NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, since both Christians and Atheists on this forum seem to feel quite some missionary fevor now and then, but can't seem to find an outlet for it except for threads that are trying to discuss religious topics, I give you a once in a liftime chance.

About the convertee (me) :
Born and bred Roman Catholic, leaning towards agnosticism lately.
Most important value : tolerance
Generally pro-choice, anti-gun (or rather, pro-gun registration), anti-death penalty
Believes in freedom of expression and speech, but holds politness very dear.

So, in case anybody want to give it a try, go ahead and convert me. :)

Research and make up your own mind. I'm trying to convert you to think for yoursefl! Goodluck, whichever way ya go!

When it comes to religion, agnostics are always right. Even if it turns out they're going to hell, at least they're right

Good post for a change here. Wish I could do the job, but I am not qualified to follow through.

Either you decide on your own to discard satan and his ways or you dont. Thats your only salvation I think :) Course the Athiests have a leg up, since sinning is so much fun :) But we will see how fun it is when judgement time comes. :eek:

So I jump ship in Hong Kong and make my way over to Tibet, and I get on as a looper at a course over in the Himalayas. A looper, you know, a caddy, a looper, a jock. So, I tell them I'm a pro jock, and who do you think they give me? The Dalai Lama, himself. Twelfth son of the Lama. The flowing robes, the grace, bald... striking. So, I'm on the first tee with him. I give him the driver. He hauls off and whacks one - big hitter, the Lama - long, into a ten-thousand foot crevasse, right at the base of this glacier. Do you know what the Lama says? Gunga galunga... gunga, gunga-galunga. So we finish the eighteenth and he's gonna stiff me. And I say, "Hey, Lama, hey, how about a little something, you know, for the effort, you know." And he says, "Oh, uh, there won't be any money, but when you die, on your deathbed, you will receive total consciousness." So I got that goin' for me, which is nice.

The only thing I disagree with is pro-choice. If a woman gets pregnant, then it is her fault and she should have the baby. Having an abortion is killing a potential human being and should only be allowed in cases of rape or incest. However, I do believe that women should use protection to ensure that they dont need an abortion...

The only thing I disagree with is pro-choice. If a woman gets pregnant, then it is her fault and she should have the baby. Having an abortion is killing a potential human being and should only be allowed in cases of rape or incest. However, I do believe that women should use protection to ensure that they dont need an abortion...

True, but humans are humans, and protection can fail. Why punish both the woman and the child? And society on the whole in the bargain?

The only thing I disagree with is pro-choice. If a woman gets pregnant, then it is her fault and she should have the baby. Having an abortion is killing a potential human being and should only be allowed in cases of rape or incest. However, I do believe that women should use protection to ensure that they dont need an abortion...

Condoms and the pill arent fool-proof.

Anyways, be an atheist. You know you want to.

Good post for a change here. Wish I could do the job, but I am not qualified to follow through.

Either you decide on your own to discard satan and his ways or you dont. Thats your only salvation I think :) Course the Athiests have a leg up, since sinning is so much fun :) But we will see how fun it is when judgement time comes. :eek:

So, in essence sin is everything that's fun?

Agnosticism is where it's at. I find religious people illogical due to some strange beliefs, and atheists just as strange for outright denying something because they can't prove it.

Agnosticism is where it's at. I find religious people illogical due to some strange beliefs, and atheists just as strange for outright denying something because they can't prove it.

In fairness, I lean a little towards being religious, more out of a gut feeling than out of logic, really.
But I can't bring myself to blindly follow some strange old men trying to tell me what's sin and what's not without me being able to see any sense in that.

So, in essence sin is everything that's fun?

No, but you will spin it however you want anyhow

Course the Athiests have a leg up, since sinning is so much fun :) But we will see how fun it is when judgement time comes. :eek:

I doubt that Jesus is very impressed by your gloating over the damnation of others. Better get started on that big log in your eye.

No, but you will spin it however you want anyhow

Well, so far I thought sin was what hurt others...

So, in essence sin is everything that's fun?
yes. :)

Well, since both Christians and Atheists on this forum seem to feel quite some missionary fevor now and then, but can't seem to find an outlet for it except for threads that are trying to discuss religious topics, I give you a once in a liftime chance.

About the convertee (me) :
Born and bred Roman Catholic, leaning towards agnosticism lately.
Most important value : tolerance
Generally pro-choice, anti-gun (or rather, pro-gun registration), anti-death penalty
Believes in freedom of expression and speech, but holds politness very dear.

So, in case anybody want to give it a try, go ahead and convert me. :)I suggest checking out Baha'i.

Convert to the Gentlemanly Sport of Sword Fighting!
"We must be permitted our inherent right to defend our honour through feats of arms!" exclaims Al Licorish, a bewigged aristocrat sporting a particularly flamboyant swept-hilt rapier. "The right to duel is one found throughout history for the honourable settling of disputes and I must insist that my right to fight be recognised! The world would be so much better - and cheaper too - if conflicts of interest were sorted through trial by combat instead of trial by jury."

