intellectually harmful.
April 19th, 2009 at 10:59 pm
599. Matt Howard : “…will take your advice, though, and from now on I’ll be more restrained and polite:) I will not, however, respect Stizzy’s creationist arguments scientifically or philosophically, as I think arguing from the standpoint of an inflexible and intrinsically authoritative source that hasn’t been proven and is contradicted by every piece of scientific evidence is dishonest and intellectually harmful.”
This is where I think most of the anti-YEC arguments hit a hurdle, and usually fall down. If God is omnipotent, how hard would it be to convince these people – that had gone out to disprove him anyway – that they were right? I’m not arguing for YEC, because frankly, I believe just like you that it is a joke, and a bad one at that. But what you fail to see that I think I do, is that maybe you are wrong. There’s no guarantees that you’re right until science has filled all of the gaps, and even then… *whispers* I heard he’s all powerful or something like that man…
April 19th, 2009 at 11:06 pm
587. Rising Falls – April 19th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
Stizzy, explain how eating fruit from a tree by Adam and Eve messes up the universe. I truly want to know the answer to this.
—
Certainly
Tis not the fruit itself that is the root of all evil, but the act of eating it and motivation behind the act. When God created man, He created Him intrinsicly linked to the rest of creation, perhaps on a level beyond the physical. I believe He created us with an inate ability to affect our physical environment through spiritual or metaphysical means.
In a sense, it could be said that as an intelligent, physical being, Adam in effect “spoke for” all physical creation. His act was an act of disobedience. Hence, by doing it, he came to know what it is to do something against God’s will and thus know evil. The corruption experienced on a spiritual level resonated physically throughout the universe, shifting all creation out of line with God’s will. Without His life sustaining power, all things enter a state of decay.
April 19th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
Mark: I never said I was right and that I had all the answers. All I was saying, and I will defend this, is that things like Noah’s Ark, the Earth being 10,000 years old, the Tower of Babel as an explanation for the proliferation of languages, are extremely weak explanations that not only lack evidence, but most importantly contradict current evidence. Aside from the philosophical arguments in the Bible which are open to interpretation from not only secular scholars, but other Christian denominations, the historical stories have absolutely no supporting evidence with which to prove their claims.
There’s no guarantee that I’m right. There’s no guarantee that I will ever be right! But what I’m arguing against is believing in things that have been proven wrong. Then again, I could wake up tomorrow with Ragnarok going on all around me, and Thor trying to hammer my arse and prevent me from getting into Valhalla, so I don’t know what to believe:P
April 19th, 2009 at 11:08 pm
584. Maggot – April 19th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
(582) Ya might want to think twice about calling others ignorant, Stizzy.
—–
I said others were ignorant of the Bible if they look at everything as prescriptive, and it’s true. Doesn’t make them ignorant in a complete overarching sense in every way.
April 19th, 2009 at 11:15 pm
602. Matt Howard : I agree with you – sorry Stiz – that the Bible if taken literally is stupid at best, which is why I agree that YEC is *insanely* stupid. I don’t know what to believe though, which is exactly why I keep an open mind.
April 19th, 2009 at 11:17 pm
Also, I don’t recall being rude, abusive or disrespectful to anyones intelligence so I fail to see how I was insulting it. Not to mention it would be presumptuous of me to assume to know the level of peoples intelligence and therefore insult it
—
“I will take your advice, though, and from now on I’ll be more restrained and polite:) I will not, however, respect Stizzy’s creationist arguments scientifically or philosophically, as I think arguing from the standpoint of an inflexible and intrinsically authoritative source that hasn’t been proven and is contradicted by every piece of scientific evidence is dishonest and intellectually harmful.”
I appreciate that you’ll be more polite
however I don’t see how we can possibly talk about anything when I’m not given the right to believe what I believe whether privately or publicly. You want to remove any ground I stand on by denying me the right to be respected. Should I therefore not respect your naturalistic arguments, scientifically or philosophically?
You argue that there is no evidence for stories within the Bible. Many times the Bible has been shown to be on point in terms of archeology. For years people said neither Jericho or Ninevah existed and therefore the stories were false. They must have been embarrassed when both were uncovered.
There are historians who also question the current egyptian chronology, believing that certain rulers who are said to have ruled one after another may have ruled simultaneously in different parts of Egypt, which would reduce egyptian chronology significantly.
I also wonder, and this is out of curiousity, what kind of physical evidence for the existence of a spiritual being would people count as viable?
April 19th, 2009 at 11:25 pm
I understand what you mean Mark about taking things literally
One has to understand though that God presents a reality, a picture of the universe, that exists on not just a physical but a spiritual plane. The Bible presents things that are descriptive and prescriptive. It speaks of things literally and figuratively. It presents dual natures in many instances.
What I often find is that people will try and make a physically based case against God, as well as prescriptive and literal cases against the Bible, completely ignoring the other side.
It’s similar with Jesus, some will argue either for complete humanity or complete spiritualiy, forgetting that His very nature was presented as both.
Food for thought
April 19th, 2009 at 11:30 pm
606. Stizzy : If you don’t take the Bible literally then why advocate that POV here, where people obviously aren’t fond of it?
April 19th, 2009 at 11:33 pm
Stizzy: Read my post carefully. I will eternally respect your right to believe whatever you want. If you want to believe that the Universe is merely the dream of some super creature and we are all figments of it’s imagination, fine! What I won’t do is respect your beliefs based solely on the fact that you believe them. I will also not respect your intellectual capabilities if those beliefs are held in the face of such overwhelming evidence. Would you honestly respect someones intellectual capabilities if they kept asserting and asserting that the Earth was flat, and every time you tried to point out how the evidence doesn’t support that view, they just kept asserting that it does?
You can choose whether or not to respect my naturalistic arguments. The difference is I back them up with evidence, with the consensus of the scientific community, with logic and with reason.
I apologize for the generalization I made in respect to the Bible. In fact, I believe Jesus did exist, as opposed to some Atheists who assert that he didn’t. I just don’t think he was supernatural. Of course, some things in the Bible are true, in terms of locations, times, people. However, there are a lot of things that aren’t, and those things are exactly the things you assert to be true (Noah’s Ark, Tower of Babel, the great Flood). You then either ignore all the evidence that discredits these theories or try to twist it in order to fit your beliefs. If I may, here is an actual document that you MUST sign if you want to be a member of the CRS (Creation Research Society):
“CRS Statement of Belief
All members must subscribe to the following statement of belief:
1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.
2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.
3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.
4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior.”
THAT is why I have no respect for creationists. Again, I will say I respect, and would vehemently DEFEND, their right to hold that view, but on an intellectual, scientific level, it is about as fraudulent as you can get.
Physical evidence for a supreme being? If all creatures on Earth suddenly levitated, a big man appeared from the sky, in full view of every person on Earth, and said “I am God and I exist”. That would change my mind. But what I won’t do is INFER it’s existence from ignorance. I won’t go “hmm, well, I can’t explain a certain aspect of the Earth or the Universe, so it MUST be a creator!”. That’s the intellectual equivalent of running away.
April 19th, 2009 at 11:42 pm
607. Mark – April 19th, 2009 at 11:30 pm
606. Stizzy : If you don’t take the Bible literally then why advocate that POV here, where people obviously aren’t fond of it?
—
The point I’m making Mark is that not everything in the Bible is literal, but in order to know what is and want isn’t, you have to actually read and understand it. You have to understand interpretation according to scripture. Scripture interprets scripture and there are certain things that simply won’t be understood apart from the guidance of God Himself.
If everything in the Bible was to be taken literally, I should expect that at the end of time, on the day of judgement, I’ll either be turned into a lamb or a goat for all eternity.
—–
Matt, I don’t understand how what you quoted is fraudulent on an intellectual or scientific level. There are many scientists who held those same views and made remarkable advances in their fields.
Also, what if people did see a man who claimed to be God and performed miracles and wrote down their account of said events, would that change your mind?
And I don’t believe it’s as simple as “I can’t explain this, therefore there MUST be a creator.” I look at the workings of the cell and I see design. I recognise it as design because I see similarities in things that have been designed by people, and they aren’t even as complex. Is that intellectually running away? Whether I can explain whether the cell came about through natural means or not, I can certainly say that it looks like it was designed to me, which would indicate a designer.
April 20th, 2009 at 12:00 am
Stizzy: It’s not fraudulent if you hold them beliefs. It IS fraudulent if those beliefs are a REQUIREMENT before you can conduct scientific investigation! Many scientists hold religious beliefs, but those beliefs aren’t a prerequisite to how scientific research is conducted, and they aren’t used as a infallible guide that cannot be changed! Telling someone that before they conduct any research, they must believe in the Noachian Flood as truth, before any type of inquiry has been conducted, is intellectually fraudulent! The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany did exactly the same thing when it came to scientific research and historical publications; they told the scientists and historians exactly what they must believe before hand, which in turn negatively affected their work because it put an unnecessary filter on intellectual freedom. As a result, incredibly biased, factually wrong research was published. It was a disgrace.
If you’ll notice in my last post, I said EVERY human being, removing the possibility of bias or hallucination. It was just a silly example of the kind of evidence that would be needed before a believe in a supreme being would be justified.
Cells do look designed. The whole Universe looks designed. But there is a massive difference between how things look and how things actually are. If you want to look at them and believe a designer made them, fine. But I look at the same things and realize that Evolution and Natural selection offer much more comprehensive explanations for, what I consider, the illusion of design in biological organisms. In regards to the Universe, it does look designed on the surface. But if you delve into the murky world of quantum physics, you will see it looks anything BUT designed! It is the absolute opposite of order; chaos reigns, particles jump in and out of existence, they can exist in two place at once, they vibrate erratically and the laws of physics simply don’t apply to them. Is that really evidence of design?
Let me put it this way. Even if Evolution was totally false, how is that proof of design? If there is a shoe at the bottom of a well, and someone says to me “well, there are two explanations; someone threw it down there, or an elf stole it at night and dragged it down there” that doesn’t mean that if I can’t prove
April 20th, 2009 at 12:04 am
(cont.) that someone threw it down there, then an elf stole it! Before I leap to that conclusion, I would need proof of Elves and proof that a particular elf stole the shoe. Same goes for Evolution and creationism. Even if Evolution was wrong, before you concluded creationism was right you would need proof.
April 20th, 2009 at 12:33 am
Stizzy: It’s not fraudulent if you hold them beliefs. It IS fraudulent if those beliefs are a REQUIREMENT before you can conduct scientific investigation! Many scientists hold religious beliefs, but those beliefs aren’t a prerequisite to how scientific research is conducted, and they aren’t used as a infallible guide that cannot be changed! Telling someone that before they conduct any research, they must believe in the Noachian Flood as truth, before any type of inquiry has been conducted, is intellectually fraudulent!
—-
An organisation such as Answers in Genesis specialises in teaching the biblical authority of the Bible and the book of Genesis. As such, it wouldn’t make sense for those people not to believe it.
They also use their world-view to aim their research. This doesn’t mean that it affects the means that they perform experiments but that they may perform experiments other scientists wouldn’t think of or bother to do because they hold naturalistic presuppositions. Their view may not be a prerequisit for how research is conducted, but it will certainly affect how they interpret their findings. And the same can be said for scientists with an evolutionary world view. They use the scientific method, and their conclusions are centered around the evolutionary world view.
“The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany did exactly the same thing when it came to scientific research and historical publications; they told the scientists and historians exactly what they must believe before hand, which in turn negatively affected their work because it put an unnecessary filter on intellectual freedom. As a result, incredibly biased, factually wrong research was published. It was a disgrace.”
What were these scientists told that they must believe and how did it affect their research?
“If you’ll notice in my last post, I said EVERY human being, removing the possibility of bias or hallucination. It was just a silly example of the kind of evidence that would be needed before a believe in a supreme being would be justified.”
Didn’t catch that bit, my mistake
Even if everyone on the planet saw the same thing, doesn’t mean that they would agree on what they saw and not have a bias. You have to draw the line somewhere.
“Cells do look designed. The whole Universe looks designed. But there is a massive difference between how things look and how things actually are.”
Isn’t it more a question of which is more plausible? If everything looks designed, is it not more plausible that there IS a designer?
“But I look at the same things and realize that Evolution and Natural selection offer much more comprehensive explanations for, what I consider, the illusion of design in biological organisms.”
Can evolution offer a more comprehensive explanation for how you are able to logically deduce this? What basis do you have to rely on your senses to see design as an illusion? I don’t see how we should expect the universe to be rationally understandable in the evolutionary world view.
“In regards to the Universe, it does look designed on the surface. But if you delve into the murky world of quantum physics, you will see it looks anything BUT designed! It is the absolute opposite of order; chaos reigns, particles jump in and out of existence, they can exist in two place at once, they vibrate erratically and the laws of physics simply don’t apply to them. Is that really evidence of design?”
So it’s a world beyond the purely natural and potentially beyond naturalistic assumptions? Almost like something that exists in an unpredictable, spiritual vein. Sounds a lot like the fingerprint of a particular designer to me
one who deals with duality that seems inexplicable.
Spiritual & physical
Prescriptive & descriptive
Figurative & literal
Order & chaos
God & man
It makes me wonder by what channel does this apparent chaos become ordered. In what manner do you believe this chaos becomes ordered?
“Let me put it this way. Even if Evolution was totally false, how is that proof of design?”
No one said it was, but it does leave it as an alternative does it not?
“If there is a shoe at the bottom of a well, and someone says to me “well, there are two explanations; someone threw it down there, or an elf stole it at night and dragged it down there” that doesn’t mean that if I can’t prove that someone threw it down there, then an elf stole it! Before I leap to that conclusion, I would need proof of Elves and proof that a particular elf stole the shoe. Same goes for Evolution and creationism. Even if Evolution was wrong, before you concluded creationism was right you would need proof.”
With the whole idea of the elf, surely you would use common sense and experience to make a deduction. It’s far more likely a person threw a shoe down there than an elf, because I know the characteristics of people, I have met people and I have seen them do similar. I don’t know elves, never met an elf and never seen an elf do similar.
It’s far more likely a designer designed the universe, because I know the characteristics of designers, I have met designers and I have seem them design things. A painting, for example, when you go deep enough will look like a chaotic spattering of particles, minerals, liquids and colours, yet we see how it’s all been ordered to produce something of design.
April 20th, 2009 at 1:09 am
Stizzy: Lets start from the bottom:)
In regards to your Elf solution. You just answered your own question! It is FAR more likely for Evolution to have occurred due to the evidence, where as there is no proof of God or the mechanism of design.
“It makes me wonder by what channel does this apparent chaos become ordered. In what manner do you believe this chaos becomes ordered?”
String theory:P Seriously though, we don’t quite know yet. Not to say String Theory is weak; it offers a magnificent explanation of how Gravity and the Strong/Weak nuclear and electro-magnetic forces interact. I just have doubts about it’s testability. We know that gravity governs the order of the Universe above the quantum level, and we know the strong/weak nuclear and electro-magnetism work in the quantum. We don’t know as of yet how they interact with each other definitely, however that is not an excuse to throw God into the mix. That is a classic ‘God of the gaps’ argument i.e. if we can’t explain it right at this moment, God dun it!
“Can evolution offer a more comprehensive explanation for how you are able to logically deduce this? What basis do you have to rely on your senses to see design as an illusion? I don’t see how we should expect the universe to be rationally understandable in the evolutionary world view.”
What you fail to understand is that the evolutionary world view came about solely due to the evidence the world presents, not the other way around. We didn’t pull Evolutionary theory out of our behinds then try to find things in nature that fit, we found things in nature that lead us to formulate the current Evolutionary synthesis. Evolution provides us with a workable model that explains how things that look designed (The Eye) can evolve from lesser complex things. The eye was once a mainstay of the ID movement, a model of Irreducible Complexity. More research by qualified scientists has fully explained how the Eye evolved not just in humans, but in the animal kingdom in general. That is why Evolution offers a better explanation than just ‘well it’s too complex for me to understand how it formed, ergo, something made it’.
While we are on the subject of ID, if there was a God that designed everything…what was he thinking?! There are some examples of TERRIBLE design in the animal kingdom, and the human eye is about the worst! Our optic nerve runs right across our lens, which gives us a blind spot. Octopuses evolved differently, and their lens is in front of the optic nerve. Why would a designer give us such a crappy eye? I’m actually wearing glasses now as I type this because my eyes are crap:)
“Isn’t it more a question of which is more plausible? If everything looks designed, is it not more plausible that there IS a designer?”
No. Evolution can, and has, demonstrated how the successive evolution of complex structures from less complex structures can give the illusion of design when, in reality, it is fully explainable. There is a common misconception that evolution adds layers upon layers of extra ’stuff’ to each evolved system. That isn’t the case. Evolution can replace redundant parts (for example, the tailbone in humans) and render that part useful in another regards (the tailbone in humans NOW acts as a support for the sphincter). This is an example of a once useful part (a tail) that is now redundant being incorporated into a useful attribute (a support structure).
“What were these scientists told that they must believe and how did it affect their research?”
Soviet Union historians were told to downplay the significance of the Holocaust in relation to the Jews, and restructure it as a massive tragedy ONLY for Soviets and Communism in general. Absolutely abhorrent and dishonest. Researchers in Nazi Germany were told to look for evidence in Nepal that supported their racial theories, and when they couldn’t find any, they simply made it up. Both examples of how authoritative world-views that are pre-requisites for scientific and historical research can adversely affect the quality of the output.
“An organisation such as Answers in Genesis specialises in teaching the biblical authority of the Bible and the book of Genesis. As such, it wouldn’t make sense for those people not to believe it.”
Exactly. Therefore, it’s not a science.
What you seem to view Evolution as, Stizzy, is a competing religion. There are ‘evolutionists’ who pulled Evolution out of thin air, and now go about the world trying to find snippets of information that support their beliefs. It is EXACTLY the opposite. Evolutionary theory came about due to the detailed study of the world; it is a by-product of scientific research and rigorous study, supported by observable and testable evidence.
Creationism is based on people believing in a book that is not, nor can be, confirmed as true. They then go out and try to find bits and pieces of natural data that support their view, and ignore the bits that don’t, which unfortunately is nearly all the evidence.
I think that pretty much covered all your questions.
April 20th, 2009 at 2:08 am
“In regards to your Elf solution. You just answered your own question! It is FAR more likely for Evolution to have occurred due to the evidence, where as there is no proof of God or the mechanism of design.”
See, you placed evolution as the person throwing the shoe and placed creationism as the elf, when its just as easy and makes more sense to reverse the roles.
“String theory:P Seriously though, we don’t quite know yet. Not to say String Theory is weak; it offers a magnificent explanation of how Gravity and the Strong/Weak nuclear and electro-magnetic forces interact. I just have doubts about it’s testability. We know that gravity governs the order of the Universe above the quantum level, and we know the strong/weak nuclear and electro-magnetism work in the quantum. We don’t know as of yet how they interact with each other definitely, however that is not an excuse to throw God into the mix. That is a classic ‘God of the gaps’ argument i.e. if we can’t explain it right at this moment, God dun it!”
So in other words, faith shouldn’t come into it?
Here’s a lovely definition of faith: Faith is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen.
You hope science will answer the questions you don’t know the answer to, and hold your faith in science as the evidence for the answers that will surely come.
You say it’s not an excuse to throw God into the mix, I say it’s not an excuse to take Him out. You start by assuming He isn’t even there, I start by assuming He is. Therefore you see me as trying to throw Him in, I see you as trying to throw Him out. When it boils down to it, we don’t get anywhere and it’s irrelevant to keep referring to “God of the gaps”.
“We didn’t pull Evolutionary theory out of our behinds then try to find things in nature that fit, we found things in nature that lead us to formulate the current Evolutionary synthesis.”
And who said we pulled God out of our behinds? It’s the same thing I said above.
“What you fail to understand is that the evolutionary world view came about solely due to the evidence the world presents, not the other way around. We didn’t pull Evolutionary theory out of our behinds then try to find things in nature that fit, we found things in nature that lead us to formulate the current Evolutionary synthesis. Evolution provides us with a workable model that explains how things that look designed (The Eye) can evolve from lesser complex things. The eye was once a mainstay of the ID movement, a model of Irreducible Complexity. More research by qualified scientists has fully explained how the Eye evolved not just in humans, but in the animal kingdom in general. That is why Evolution offers a better explanation than just ‘well it’s too complex for me to understand how it formed, ergo, something made it’.”
I keep hearing this, and yet what I find is a complete lack, where it counts, of the criticisms of this view. More so, I have seen rebuttels to the supposed evolutionary explanation for the eye. Every explanation I’ve seen sounds like a “just-so” story. This happened, then this formed, then that burst into existence, then this changed to that. There’s never a detailed explanation of how this step by step process worked.
“While we are on the subject of ID, if there was a God that designed everything…what was he thinking?! There are some examples of TERRIBLE design in the animal kingdom, and the human eye is about the worst! Our optic nerve runs right across our lens, which gives us a blind spot. Octopuses evolved differently, and their lens is in front of the optic nerve. Why would a designer give us such a crappy eye? I’m actually wearing glasses now as I type this because my eyes are crap:)”
How is the human eye inefficient, and why are you wearing glasses? I’m not wearing glasses as I type, does that mean my eyes aren’t crap? We’re both human, we both have human eyes.
Do cephalopods actually see better than humans?
They live in a different environment and live different lifestyles, and many only live for two or three years. Why would their eyes be designed in the exact same way when they aren’t even used in the same way or for the same needs? Our eyes suit our needs very well and evolutionists would agree. Your bad eyesight may not be so much a product of poor design, but a product of corruption to design
“No. Evolution can, and has, demonstrated how the successive evolution of complex structures from less complex structures can give the illusion of design when, in reality, it is fully explainable. There is a common misconception that evolution adds layers upon layers of extra ’stuff’ to each evolved system. That isn’t the case. Evolution can replace redundant parts (for example, the tailbone in humans) and render that part useful in another regards (the tailbone in humans NOW acts as a support for the sphincter). This is an example of a once useful part (a tail) that is now redundant being incorporated into a useful attribute (a support structure).”