Well, since both Christians and Atheists on this forum seem to feel quite some missionary fevor now and then, but can't seem to find an outlet for it except for threads that are trying to discuss religious topics, I give you a once in a liftime chance.
-snip-


Please don't encourage them... :p

Besides, everyone knows that only lack of faith in the Invisble Pink Unicorn may Her hooves never be shod will save you from having your kneecaps nibbled by Her holy dwarves for all eternity.

I suggest checking out Baha'i.

What's that?

Funny... I kind of expected this thread to be swarming with reborn Christians and disillusioned Atheists by now. Why so shy all of a sudden?

*Shrug*

Join me, and together we can make a new religion!

Basic ideas:
We believe in complex systems theory, which states that consciousness arises from the congregation of living things. Human consciousness is a result of the complexity of our biological systems working in harmony with each other.
We believe that God is the result of this same occurrance, but on a universal level. He's a Gestalt being, if you like. God has a personality, and is a being of him/her/itself, but he affects the world only by influencing the cellular constructs of himself.
We believe that since we're all parts of the God system, it makes sense to go about our lives as we would be inclined to do, but to also bear in mind that working with those around us rather than against them will bring positive results.
We believe that the best standard of behaviour is therefore human empathy, as what is good for our fellow humans is also in God's best interests. However, we also feel that human empathy is an appropriate reaction to other beings like ourselves anyway, so that is not supposed to be a motivation; merely a description of consequence.
We believe that many people have a sense of awareness of God due to our part in his emergence, and that religion has arisen as a result of trying to put some sort of explanation to this awareness.
We therefore believe that all religion is valid as an attempt to reach out to this consciousness so long as it does not break the laws of human empathy.
We do not explicitly believe in spiritual rebirth, simply because death is part of maintaining God's general health. We do however allow for a belief in earthly reincarnation, as our materials on death will be redistributed into other life forms some day and we will become a part of that being.
We as a faith are open to all sorts of changes and strongly encourage scientific discovery. We condemn any train of thought that seeks to restrict the areas into which one may explore.
We believe that evolution seems like the most reasonable explanation for the origin of both God and Universe, although we are willing to accept the possibility that other Gods, Universes or beings, also formed through their own evolutionary process, may have created our ones by using physical laws and definitions (pointing to computation science as a possible example of replicating this possibility).
We believe that the figures such as Buddha, Jesus and Mohammed had a profound awareness of God. We furthermore believe that, by and large, they were who they say they were. For all intents and purposes, everyone is a son or daughter of God, an incarnation of the ultimate and a servant to their deity.
We believe that we should look after ourselves, and should analyse our lifestyle with the intention of removing that which deliberately does us harm.
We believe that the cause of evil in the world is raw human self-indulgence at the expense of others.
We believe that sin can be overcome by human endeavour, but also that aspiration to and influence by God can give us encouragement and enthusiasm to do so.
We believe in the intrinsic value of contemplation, meditation or prayer, we believe in living out our faith through our lives and we believe in charity towards those in need.
Finally, we believe that crass evangelising is pointless unless we have been asked to do so by those who wish to learn about our faith. Ultimately, what we believe has no consequence on any otherworldly incarnation, and we accept that people can be selfless without adherence to our ideas.

How does that sound? We can even all group together to come up with other ideas and a name! ^^

What's that?It's a mixture of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism based on the principles of tolerance as far as I've heard. There should be a site for them somewhere. I lack the commitment to take part in any faith, but if I didn't, that would probably be my religion.

*Shrug*

Join me, and together we can make a new religion!

<snip>

That sounds fantastic... especially since it encompasses all beliefs I tested and found true so far. That's a good religion.

However, it does leave a few question:

How do you deal with those who do sin against empathy? Do you punish them? That would go against empathy again, wouldn't it? Do you restrict them so they can't go on sinning? Or do you let them continue on sinning?

Also, are we supposed to feel empathy only towards humans? It would seem reasonable to extend this empathy towards all animals as well, as they too are children of god. Do we all have to become vegetarian?

Think about it.

Which seems the most logical, sensible and likely situation to you?
Why?
Are you sure?

Pick that one, then.


But remember: A nice cup of tea is unlikely to make any of the problems you face worse.

How do you deal with those who do sin against empathy? Do you punish them? That would go against empathy again, wouldn't it? Do you restrict them so they can't go on sinning? Or do you let them continue on sinning?We could go for the old get-out clause that Sin is its own punishment and that the inevitable earthly consequence of doing wrong is that wrong is done to you, but that just doesn't seem to have the right impact.

Generally, I think we would encourage public law to take care of this sort of issue, since that's what it's there for. I imagine we'd believe that separation from society until such time as they've shown they're willing to contribute to the community again is the ideal way to take care of them.

Of course, this is an issue up for discussion. What would you reckon?

Also, are we supposed to feel empathy only towards humans? It would seem reasonable to extend this empathy towards all animals as well, as they too are children of god. Do we all have to become vegetarian?I presume you know all about the american Indians and their interaction with and respect for what they hunted. Something like that. Yes, empathy towards animals, but we can still eat from them as long as we do so with a sense of gratitude and respect for them and not letting the animal's death go to waste.