Come on now, even if evolutionary theory can provide an alternative explanation for design, doesn’t it still make more logical sense that there was a designer? It seems to become less a matter of what is more plausible and logical, but which answer you prefer.
“Soviet Union historians were told to downplay the significance of the Holocaust in relation to the Jews, and restructure it as a massive tragedy ONLY for Soviets and Communism in general. Absolutely abhorrent and dishonest.”
But not really anything to do with their scientific method. You also make an assumption that a biblical world-view is abhorrent and dishonest. Seems more like a matter of perspective.
“Researchers in Nazi Germany were told to look for evidence in Nepal that supported their racial theories, and when they couldn’t find any, they simply made it up. Both examples of how authoritative world-views that are pre-requisites for scientific and historical research can adversely affect the quality of the output.”
So what evidence have creationists and ID advocates made up? And it seems to me that for a long time, many people in the world who weren’t Nazi’s or Soviets saw evidence in the world that supported their racial theories, and they acted upon it. The supposed “evidence” was there, but their interpretation was way off base.
“Exactly. Therefore, it’s not a science.”
Quoted from their website:
“Answers in Genesis is an apologetics (i.e., Christianity-defending) ministry, dedicated to enabling Christians to defend their faith and to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ effectively.”
Apologetics isn’t a scientific field in and of itself. It’s a field of study concerned with systematic defense. It can use science as a means to this end, but it is not the be all and end all of the organisation.
“What you seem to view Evolution as, Stizzy, is a competing religion. There are ‘evolutionists’ who pulled Evolution out of thin air, and now go about the world trying to find snippets of information that support their beliefs. It is EXACTLY the opposite. Evolutionary theory came about due to the detailed study of the world; it is a by-product of scientific research and rigorous study, supported by observable and testable evidence.”
I would say that evolution as a “competing religion” seems to come naturally from evolutionary assumptions. But you said it, not me
I’ve never said people pulled evolution out of thin air, but you presume so for creationists.
Creationism came about due to detailed study of the world through a biblical world view. It is also a by-product of scientific as well as rigurous theological and philosophical study, supported by observable and testable evidence.
“Creationism is based on people believing in a book that is not, nor can be, confirmed as true. They then go out and try to find bits and pieces of natural data that support their view, and ignore the bits that don’t, which unfortunately is nearly all the evidence.”
The evolutionary world view is based on naturalism, which cannot be confirmed as true. That is it’s ultimate standard and it can’t appeal to a greater standard than that, it must appeal to itself. And this is true of any alleged ultimate standard, the Bible included. The accusation you hurl at creationists can easily be made for evolutionists. It’s an empty one either way.
You didn’t pretty much cover all my questions as you failed to account for why we should expect the universe to be rationally understandable in the evolutionary world view.
April 20th, 2009 at 2:48 am
Stizzy:
“See, you placed evolution as the person throwing the shoe and placed creationism as the elf, when its just as easy and makes more sense to reverse the roles.”
Except creationism doesn’t have any positive evidence; it relies on trying to disprove Evolution in order to try and logically claim that if A is disproved, B is proved. Science doesn’t work that way.
“So in other words, faith shouldn’t come into it?
Here’s a lovely definition of faith: Faith is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen.
You hope science will answer the questions you don’t know the answer to, and hold your faith in science as the evidence for the answers that will surely come.”
Yep, that’s correct. I place faith in the scientific method, as it is the only method humans have in order to increase our understanding of the Universe. I don’t place faith in a 2000 year old book that hasn’t been shown to be true.
“I keep hearing this, and yet what I find is a complete lack, where it counts, of the criticisms of this view. More so, I have seen rebuttels to the supposed evolutionary explanation for the eye. Every explanation I’ve seen sounds like a “just-so” story. This happened, then this formed, then that burst into existence, then this changed to that. There’s never a detailed explanation of how this step by step process worked.”
There is a step-by-step process if you’d bother to actually read some evolutionary textbooks. Educate yourself on the evolution of the eye; it is a fascinating step-by-step process. While we are on the subject, where is the step-by-step process of creation? How exactly did this intelligent being created us? Did he will us into existence? Did he physically manipulate the materials on the Earth in order to make us? If so, how did he accomplish this and by what mechanisms? Even Duane Gish, an authority on creationism, has said it is not possible to know HOW the creator created because the processes he used are not in use anymore. This is an astonishing statement. Not only does he admit he doesn’t know, he also renders the study of an entire field obsolete by proclaiming we can NEVER know. That is bad science.
“How is the human eye inefficient, and why are you wearing glasses? I’m not wearing glasses as I type, does that mean my eyes aren’t crap? We’re both human, we both have human eyes.
Do cephalopods actually see better than humans?
They live in a different environment and live different lifestyles, and many only live for two or three years. Why would their eyes be designed in the exact same way when they aren’t even used in the same way or for the same needs? Our eyes suit our needs very well and evolutionists would agree. Your bad eyesight may not be so much a product of poor design, but a product of corruption to design”
You missed my point. Why would the creator create a human eye with the optic nerve running across the lens for a creature that lives 70-80 and relies heavily on its eyes to survive, yet create a better designed eye for a creature that has none of the intellectual capabilities of man? My eyesight is bad because the human eye is prone to failure, unlike an Eagle’s eye which can not only see ultra-violet light, but also see unhindered for miles. Why did God design our eyes to fail so badly? I could understand if there was a drawback, for example, if we had the best eyesight on Earth, and failure was due to the constant stress this ability put on us. But we don’t. We have rather mediocre eyes compared to many other animals.
“Come on now, even if evolutionary theory can provide an alternative explanation for design, doesn’t it still make more logical sense that there was a designer? It seems to become less a matter of what is more plausible and logical, but which answer you prefer.”
It doesn’t become an answer to which I prefer; it becomes an answer for which there is more evidence. Let me ask; imagine that evolutionary theory had never been proposed. Imagine that we are living normal lives, and no one had ever heard of evolution. What proof do you have of design? What inherent proof is there that life is created?
The whole reason the scientific method exists is because our perceptions of things are quite often wrong. By your logic, it is preferable to believe that the Sun is moving around us. We can see it. It always does the same thing. We can see that we aren’t moving. It always moves in the same direction. If we trusted our initial ‘hunches’, then more often than not we would be wrong because humans are so prone to making the wrong assumptions based on our subjective senses.
“So what evidence have creationists and ID advocates made up? And it seems to me that for a long time, many people in the world who weren’t Nazi’s or Soviets saw evidence in the world that supported their racial theories, and they acted upon it. The supposed “evidence” was there, but their interpretation was way off base.”
You missed my point. I wasn’t trying to say that ID/Creationism is identical to Nazi Germany. I was making the point that if you start a scientific inquiry with an unconfirmed truth as the base, then you are susceptible to making massive errors. Evolution is not an unconfirmed truth; it is a well documented, well verified, testable, falsifiable fact.
Tell me, what could falsify your theory? What could you discover tomorrow that would lead you to say “well, my hypothesis is wrong; there is no intelligent creator”. I could name a thousand that would prove Evolution wrong. One testable experiment came at the time scientists were studying Chimpanzee mtDNA. The hypothesis was that if chimp mtDNA was non-related to human mtDNA, Evolution would be considerably weakened. The experiment was the comparison between these two mtDNA codes. It was found that humans and chimps shared around 99% of each other’s mtDNA. Evolution passed a testable, falsifiable experiment. Could you name me just ONE test or experiment you could use to falsify your hypothesis?
“I would say that evolution as a “competing religion” seems to come naturally from evolutionary assumptions. But you said it, not me
I’ve never said people pulled evolution out of thin air, but you presume so for creationists.”
Again, evolution relies on evidence. Creationism relies on simply trying to disprove evolution, which, even if it succeeded in doing, would not actually prove creation. It would simply mean Evolution was wrong.
“Creationism came about due to detailed study of the world through a biblical world view. It is also a by-product of scientific as well as rigurous theological and philosophical study, supported by observable and testable evidence.”
Creationism came about in the 1960’s due to the reactionary politics of religious leaders in the South who were trying to justify their beliefs scientifically. Again, name some tests that can be constructed to falsify creation.
“The evolutionary world view is based on naturalism, which cannot be confirmed as true. That is it’s ultimate standard and it can’t appeal to a greater standard than that, it must appeal to itself. And this is true of any alleged ultimate standard, the Bible included. The accusation you hurl at creationists can easily be made for evolutionists. It’s an empty one either way.”
‘Naturalism’, by definition, is true because it is the only thing that can be experimented on, tested, and falsified. I don’t even really know what you mean by naturalism. If you simply mean the natural world, then it is inherently true because it is the only paradigm in which were know for certain we exist.
Please provide examples of testable experiments that can falsify creation. I’m not talking about looking at the world and going “it looks like it’s designed, it says it’s designed in the Bible, therefore, it’s designed”. Nor am I talking about simply disproving Evolution. Provide examples of tests.
April 20th, 2009 at 3:28 am
“Except creationism doesn’t have any positive evidence; it relies on trying to disprove Evolution in order to try and logically claim that if A is disproved, B is proved. Science doesn’t work that way.”
Here you display your ignorance on creationism as you assume it’s one purpose is to disprove evolution. It disagrees with and competes with evolution, but it’s not the main push of the movement. In like manner, the only purpose of evolution must be to disprove creation. I don’t recall stating that if evolution is disproved creation is proved, and I don’t recall any creationist organisations asserting as such.
“Yep, that’s correct. I place faith in the scientific method, as it is the only method humans have in order to increase our understanding of the Universe.”
Are you sure about that? So philosophy, the arts, sociology and other fields offer nothing to increase our understanding of the universe?
“I don’t place faith in a 2000 year old book that hasn’t been shown to be true.”
I’ll deal with this in a mo…
“There is a step-by-step process if you’d bother to actually read some evolutionary textbooks.”
Why do you assume I haven’t? If I don’t agree with your conclusions, I must not have done anything to find out for myself?
“Did he will us into existence?”
By His will and by His spoken Word. Genesis 1 is full of “God said…” references.
“Did he physically manipulate the materials on the Earth in order to make us?”
He formed us from materials and minerals on the Earth.
Genesis 1:7 “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.”
“If so, how did he accomplish this and by what mechanisms?”
And here is where you make the mistake. You assume that everything was an entirely natural process that could be explained by natural processes when God was not just creating a physical being but a spiritual being as well as a physical and spiritual reality.
“You missed my point. Why would the creator create a human eye with the optic nerve running across the lens for a creature that lives 70-80 and relies heavily on its eyes to survive, yet create a better designed eye for a creature that has none of the intellectual capabilities of man?”
And you missed my point, who said the octopus eye is better? There’s debate over whether it even sees in colour.
“Why did God design our eyes to fail so badly?”
Have you not read anything I’ve said about the fall of man and the corruption it caused? It would have caused corruption on a genetic level. Physically we are most likely not what the original man once was. Our eyes weren’t designed to “fail so badly”.
“We have rather mediocre eyes compared to many other animals.”
What is it that makes our eyes mediocre?
“It doesn’t become an answer to which I prefer; it becomes an answer for which there is more evidence.”
And I see more evidence for design than blind chance. Therefore I conclude that you’re acting on preferance.
“imagine that evolutionary theory had never been proposed. Imagine that we are living normal lives, and no one had ever heard of evolution. What proof do you have of design? What inherent proof is there that life is created?”
I believe the apparent design in nature and in the universe that you yourself acknowledged is evidence enough for design.
“By your logic, it is preferable to believe that the Sun is moving around us.”
Preferance is a matter of choice not logic.
“We can see it. It always does the same thing.”
And we can see that complex systems usually have a designer.
“You missed my point. I wasn’t trying to say that ID/Creationism is identical to Nazi Germany. I was making the point that if you start a scientific inquiry with an unconfirmed truth as the base, then you are susceptible to making massive errors. Evolution is not an unconfirmed truth; it is a well documented, well verified, testable, falsifiable fact.”
I didn’t say that’s what you said. You imply that creationists have made up evidence, I asked you which evidence they’ve made up. And evolutionary theory is not a fact. No one has seen goo turn into you. Science is about observation and experimentation. No one has observed this process or produced an experiment that has repeated it. Natural selection on the other hand has been observed and seen reproduced in experimentation.
“Tell me, what could falsify your theory?”
Do you even know what my theory is? I theorise that goo-to-you evolution has not and does not occur. Therefore if someone could show me that it has, if someone could show me that intelligence, information and meaning can be produced from nothing, then that would go a ways to falisifying my theory.
“The hypothesis was that if chimp mtDNA was non-related to human mtDNA, Evolution would be considerably weakened. The experiment was the comparison between these two mtDNA codes. It was found that humans and chimps shared around 99% of each other’s mtDNA. Evolution passed a testable, falsifiable experiment. Could you name me just ONE test or experiment you could use to falsify your hypothesis?”
Couldn’t this experiment have easily been one to indicate common design? If a designer used similar elements in all of His creation, you would expect to find similarities in DNA. And I believe I already answered the last question.
“Again, evolution relies on evidence. Creationism relies on simply trying to disprove evolution, which, even if it succeeded in doing, would not actually prove creation. It would simply mean Evolution was wrong.”
I’m pretty sure I’ve already covered this. You’re making an assumption here that isn’t true.
“‘Naturalism’, by definition, is true because it is the only thing that can be experimented on, tested, and falsified.”
Naturalism assumes that there’s nothing beyond the physical. It can’t experiment, test and / or falsify something that is beyond it. It is an ultimate standard because it must appeal to itself. And here is where I pick up on your point about the Bible. The Bible too must appeal to itself because it is an ultimate standard. Being an ultimate standard, it can’t appeal to a greater source of authority or standard.
“If you simply mean the natural world, then it is inherently true because it is the only paradigm in which were know for certain we exist.”
Yet the question arises about consciousness, is consciousness a physical thing? Are words and ideas and meanings phyiscal things? We know for certain they exist because we are experiencing and using them now. But then (and again I note you missed this question) one must ask, in an evolutionary world view, how do we know that we are conscious, that we are using words, that we are entertaining ideas or applying meaning? You yourself said that our observations can be wrong yet how can evolutionary account for the possibility of our observations also being right? Creationism can account for this because it infers an intelligent designer who designd us to be conscious, to produce ideas, to apply meaning etc.
Question, what test do you think could be done on a computer to falsify it’s design?
April 20th, 2009 at 4:07 am
Stizzy:
You completely sidestepped my request for you to provide a test that could falsify your hypothesis that God created everything. You didn’t even acknowledge if your hypothesis CAN be falsified. If it can’t be falsified it’s not science.
“Here you display your ignorance on creationism as you assume it’s one purpose is to disprove evolution. It disagrees with and competes with evolution, but it’s not the main push of the movement. In like manner, the only purpose of evolution must be to disprove creation. I don’t recall stating that if evolution is disproved creation is proved, and I don’t recall any creationist organisations asserting as such.”
Provide me with an example where creationists construct an experiment to test creationism without resorting to simply trying to destroy Evolution. The purpose of Evolution is to explain the diversity of life on Earth. It has nothing to do with how life got here in the first place; that’s Abiogenesis.
“Are you sure about that? So philosophy, the arts, sociology and other fields offer nothing to increase our understanding of the universe?”
Of course not, but when did I say that science is the only THING? I said the scientific METHOD, which can be applied to all the above fields. Philosophy, specifically logic, is highly influenced by, and in turn influences, the scientific method.
“He formed us from materials and minerals on the Earth.
Genesis 1:7 “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.””
Right. A magic man got a bunch of dust and blew into it. …evidence? How is that an explanation that would satisfy anyone over the age of 3? Provide evidence. Provide lots of evidence.
“I didn’t say that’s what you said. You imply that creationists have made up evidence, I asked you which evidence they’ve made up. And evolutionary theory is not a fact. No one has seen goo turn into you. Science is about observation and experimentation. No one has observed this process or produced an experiment that has repeated it. Natural selection on the other hand has been observed and seen reproduced in experimentation.”
…goo turn into you? You’re really losing it now, Stizzy mate:) No one has ever seen ‘goo’ turn into me, and they never will. We have never actually seen Pluto orbit the sun. It takes around 200 years and we’ve only known about Pluto for 90. Yet we still know it does it, because of..EVIDENCE. By your ridiculous logic, no crime would ever been solved unless the judge had been in the room when the perpetrator killed the victim. And by the way, CREATION WAS NEVER OBSERVED EITHER! You know you’re being asinine, and so do I. You’re right, evolutionary theory is not a fact. Common descent, the passing of genes onto offspring, IS. Please don’t make me explain the mundane ‘theory vs fact’ argument again. Go to this site.
http://www.notjustatheory.com
“Do you even know what my theory is? I theorise that goo-to-you evolution has not and does not occur. Therefore if someone could show me that it has, if someone could show me that intelligence, information and meaning can be produced from nothing, then that would go a ways to falisifying my theory.”
Yes…your theory is that God created everything. Have a look at nylon-eating bacteria. A clear case of information being added to the genome, due to the fact that nylon is, surprise surprise, a man-man synthetic. Can you tell me how your God can come from nothing? Don’t say he is eternal; if it’s valid to say that God doesn’t need a beginning, it’s equally as valid, if not more so, to say the Universe doesn’t need a beginning. Meaning is also a ridiculous point to make. Meaning is a subjective feeling independent of biological processes.
“What is it that makes our eyes mediocre?”
I’ve explained the eye example. It has a bloody big nerve running across the center of the most important part; the lens! THAT’S what makes it less functional than a Octopuses. It’s not useless, it’s not redundant, it could just have been designed a hell of a lot better, but Evolution is not perfect. Evolution is a trade off. Why do we get lower back pain? Why do millions of old people get Osteoporosis? It’s because the human back wasn’t meant to cope with us being bi-pedal! However, us being bi-pedal has provided us with many other useful attributes that outweigh the negative of having a sore back; easier use of the hands, ability to make tools etc etc.
“And here is where you make the mistake. You assume that everything was an entirely natural process that could be explained by natural processes when God was not just creating a physical being but a spiritual being as well as a physical and spiritual reality.”
Again, you’re making claims that lack any type of objective evidence. Prove that a spiritual dimension exists and your question will be valid.
“Yet the question arises about consciousness, is consciousness a physical thing? Are words and ideas and meanings phyiscal things? We know for certain they exist because we are experiencing and using them now. But then (and again I note you missed this question) one must ask, in an evolutionary world view, how do we know that we are conscious, that we are using words, that we are entertaining ideas or applying meaning? You yourself said that our observations can be wrong yet how can evolutionary account for the possibility of our observations also being right? Creationism can account for this because it infers an intelligent designer who designd us to be conscious, to produce ideas, to apply meaning etc.
Question, what test do you think could be done on a computer to falsify it’s design?”
Wow. The computer question. I think you’ve lost it, Stizzy buddy:P We know how a computer is created because we did it. We don’t know that life was created by a being because there is no evidence; all you keep saying is basically the fact that things exist is evidence enough to prove your point. Well I believe aliens created us. That view holds way more credibility than yours because it operates in a framework that me know exists.
How are you applying evolutionary theory to meaning and the cosmos? Evolution deals with how life on Earth diversified after it arose; Cosmology deals with the Big Bang; Abiogenesis deals with how life arose on Earth in the first place. Your asking me to answer questions with the wrong tools. You’re basically asking me something like ‘what does the speed of sound taste like?’ then when I can’t answer adequately claiming that Evolution is therefore unequipped to answer everything. Guess what? Evolution can’t answer everything! It deals with the diversification of life after it came into existence, period.
All I asked you for was a simple explanation of a scientific test. You keep claiming that creationism is as scientifically valid as Evolution, and is far more equipped to answer questions that Evolution apparently can’t. But you can’t even come up with an experiment! That tells me all I need to know.
April 20th, 2009 at 4:19 am
Left a bit out
“Have you not read anything I’ve said about the fall of man and the corruption it caused? It would have caused corruption on a genetic level. Physically we are most likely not what the original man once was. Our eyes weren’t designed to “fail so badly”.”
Again, you’re relying on a 2000 year old book of myths and fairytales in order to try and explain the genetic inequalities between human eyes and Octopus eyes. Provide evidence that the fall of man is what caused our eyes to fail ‘on a genetic level’. You’re right; physically, we are not what the original man was like. Around 2 million years ago our ancestors were quite different to us; smaller skull size, curved spines, more hirsute…
April 20th, 2009 at 5:20 am
Another interesting fact about Krishna is that he belonged to The Jadu clan
April 20th, 2009 at 5:45 am
In medieval times when lightning struck a building and started a fire it was thought to be the work of the devil.When a hurricane or an earthquake destroyed a town it was believed to be the work of the devil. ( it amuses me that these works formerly attributed to the devil are now considered ” Acts of God “.) The Black Death that raged across Europe was considered the devils handiwork . All things bad that happened to man where blamed on the devil. This is why that period of time was know as the dark ages. Since SCIENCE has come to the forefront it has shown us that lightning , hurricanes and earthquakes are all natural phenomena. Science showed us that the plague was carried by fleas on the backs of rats . The devil is no longer blamed for these events . Science has shown us cause and effect. Christians , Jews , Muslims all accept these scientific explanations . It took hundreds of years to crawl out of the dark ages and we are still crawling. The devil has lost his place of prominence. It is only a matter of time before Jesus takes his place amongst the pantheon of mythological figures.
April 20th, 2009 at 5:54 am
620. FTW : “…It is only a matter of time before Jesus takes his place amongst the pantheon of mythological figures.”
Says the naive fool with the huge grin on his face because he thinks he’s solved it…
April 20th, 2009 at 6:04 am
Stizzy; you never answered my question regarding your thoughts on how old the universe or earth is!!
Why are many animals homosexual or able to change their sex in order to procreate? Matt; I admire your tenacity and all the other posters who try to inject some sense into an unwinable fight with someone so entrenched in their beliefs.
With the advent of quantum mechanics all our old views of natural order are in flux and the future should prove interesting. I can’t believe how far this has gone and have enjoyed reading all your posts.
Love and peace to all.
ps. for a good site on our global situation please check;
Globalresearch.ca I’m afraid that a great scam is being perpetrated by the US to defraud their taxpayers as the Federal Reserve is a private bank not controlled by the people of America. Sorry for going off topic but it was mentioned earlier!!
April 20th, 2009 at 6:14 am
lostatsea:
Thanks for the encouragement.
As soon as I saw “goo-to-you” “evolution is not fact” and “God created man from minerals” I knew I was genuinely wasting my time. I won’t be conversing anymore, Stizzy. Nice chatting though.
April 20th, 2009 at 6:17 am
The existence of Jesus Christ is recorded not only by Josephus and Tacitus, but also by ancient writers such as Suetonius, Thallus, Pliny the Younger, and Lucian. And from the Jewish Talmud, “we learn that Jesus was conceived out of wedlock, gathered disciples, made blasphemous claims about himself, and worked miracles, but these miracles are attributed to sorcery and not to God.”3
Thus, historians both favorable and unfavorable regarding Jesus did write about him. Also there were many historical writings about the early Christians.
Note: Many people also have an internal source of confirmation that Jesus existed, and still exists today. The Bible says that God by His Spirit bears witness of Christ (John 15:26) and convinces the world concerning Him (John 16:8-11). So it’s possible for someone without access to ancient historical writings or the Bible to believe that Jesus was real. A person can hear about Jesus from another source, and God can confirm it by His Spirit.
April 20th, 2009 at 6:20 am
“You completely sidestepped my request for you to provide a test that could falsify your hypothesis that God created everything. You didn’t even acknowledge if your hypothesis CAN be falsified. If it can’t be falsified it’s not science.”
What I find odd is that you keep demanding physical and scientific proof and testing for a theory that is not PURELY scientific. Creation is about more than science.
“Of course not, but when did I say that science is the only THING? I said the scientific METHOD, which can be applied to all the above fields. Philosophy, specifically logic, is highly influenced by, and in turn influences, the scientific method.”
A method is a thing is it not? And you said the scientific method is the ONLY method, right here:
“Yep, that’s correct. I place faith in the scientific method, as it is the only method humans have in order to increase our understanding of the Universe.”
“Right. A magic man got a bunch of dust and blew into it. …evidence? How is that an explanation that would satisfy anyone over the age of 3? Provide evidence. Provide lots of evidence.”
Not a man my friend. And again, you want me to provide natural evidence for a supernatural event. And this explanation satisfies around a billion people, not all children, around the world so maybe you should look into that question yourself rather than asking me.
“goo turn into you? You’re really losing it now, Stizzy mate:) No one has ever seen ‘goo’ turn into me, and they never will.”
I beg to differ. Many scientists have put forth the theory of life arising from primordial soup. Sounds like goo to me. They further theorise that macro evolution has allowed this soup to progress from single celled to multi-celled organisms. Again, sounds like “goo-to-you” to me.
“By your ridiculous logic, no crime would ever been solved unless the judge had been in the room when the perpetrator killed the victim.”
Only if you presume that mankind is the final judge on all things. Of course, we have witnesses as well as evidence to provide a case. Yet you deny the witness and you deny all the evidence pointing to such a witness.
“And by the way, CREATION WAS NEVER OBSERVED EITHER!”
Not by us, but by the aforementioned witness. It was observed.
“Common descent…IS.”
You’ve done a bit of bait and switch here, I’m pretty sure they’re not the same thing. Common descent implies all organisms at some point arose from some single celled organism. It further implies that apes and humans have a common ape/human-like ancestor. This is not a fact, it’s a theory. A theory is a hypothesis, a hypothesis is a guess.
“Yes…your theory is that God created everything.”
I tell you what my theory is in regards to this discussion, and then you disregard it and tell me what my theory is. Of course, God creating creation is part of it.
“A clear case of information being added to the genome, due to the fact that nylon is, surprise surprise, a man-man synthetic.”
Did not the elements and means to produce nylon previously exist? So who’s to say that the genetic information required to potentially digest nylon wasn’t present in some form? Or that a genetic mutation couldn’t have contributed? There’s nothing to say that the ability to adapt in such a way isn’t an inherent design aspect.
If someone creates an artificial language, they aren’t pulling something out of thin air, they’re working according to pre-existing characteristics and conventions, borrowing from some places and combining other elements to create something “new” but it doesn’t involve additional information being created but uses already present information in a creative way.
“Can you tell me how your God can come from nothing? Don’t say he is eternal.”
See, you keep doing this. You ask me to tell you something and then dictate what the answer can’t be, knowing exactly what answer I would give you.
“if it’s valid to say that God doesn’t need a beginning, it’s equally as valid, if not more so, to say the Universe doesn’t need a beginning.”
How so? Doesn’t everything so far point to the universe having a definite beginning?
And I thought meaning was the message that is intended, expressed or signified. You acknowledge it is independent of biological processes but keep telling me the scientific method can explain everything in the universe.
“I’ve explained the eye example. It has a bloody big nerve running across the center of the most important part; the lens! THAT’S what makes it less functional than a Octopuses.”
And yet scientists will readily acknowledge that our eyes work just fine for what they need to do, so again I ask you, how is this mediocre? An eye’s function is to see and we see just fine. If it’s debatable whether an octopus can see in colour when we can, wouldn’t that make it less functional? For it’s purpose, the octopus eye functions fine. For our purposes, our eyes function just fine.
“Why do we get lower back pain? Why do millions of old people get Osteoporosis? It’s because the human back wasn’t meant to cope with us being bi-pedal!”
Isn’t lower back pain generally to do with skeletal degeneration or musculoligamentous injury? Osteoporosis is a disease of the bone and it’s prevention can depend on your lifestyle, not being bi-pedal. And how do you know what the human back was “meant” to cope with if “meaning” is a “subjective feeling independent of biological processes”? Sounds like you’re talking about purpose. Purpose would indicate design.
“Again, you’re making claims that lack any type of objective evidence. Prove that a spiritual dimension exists and your question will be valid.”
You keep talking about physical evidence and proof, again, for something that is beyond the natural. What kind of proof are you looking for exactly?
“Wow. The computer question. I think you’ve lost it, Stizzy buddy:P We know how a computer is created because we did it.”
I wasn’t questioning whether it was designed or not, I was asking you what test do you think could be used to try and falsify it’s design.
“We don’t know that life was created by a being because there is no evidence; all you keep saying is basically the fact that things exist is evidence enough to prove your point.”
You keep saying there is and that I have NO evidence. I’ve told you what I hold as evidence. You may not think it enough to prove whatever point you think I’m trying to make, but it is evidence.
“Well I believe aliens created us. That view holds way more credibility than yours because it operates in a framework that me know exists.”
And how do you know that a spiritual framework doesn’t exist? Should we expect to find physical evidence of something spiritual? Or is it likely that such evidence would be beyond the natural because it is inherently supernatural? Retreating to the alien scenario is common, but again it begs the question of how they arose. Did another alien race create them? An eternal being doesn’t have an origin so doesn’t need a potentially endless succession of creators.
“How are you applying evolutionary theory to meaning and the cosmos? Evolution deals with how life on Earth diversified after it arose; Cosmology deals with the Big Bang; Abiogenesis deals with how life arose on Earth in the first place.”
I’m not applying the theory, im applying the world-view that nothing can produce something.
“Your asking me to answer questions with the wrong tools. You’re basically asking me something like ‘what does the speed of sound taste like?”
I’m asking you how does nothing produce something and seeing as life and the cosmos would all appear to have come from nothing according to current theories, I don’t see how I’m asking you to answer the questions with the wrong tools.
“then when I can’t answer adequately claiming that Evolution is therefore unequipped to answer everything.”
I say that the evolutionary/naturalistic world-view is unequipped to answer everything.
“All I asked you for was a simple explanation of a scientific test. You keep claiming that creationism is as scientifically valid as Evolution, and is far more equipped to answer questions that Evolution apparently can’t. But you can’t even come up with an experiment! That tells me all I need to know.”
As I said, I’m talking about the world-view which covers more than just science and the scientific method.
“Again, you’re relying on a 2000 year old book of myths and fairytales in order to try and explain the genetic inequalities between human eyes and Octopus eyes.”
Even if you just stuck with the ID view, you could still imply that the current design is not the intended design and that something could have happened to alter this design. The fact that genetic information is often lost and new information is not added alone would imply something has changed.
“Provide evidence that the fall of man is what caused our eyes to fail ‘on a genetic level’.”
Well our eyes haven’t failed because mine seem to be working fine
eyes can have the potential to fail because genetic information can be lost. We see this happen in natural selection all the time.
April 20th, 2009 at 6:22 am
621.Mark
I claim to solve nothing ! I choose to believe in science instead of a book of fairytales or a conglomeration of mythical gods rolled into one.
The naive fool is one who continues to believe in fairytales taught to them as a child.
April 20th, 2009 at 6:24 am
Randall, you are right about Jesus and Buddha but you are wrong about wikipedia. It has an average of 2.3 errors per entry as compared to Encyclopaedia Britannica which has 1.6 and is so much more amusing. Also wasn’t there another guy, Sumerian called Gilgamesh who not only did the resurrection thing but also the Noah and the flood bit too?
April 20th, 2009 at 6:27 am
Stizzy; you never answered my question regarding your thoughts on how old the universe or earth is!!
Calm down
I believe in a six day creation, therefore I believe the Earth as we know it is around 6000 years old.
“Why are many animals homosexual or able to change their sex in order to procreate?”
I don’t see what homosexuality has to do with evolution or natural selection personally. You would think that they would hinder it. That said, it could simply be a consequence of the same corruption that has afflicted all creation.
And those creatures able to change their sex to procreate are possibly able to do so because of an inherent design feature that allows them to.
Matt, I guess it’s only a waste of time depending on what your intentions were. If you were trying to change my mind, then perhaps it has been a waste of your time. If you just wanted some interesting debate, I wouldn’t say it’s been a waste of time. I’ve found it quite awesome
take care.
April 20th, 2009 at 6:29 am
Stizzy:
“A theory is a hypothesis, a hypothesis is a guess.”
I will no longer debate someone who can’t distinguish between a theory, hypothesis, guess, fact or law.
http://www.notjustatheory.com
April 20th, 2009 at 6:29 am
“The naive fool is one who continues to believe in fairytales taught to them as a child.”
Good thing I neither believe in a book that tells tales of fairies and am also taught as an adult then
April 20th, 2009 at 6:32 am
“I will no longer debate someone who can’t distinguish between a theory, hypothesis, guess, fact or law.”
It still stands that evolutionary theory is not a fact. It’s a proposed explanation for observations is it not?
April 20th, 2009 at 6:35 am
For Zoroaster, it mentions beign born of “immaculate conception”. That is being confused with the Virgin Birth. The IC is that Mary was free of Original Sin(nothing to do with Jesus), not born without any intercourse.
April 20th, 2009 at 6:36 am
http://www.notjustatheory.com
April 20th, 2009 at 6:38 am
Also, the bit you quoted to me about what I said about theory was in regards to common descent. Common descent is meant to explain the FACT that there are similarities between different creatures right? This doesn’t make it fact in and of itself.
April 20th, 2009 at 6:39 am
RE: 626.
Kenneth R. Miller. Google him.
April 20th, 2009 at 6:41 am
Whatever your emotions, there is a reality that is unchanging. That God is there. Circumstances might cause you to wonder, but God cares about you. He is very aware of you, and aware of your needs and hurts. Jesus said, “Come to me, all you who are weary and heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” How can he give you rest? He can carry your burdens. He can shoulder your problems, because his strength is not exhausted. He can give you direction, because he knows the future and can guide you through it. Jesus said, “…learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.”3 God gently asks you to trust him. He holds out a hand to you, to carefully lift you, to restore your hope. “The Lord is close to the brokenhearted and saves those who are crushed in spirit.”4
There is nothing you need to bring to him. He asks us to come empty-handed, and that is exactly how you feel right now anyway. Nothing to promise to him. Nothing to offer him. And that’s fine, because it is God offering you a new way to rebuild your life, not alone, but in relationship with him.
Maybe you have not lived in such a way that you think God would accept you. None of us, not a single person, has lived a holy life. Not according to God’s standards. The Bible says that we all sin, we all fall short of God’s glory and righteousness. We don’t earn God’s acceptance, nor do we need to. Jesus brings us his acceptance, through his own suffering on the cross. You are not alone in your suffering.
The Bible says of Jesus that he was “a man of sorrows, acquainted with grief.” He knew hardships. He knew death. When his best friend, Lazarus died, Jesus stood there and wept. When Jesus saw the crowds it says, “He had compassion on them for they were helpless, like sheep without a shepherd.” Jesus not only observed suffering, he experienced it. He, who performed miracles and raised the dead, healed the sick, made the lame walk and the blind see….he let them press thorns into his head, beat him, whip him, and nail him to a cross, where he carried our sin. Enduring enormous suffering, Jesus paid for sin on our behalf. He died, but rose again, showing he has complete power over death. When Jesus said he came to give us eternal life, he showed that he owned eternal life and he offers it to us as a gift. “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him…might have eternal life.”5
No matter what your life has been like, no matter what little attention you may have given to God, he offers you complete forgiveness and a relationship with him. He offers to be your God and walk with you in this life, providing light in the darkness, strength and hope for the future. Jesus said, “I am the light of the world. He who follows me, will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”6 Do you want your life to proceed with his light, with his guidance, with an awareness of his love for you? Then ask him into your life right now and begin the relationship with God that he intended for you to have.
Jesus said, “Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come into him.”7 Here is how you can go to him right now, “Jesus, I am feeling lost and you offer to be my shepherd. Forgive me for the sin in my life, the many times I have lived my way instead of yours. Not only am I coming to you now for help, but because for the rest of my life I desire to be in relationship with you. I want you to be my God and direct my life whatever way you choose. My desire is to know you better and honor you with my life. Come into my life right now. Thank you for accepting me and making me a child of yours. Amen.”
Jesus said, “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.”8
April 20th, 2009 at 6:42 am
http://www.notjustatheory.com – Read it. Understand it. Come back when you’ve done that. It’s not Evolution propaganda, it’s not creationist propaganda. It clears up a simple vernacular mistake that people get easily confused over.
April 20th, 2009 at 6:44 am
I have read it Matt, and I didn’t say “evolution is just a theory, not fact” so I fail to see how this applies to me.
April 20th, 2009 at 6:44 am
Cybogen:
You’ve completely changed my mind. I now see the light. All it took was those few paragraphs to convince me to abandon all reason and logic, and to accept the eternal Lord. Without providing so much as a sniff of objective evidence, you have fundamentally changed every single one of my beliefs about my life and my place in the Cosmos. Thank you, Cybogen. Thank you.
April 20th, 2009 at 6:46 am
No you didn’t Stizzy. What you said is this.
“It further implies that apes and humans have a common ape/human-like ancestor. This is not a fact, it’s a theory. A theory is a hypothesis, a hypothesis is a guess.”
That is actually worse than saying “Evolution is only a theory”
http://www.notjustatheory.com
April 20th, 2009 at 6:48 am
Look I think that’s enough. Nice chatting, Stizzy. I guess the next time you see me is when you’re looking down from Heaven at me burning in Hell.
Ta-ta.
April 20th, 2009 at 6:50 am
” Good thing I neither believe in a book that tells tales of fairies and am also taught as an adult then ”
fairy
Pronunciation [fair-ee] Show IPA noun, plural fairies, adjective
–noun
1. (in folklore) one of a class of supernatural beings, generally conceived as having a diminutive human form and possessing magical powers with which they intervene in human affairs.
How does this differ with biblical ‘angels’ and ‘cherubs ‘.
April 20th, 2009 at 6:51 am
Matt; well he did it!! He believes the earth is only 6,000 yrs old LOL and probably thinks that dinosaurs were a recent
creation ala the Flintstones good dino! here dino! good boy!! I’m afraid I cannot argue that type of thinking which
disregards all science as fallacy and realize the danger of teaching that in public schools to impressionable children.
I don’t deny their was a historical person called Jesus but Rome took advantage of this to create the church of Rome and incorporated Pagan rites to exert control over the people it had conquered.
Stizzy; since you aknowledge the existance of Black Holes,where does all the matter go?
April 20th, 2009 at 6:54 am
lostatsea:
Exactly. I don’t care that people believe that crap. It’s just a pretty embarrassing thing when creationists (not say Stizzy) want to actually teach that ridiculous nonsense at schools. Frightening.
April 20th, 2009 at 6:55 am
I go to bed and wake up to some interesting reading. Guess I now have something to do on my lunch. This is turning into a merry-go-round.
April 20th, 2009 at 7:01 am
Alright, so setting aside my everyday use of theory and hypothesis, let’s move on.
The word theory in science is reserved for a hypothesis that has withstood rigorous examination to explain something that can be observed.
So science demands testable explanations for observational occurances yes? Origin science is based on what can’t be observed. Operation science is based on science being done in labs and is observable today. Operation science can help us understand the past, but at best it is an extrapolation or a best guess based on what’s observed today.
Macro evolution is not observed today. Common descent is based on macro evolution yes? Would it not therefore stand that common descent is not a fact?
April 20th, 2009 at 7:06 am
“How does this differ with biblical ‘angels’ and ‘cherubs ‘.”
Cherubhim, in the Bible, aren’t depicted as appearing in human form. And angels can appear in human form but are spiritual beings. Not quite the same thing.
“Stizzy; since you aknowledge the existance of Black Holes,where does all the matter go?”
Are you assuming it goes somewhere beyond our universe? I would assume that matter going into a black hole is condensed into the singularity and doesn’t really go anywhere else.
April 20th, 2009 at 7:21 am
oochan; welcome back!! yes quite a merry-merry-go-round it boggles the mind, ha ha!!
Matt; how true, seems the dark ages are still alive!
Another interesting site is http://www.brasschecktv.com for more insight to the problems facing us today.
I have no wish to deny anyones faith or try to change them, only wish they might at least explore others POV. I certainly do not have answers to for how we came to be, but to deny the ancient civilizations whom existed 10,000 and more yrs. ago or that water erosion on the great sphinx, or that the Sahara was once lush with vegetation is quite unbelievable.
Stizzy; did you ever answer how ancient maps of Antartica without ice and seemingly mapped from an ariel
perspective came to be as it would have been during a global warming in a distant past, ie. more than 6,000 yrs ago?
April 20th, 2009 at 7:24 am
Nope, I didn’t. What do you think is the explanation?
April 20th, 2009 at 7:27 am
Your quite welcome Matt. I thank the Lord.
April 20th, 2009 at 7:27 am
Stizzy; according to quantum mechanics universes are constantly changing and matter must go somewhere ergo it erupts in a parallel universe, just as I assume our own universe originated.
April 20th, 2009 at 7:33 am
Interesting assumption, in what way is our universe changing in respects to quantum mechanics? You could easily assume that if all matter was created by God, matter could easily go back to Him as well.
April 20th, 2009 at 7:34 am
Cybogen: I believe Mattw as mocking you and what you said about Jesus
April 20th, 2009 at 7:45 am
653. Stizzy – Thank-You Stizzy
Well it does not matter to me if he was mocking me or not as it is knows whats in his heart. I will not throw contempt upon him. The Lord know all that mad thinks and does.
April 20th, 2009 at 7:45 am
i read that what goes into a black hole doesnt go anywhere. it just gets crushed up. if thats not right then i dont believe it goes into a parallel universe.
April 20th, 2009 at 7:46 am
Sorry for the Typu. I meant “The Lord know all that “man” thinks and does.
April 20th, 2009 at 7:57 am
lostatsea: I love merry-go-rounds…so I will catch up on this conversation and join in later.
April 20th, 2009 at 8:05 am
655; matter is condensed to a finite point and, where it goes is conjecture on my part but it does explain how our Big Bang came about, as all that matter and energy came from somewhere!! Quantum mechanics at least makes more sense than some God who is bigger than the universe and can swallow or spew out all the countless nebuli and galaxies in
our universe!!
April 20th, 2009 at 8:09 am
oochan; me too!! see you all later!!
Peace.
April 20th, 2009 at 8:23 am
Stizzy
(614)- “Creationism came about due to detailed study of the world through a biblical world view. It is also a by-product of scientific as well as rigurous theological and philosophical study, supported by observable and testable evidence….”
(616)-”Do you even know what my theory is? I theorise that goo-to-you evolution has not and does not occur. Therefore if someone could show me that it has, if someone could show me that intelligence, information and meaning can be produced from nothing, then that would go a ways to falisifying my theory. ”
OK, my problem is that in your first post you claim that Creationism is supported by observable and testable evidence but when asked to provide such a test all you can say is “Prove me wrong?” What kind of falsifiable test is that?
If you want to believe in Creationsim as a metaphorical philosophy then be my guest. But you CANNOT claim it as a science when it suits you and then cover your ass by saying “It´s more than that.” Either it is a science or it is not. Creationism obviously is NOT.
(625): “A theory is a hypothesis, a hypothesis is a guess.”
And this is where I too stopped reading. If you have to resort to this crap argument then all intellectual rigor has flown out the window.
*****
Mark (621):
April 20th, 2009 at 8:45 am
597. Mark: Yeah….I have accused you of being your age and not having some of the world experience that older folks have. However, you are quite intelligent despite that. (fair’s fair…when you call me old!
)
Stizzy: I am mostly ignorant of the bible. Only because of the less than desirable way that it was introduced into my life when I was younger. (I’ll spare you the rant on that!) I have since chosen to think for myself instead of having others think for me. In no way is that a slight to you or your beliefs. You are allowed to believe what you want and how you want. I respect that. I would think however, that it would broaden your horizons if you “see” that there is another side to this coin. Not to throw away what you have but just to acknowledge there is another side. Don’t try to disprove it or fit it into your view but…just to “see”.
My best friend is Lutheran. I follow Inari (Japanese Shinto Religion). We do not talk about religion as a rule unless it’s to make fun of each other. I said this in another post before. We are not mean but it’s to have fun and enjoy each other without coming off as arrogant.
You posted this above: “I also wonder, and this is out of curiousity, what kind of physical evidence for the existence of a spiritual being would people count as viable?” I guess to see with their own eyes. For example, most people don’t believe in UFO’s. A small amount do. Of that, some have seen them and others have not but they believe it’s there. I have not seen a UFO or an alien, but I believe they are there. Which is weird since I don’t believe in god.
Both Matt and Stizzy: You both stand on a different side of the fence. You both are bringing up valid points for your own reasoning. Just for one moment, think this: “What if the other is right?”
Kinda scary, isn’t it?
659. lostatsea: Great, catch up with you later, then!
Cybogen…your scripting again, dear.
April 20th, 2009 at 8:50 am
Well done, Matt. Nicely and efficiently done.
—–
Perhaps it’s dangerous of me to give Stizzy the tools to better his debate skills but I’ve always been interested in the pursuit of good debate so here goes (second time I’ve given advice to him and first time appears to be a resounding failure). Here’s a neatly done C&P summary of the opposing side:
371. Mark – “370. Stizzy : You’re being thick, I don’t know if it’s intentional of not but you are.”
373. Mark – “372. Stizzy : No, now you’re paraphrasing me.”
442. lostatsea – “your dogmatic approach using your book to back your arguments is counter productive to a discussion.”
486. dbrownl – “for stizzy mark and whoever else, you guys are arguing yourselves in circles here”
502. lostatsea – “Stizzy; I see you did not respond to my reference to Piri Riis or the Dogon’s knowledge of Sirius’s companion star.”
608. Matt Howard – “Stizzy: Read my post carefully.”
617. Matt Howard – “Stizzy: You completely sidestepped my request for you to provide a test that could falsify your hypothesis that God created everything. You didn’t even acknowledge if your hypothesis CAN be falsified.”
622. lostatsea – “Stizzy; you never answered my question regarding your thoughts on how old the universe or earth is!!”
Some could have been missed in the mix but this many? Stizzy, you can spin circles around a philosophical debate without providing any argument of your own and bravo to you for that… but a scientific debate is very different and it portrayed you as quite passive aggressive. So scientific arguments: Less questions, more statements. Less ‘witty’ retorts, more factual data. And frankly, a better understanding of science.
April 20th, 2009 at 8:58 am
Oouchan- Yes, I know I script from time to time but I usually do it only when somebody asks “Where in the bible does it say that?”
in more words or less.
April 20th, 2009 at 9:00 am
663. Cybogen:…true..but you know I like to pick on you for that. Keeps people honest.
April 20th, 2009 at 9:30 am
If you’re picking me up on that Gabi, I believe you should pick people up on the same as I may not have called it every time someone didn’t bother to answer something I said, but there is a lot in there and from more than one person.
Where possible, I did try to answer what I missed
And I often find in these debates that rather than deal with what I’ve said, people attack the way I’ve said it in an effort to discredit it. If I’ve made any mistakes or have been ignorant of anything, I take full responsibilty for that and ask you forgive me
But I do wish people wouldn’t use this as excuse to toss everything I’ve said out the window, as seems to be the inclination.
Ouchan: Does make one quiver doesn’t it?;)
GTT: “OK, my problem is that in your first post you claim that Creationism is supported by observable and testable evidence but when asked to provide such a test all you can say is “Prove me wrong?” What kind of falsifiable test is that?”
I didn’t say prove me wrong. I was asked what would shed doubt on what I believe and I provided an example.
“If you want to believe in Creationsim as a metaphorical philosophy then be my guest. But you CANNOT claim it as a science when it suits you and then cover your ass by saying “It´s more than that.” Either it is a science or it is not. Creationism obviously is NOT.”
I said that the Creationist world-view contains more than just science. I wasn’t trying to claim it as something when it suits me. I will say though that in many such debates, both sides have likely made the same honest mistake.
April 20th, 2009 at 9:34 am
Okay but in case you didn’t know I get alot of that already from Mark. Its all good anyhow. I mean what the f_ _ _ right? People here go to bed at night not even thinking twice about what went on at this site that day. I like replying back to you. You keep it smooth.
April 20th, 2009 at 9:44 am
666. Cybogen: hate to be the bearer of bad news…but you were the unlucky post on this list…check the number! I know you get the short end, but it’s all in fun! He likes to call me old, but then I call him young so we’re even!
April 20th, 2009 at 10:01 am
Oouchan- WHy is that an unlucky number in your eyes ?
April 20th, 2009 at 10:13 am
cybogen…its not really a bad number in my eyes. A lot of people put a weird superstition feel to that number. I was just picking on you again…totally harmless.
April 20th, 2009 at 10:17 am
Yep.
I understand. I know what you’re saying. I still see that number meaniog something but not sure what it is???
April 20th, 2009 at 10:29 am
Stizzy (665):
“I didn’t say prove me wrong. I was asked what would shed doubt on what I believe and I provided an example.”
No, you were asked to provide a test for falsiability. That is what you still have not provided.
April 20th, 2009 at 10:38 am
Stizzy:
Here’s where your presuppositions come into play yet again. You assume it was purely stricture against your character intended my previous comment when it was written as constructive criticism seeing as this is the second time I’ve seen and decided to address your rather weak scientific debating skills. It may appear one-sided to you but I did peruse through the entire conversation starting roughly at 371. I could and probably should delete those first two examples as they are more from (my interpretation) your CCD class with Mark (and I apologize for that) but the others I still stand by when you decided to enter a scientific discussion. The questions (and to be honest, a number of statements) you posed throughout that were of a philosophical slant rather than a scientific one and could (and to me were) inadmissible in scientific discussion. I’ve already commended you on your lingual abilities on the philosophical argument and decided to give you help on how to strengthen your scientific argument simply because I am more interested in the quality of debate than anything else. It is your prerogative that you take the defensive on what was given. I don’t feel the need or even the desire to help you further.
April 20th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
#595-That`s not faith,but it`s a clear case of stupidty.
April 20th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
That’s fair enough Gabi. Although if you wanted to help strengthen my scientific argument it might have helped to provide examples of where it was weakest. In my defense, however, the debate started as a philosophical one and I’ve found that people come in and then try and turn it into a purely scientific debate. It was not my intention to change the nature of the debate, and because I still saw this as a philosophical one, I tried my best to maintain focus on that aspect.
When there were scientific natured questions brought up, I answered to the best of my ability and then tried to shift the focus back. I appreciate your interst in the quality of the debate, and so I ask that perhaps you should be less one sided in your criticisms if it is the whole debate you wish to see strengthened.
April 20th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
gabi319; you must hand it to Stizzy for his skills of debate, unfortunately he/she has blinders on and has a narrow view of this amazing thing called life, from the one celled amoeba(with a brain otherwise how to reproduce!!} to us higher primates!(although I sometimes doubt some of our species!!!)
Stizzy; I assume you are American(if wrong my apologies!!)
I congratulate you on your intelligence, what I and possibly
other posters do not understand, is how a loquacious person would argue known facts and have such a one sided view, astounds us I think, Sorry all, for summing up what I have felt and interpreted as your frustration!!
oouchan; you sound a kindred spirit, I’m a newbie on here and hope you enjoyed my portrayal of Devil’s Advocate and also gave some other views on how it all happened!!
Stizzy have you travelled over seas and lived in other countries and had to learn another language and customs??
just wondering!!
April 20th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
675. lostatsea: Yes I do enjoy your comments. Interesting spin, I might say. By the way, welcome…stick around, this place is fun!
April 20th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
676.oouchan: Thank you so much for your reply, you’re so right…it is indeed!!!
April 20th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Why the argument on evolution? Where did anything in this list have to do with it?
Zeitgeist is debunked over and over again
Rushfan I appreciate your work, but technically you just took Zeitgiest and laid it out in list form.
April 20th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
There are many secrets that we still must learn to become crearures of light and if a belief in true Christian values can bring that about…great..I wish all would embrace the beauty and revere our planet and all our brothers and sisters with love and respect.
That I believe is what we are here for…to achieve happiness within and how you get there is a personal thing.
Yes I believe there are other forces which we cannot see(some may!!) Who can say what reality is since we exist in space, our very atoms which make up this corporeal world are mostly space!!
There are wonders beneath the sea of which we are only starting to see!!
April 20th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
671 GTT: No, you were asked to provide a test for falsiability. That is what you still have not provided.
Nope, still hasn’t. But way back at #582 he had the audacity to say: “If you don’t mind me saying, there seems to be a lot of mudslinging going on here and a lot of posturing but nothing much beyond that.” Yet when given the chance to actually end the debate in his favor by responding to Matt’s simple challenge with something of actual merit, he can’t do it. Why is that, Stizzy?
April 20th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
Tie up some loose ends
675. lostatsea – “gabi319; you must hand it to Stizzy for his skills of debate,”
(662) Stizzy, you can spin circles around a philosophical debate without providing any argument of your own and bravo to you for that
(672) I’ve already commended you on your lingual abilities on the philosophical argument
See, lostatsea? I did
. And I also complimented him in the other list he debated in as well. I do partially admire his philosophical skills, which I am not ashamed to say surpass my own. (I say partially because the question talk does aggravate me)
“what I and possibly other posters do not understand, is how a loquacious person would argue known facts and have such a one sided view”
That is specifically why I was helping him. Finally, someone whom I thought might provide more than “goddidit”. What use is science if it is complacent and unchallenged? It’s not a field for those who cannot confront the idea of possibly being wrong, which is why I gave help however unwanted it was. If these facts (whichever side) can withstand a true battering, then they are truly worthy of recognition. If not, then why the pretend it is?
April 20th, 2009 at 9:19 pm
Maggot:
Thanks for the back up. Creationists simply can’t provide a testable experiment. Stizzy did actually say that if Evolutionary theory could provide some answers that demostrate organisms have evolved he would consider his theory weakened. Evolutionary theory has actually done that. If he would bother to look up the arguments Kenneth Miller puts forth on human/chimp mtDNA and not only the simalarities between them, but HOW exactly human mtDNA differs from chimps that WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE without a mutation that happened FROM chimp mtDNA, he would see that a testable and falsifiable experiment had been conducted and passed by evolution. Yet when I actually mentioned the human/chimp mtDNA argument, he simply pushed back the tired old ‘God dun it’ argument and said “well isn’t that simply evidence of common DESIGN, not descent?”. We can prove things were created on Earth that were created by man. Computers for example. If we find a computer under sediment at the bottom of the ocean, I’ll give it to you that maybe our understanding of geological processes are wrong. What proof can you provide that natural things were created, other than looking at them, shrugging your shoulders and saying “if I can’t explain how these occured naturally, then a god must have done it”.
See, Evolution actually explains HOW things. It explains how mutations occur, how genes are passed on, how complex organisms can form from less complex ancestors. When I pushed and pushed for you to explain exactly HOW God created man, this was the response:
“God breathed the breath of life into man”
…excellent explanation. Sky guy blew onto a bit of dust and that was that. We should all be satisfied with that.
The answers to Stizzy’s questions are available if he wants to educate himself properly about Evolution, and not just resort to saying stuff like “goo-to-you never happened”. He simply doesn’t want to acknowledge the validity of Evolution. Doesn’t matter what you show him, he will just find a way to say ‘God dun it’.
Another point he willfully won’t enlighten himself on is observation. He postulates that because no one has ever seen Evolution happen it can’t be proven. When I quizzed him onto how we know Pluto orbits our Sun, even though we have only known about Pluto for 90 years and it takes 200 years to orbit, he never replied. When I told him that looking at something and deducing the answer based solely on our observation can be misleading, such as looking at the Sun from Earth and deducing that it is the Sun that moves and not the Earth, he never provided an answer.
Macro-evolution has never been seen. Speciation will NEVER been seen by ONE human being because it takes longer than our lifespan. But the EVIDENCE, not just from the fossil record, but from genetic information, clearly shows that creatures change over time. He just wants to keep asserting that this doesn’t matter. He then comes out with the boring old ‘it’s only a theory not a fact’ crap. Incase he STILL hasn’t educated himself on theory and fact, a theory is the better than facts, and better than laws! A theory is what scientists strive to come up with. It simply means EXPLANATION. It encompasses all the facts as well as the laws, and turns them into an explanation for natural data. End of.
April 20th, 2009 at 10:33 pm
Matt: Can’t believe we are still at it!!
It’s 1 am and couldn’t sleep so fired up the net to pass some time!!
Stizzy: We can see evolution on the micro scale as microbes, germs and viruses mutate and become resistant to our drugs and vaccines.
In striving for the light, I meant the light of knowledge rather than the darkness of intolerance, bigotry and dogmatism.
Perhaps you might enlighten me on why we have that useless appendage at the end of our spine?(that thing called a TAIL bone!!)
It really suprises me that a modern person could think that not only our earth but also the universe is 6,000 yrs old. Blows my mind!!!!
btw, these angels who copulated with humans, was that not a sinful act? Why did God allow that to happen??
‘Yawn’ night all!!!
April 21st, 2009 at 12:39 am
What I don’t understand is how one can argue that intelligent design is unfalsifiable and therefore not science, and then on the other hand claim that there is evidence against it. Would this not make it falsifiable?
A test of design would be to prove whether biology is teleological or not. Or to demonstrate that a code (such as the ordering of nucleotides in DNA molecules that carries the genetic information in living cells) can arise from pure chance with no intelligent input.
Afterall, we can infer that a code has an intelligence source based on what we know.
Behe himself said:
“In fact, my argument for intelligent design is open to direct experimental rebuttal. Here is a thought experiment that makes the point clear. In Darwin’s Black Box (Behe 1996) I claimed that the bacterial flagellum was irreducibly complex and so required deliberate intelligent design. The flip side of this claim is that the flagellum can’t be produced by natural selection acting on random mutation, or any other unintelligent process. To falsify such a claim, a scientist could go into the laboratory, place a bacterial species lacking a flagellum under some selective pressure (for mobility, say), grow it for ten thousand generations, and see if a flagellum–or any equally complex system–was produced. If that happened, my claims would be neatly disproven.”
Furthermore, people seem to think that I was dismissing evolution in it’s entirety.
I have not denied that creatures change over time, but I have denied macroevolution.
As for planets, we know the mechanisms for orbit, we can observe other planets orbiting our sun and based on consistent conditions, we can calculate the continued orbit of a body such as pluto.
We have not observed the mechanism that changes one kind of creature into another (macroevolution) in ANY creature. We speculate that it’s natural selection and mutation, yet natural selection and mutation don’t lead to macroevolution.
With God breathing life into man and forming his shape, I said you are asking me to try and explain a supernatural event naturally. So how could you possibly be satisfied with any answer I give you?
Just a thought, but I would have thought that finding a computer buried under sediments at the bottom of the ocean would question more our understanding of history and the advancement of mankind than geological processes
Lostatsea: You’re assuming the coccyx is useless. It forms an important point of muscle attachment required for our upright posture. If you want to test how useless it is (which I really don’t recommend) you could fall down the stairs and land on it. You’ll find yourself unable to stand, sit, lie down, roll over or even do a number 2.
As for angels, they obviously have free will to make their own choices. And to answer an earlier question, no I’m not American
and I’ve travelled a fair bit but unfortunately never had the opportunity to live in another country, but I would love to! I have taken steps towards learning a few languages though.
April 21st, 2009 at 2:27 am
“Afterall, we can infer that a code has an intelligence source based on what we know.”
How can we infer that? It may seem probable that a code needs an intelligent source, but not certain. You are basing your argument on an assumption you have made that is in no way verified.
“What I don’t understand is how one can argue that intelligent design is unfalsifiable and therefore not science, and then on the other hand claim that there is evidence against it. Would this not make it falsifiable?”
I’m not saying there is evidence against it, as that would imply that it has been verified and accepted in the first place. I’m saying there is no evidence FOR it. That’s a big difference. When I reference your designer and the fact that design in nature is not intelligent at all, I am simply pointing out the fact that since you have made the assumption that design is intelligent, there are millions of cases in nature where the design is clearly NOT intelligent.
“To falsify such a claim, a scientist could go into the laboratory, place a bacterial species lacking a flagellum under some selective pressure (for mobility, say), grow it for ten thousand generations, and see if a flagellum–or any equally complex system–was produced. If that happened, my claims would be neatly disproven.””
Behe’s argument is extremely weak. It is making the assumption that the bacterial flagellum, or another complex system, is inherently going to evolve given enough time. This is simply not true. We cannot replicate millions of years of Evolutionary steps in one simply laboratory. The whole argument against the bacterial flagellum being intelligently designed is that its evolution was in gradual steps, each step replacing a redundant part and incorporating it into the new paradigm. Just because we cannot test this specific example does not mean that evolution is not testable. It simply means we cannot reproduce every single aspect of a creature and their millions of years of evolution in a lab, just like we can’t create black holes and experiment on them. Remember, the tests themselves have to be repeatable, not nature.
Behe’s argument for the bacterial flagellum and it’s complexity is a very old ID chestnut that has been put to bed by the real scientific community. Sources:
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/09/flagellum-evolu.html (not an academic source, but very easy to access for non-scientists)
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design1/article.html
Look up the Hawthorne fly. I am proud to say after a bit of basic research that I discredited my own point I made in the previous post. This appears to be an example of speciation that has been observed and is still being observed.
“We speculate that it’s natural selection and mutation, yet natural selection and mutation don’t lead to macroevolution.”
Why not? You’ve made this claim that fundamentally challenges a major part of Evolutionary theory. Why doesn’t natural selection and mutation lead to macroevolution, when the fossil record, genetic evidence, comparative physiology and biochemistry and a heap of other observations clearly indicate the gradual change of creatures over time?
“With God breathing life into man and forming his shape, I said you are asking me to try and explain a supernatural event naturally. So how could you possibly be satisfied with any answer I give you?”
Exactly. I’m saying that the existence of man was not a supernatural event, and we have overwhelming evidence to support that, evidence that you dogmatically refuse to acknowledge. We have evidence for the evolution of man; you have a fairytale. There’s a reason you can’t describe the creation of man from a supernatural standpoint; because the naturalistic standpoint explains it a hell of a lot better than something blowing on some dust.
April 21st, 2009 at 6:02 am
Stizzy: Sorry you sounded like some southern Americans I have met in my travels. We must agree to disagree.
I brought up the coccyx as a possible remnant of a prehensile tail!!!
It has been fun sparring with you, we all have our views and I have no wish to change yours or others, I respect your
views and spirituality and if I have insulted you in any way you have my apologies.
I find that Islam, Judeaism and Christianity have caused much suffering and loss of life, whereas Bhuddhist and Hindu
are more benign to humanity and the planet.
April 21st, 2009 at 6:38 am
When it comes to the possibility of God’s existence, the Bible says that there are people who have seen sufficient evidence, but they have suppressed the truth about God.1 On the other hand, for those who want to know God if he is there, he says, “You will seek me and find me; when you seek me with all your heart, I will be found by you.”2 Before you look at the facts surrounding God’s existence, ask yourself, If God does exist, would I want to know him? Here then, are some reasons to consider…
1. Does God exist? The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today.
Many examples showing God’s design could be given, possibly with no end. But here are a few:
The Earth…its size is perfect. The Earth’s size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth’s surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter.3 Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life.
The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. Even a fractional variance in the Earth’s position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day.
And our moon is the perfect size and distance from the Earth for its gravitational pull. The moon creates important ocean tides and movement so ocean waters do not stagnate, and yet our massive oceans are restrained from spilling over across the continents.4
Water…colorless, odorless and without taste, and yet no living thing can survive without it. Plants, animals and human beings consist mostly of water (about two-thirds of the human body is water). You’ll see why the characteristics of water are uniquely suited to life:
April 21st, 2009 at 6:58 am
Cybogen:
Your whole argument is rendered obsolete by the assumption that the Earth must have adapted to Life. Life, both microscopic and macroscopic, has been shown to adapt to its surroundings. Apart from human beings and our ability through our intelligence to transform the physical attributes of our surrounding environment, every single other life form either adapts to its surroundings, or becomes extinct.
“Does God exist? The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today.
Many examples showing God’s design could be given, possibly with no end. But here are a few”
This argument is a logical fallacy. I know that wikipedia is probably one of the worst sources on the internet for finding anything of any truth-value, but this article aptly covers why your argument from personal incredulity is logically invalid:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
April 21st, 2009 at 7:02 am
Stizzy:
I think I should be clear on the fact that I am, in fact, Roman Catholic and I do believe in God.I believe that God made man and yet I also belive in evolution. How? I simply see God in the evolutionary process. I believe in “goo-to-you” evolution because I see God in every step of the process. I guess where some people see 100% chance, I see the influence of God. It´s a small point on contention on a philosophical level.
What i struggle to understand, however, is how someone can take the stories in the Bible so literally. Do you really think God made humans exactly as they are today from the get-go? In what *your definition* of the first moment was? Can you not belive that maybe God has made us in his image over what WE consider a very long time but that to him would be an instant in eternity? How in the world can anyone think that God´s perception of time and space MUST be the same as ours? The arrogance of it baffles me…
April 21st, 2009 at 7:03 am
I think you are wrong my friend in your sources. Try again!