We could go for the old get-out clause that Sin is its own punishment and that the inevitable earthly consequence of doing wrong is that wrong is done to you, but that just doesn't seem to have the right impact.

Generally, I think we would encourage public law to take care of this sort of issue, since that's what it's there for. I imagine we'd believe that separation from society until such time as they've shown they're willing to contribute to the community again is the ideal way to take care of them.

Of course, this is an issue up for discussion. What would you reckon?

I think I would opt for the second suggestion. "Be fair to everybody, but don't expect them to be fair in return" is a nice motto. So, until they are rehabilitated, they are kept seperate from the rest of society.


I presume you know all about the american Indians and their interaction with and respect for what they hunted. Something like that. Yes, empathy towards animals, but we can still eat from them as long as we do so with a sense of gratitude and respect for them and not letting the animal's death go to waste.

In that case, shoes made from pig's leather are ok, fur coats made from minks aren't, right? That's ok by me.
But we would have the obligation to fight for animal rights in a way - the right to humane, decent, non-violent (meaning sparing them unnecessary pain and stress) treatment.

In that case, shoes made from pig's leather are ok, fur coats made from minks aren't, right? That's ok by me.
But we would have the obligation to fight for animal rights in a way - the right to humane, decent, non-violent (meaning sparing them unnecessary pain and stress) treatment.That works for me. It seems only reasonable to encourage some sort of legal protection for other living things as long as the demonstrations are firm but peaceful and controlled. ^_^

That works for me. It seems only reasonable to encourage some sort of legal protection for other living things as long as the demonstrations are firm but peaceful and controlled. ^_^

Yay, new religion! :D
Now, what do we call it?

Can't you just take that "What Religion am I?" quiz that seems so popular and be done with it? I forget the url, but I think it's on religioustolerance.org or somethin'.

Or, forget Christianity and Atheism (they're both useless anyway) and go for something cool .... like Jedi.

Yay, new religion! :D
Now, what do we call it?Hmm... How do we go about naming a religion? It sounds like most of the others were decided by place or person names; Buddhism from Buddha, Christianity from Christ, Judaism from the place Judea... We don't really have any people or places to base it off of.

Maybe we could follow Islam and pick a phrase from a common language that sums it up.

*Thinks for a while*

Condoms and the pill arent fool-proof.

Anyways, be an atheist. You know you want to.
abstinance is.


waiting around for someone to convert you seems like a dangerous game. many of the most convincing people have led thier friends down very bad roads. ( ie heavens gate and jonestown and many others)

why the shift from roman catholic to agnostic? God make you mad? If you really just don't believe there isn't anything anyone is going to do to convince you otherwise (well, anyone but God)
but if you do believe and are just mad, that is a different story. Now isn't the time to ask anyones opinion, or advice. You grew up in the church, you know the concequences. It is your choice. Now is the time for you to spend time with yourself and decide, what is it you believe?

Hmm... How do we go about naming a religion? It sounds like most of the others were decided by place or person names; Buddhism from Buddha, Christianity from Christ, Judaism from the place Judea... We don't really have any people or places to base it off of.

Maybe we could follow Islam and pick a phrase from a common language that sums it up.

*Thinks for a while*

How about "The System"? We could be Systemians...

abstinance is.


waiting around for someone to convert you seems like a dangerous game. many of the most convincing people have led thier friends down very bad roads. ( ie heavens gate and jonestown and many others)

why the shift from roman catholic to agnostic? God make you mad? If you really just don't believe there isn't anything anyone is going to do to convince you otherwise (well, anyone but God)
but if you do believe and are just mad, that is a different story. Now isn't the time to ask anyones opinion, or advice. You grew up in the church, you know the concequences. It is your choice. Now is the time for you to spend time with yourself and decide, what is it you believe?

I'm not mad at god, and I'm emotionally quite positive that he/she/it exists. If anything, I'm mad at intolerant, cruel, unfair and hateful religions.
So, if anybody feels the need to portray their religion and convince me that it is NOT intolerant, cruel, unfair and hateful, I'm very interested. You could say I'm looking for a new way, not a new goal.

Can't you just take that "What Religion am I?" quiz that seems so popular and be done with it? I forget the url, but I think it's on religioustolerance.org or somethin'.

There's one here (http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=10907).

I came out mostly Satanist, with big hits of Atheist and Buddhist. Could be worse.
The questions seem quite... Specific, though. Easy to pick out the "Christian" ones, for instance.

There's one here (http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=10907).

I came out mostly Satanist, with big hits of Atheist and Buddhist. Could be worse.
The questions seem quite... Specific, though. Easy to pick out the "Christian" ones, for instance.

92% agnostic... :rolleyes:
Didn't really help, now, did it? But thanks anyway.

How about "The System"? We could be Systemians...Ooh... that sounds pretty good! Do we need a proper noun like Systemity or something similar to go along with it?

Ooh... that sounds pretty good! Do we need a proper noun like Systemity or something similar to go along with it?

Systemity is good. All I could come up with was Systemianism, but that's just awful :)

Systemity is good. All I could come up with was Systemianism, but that's just awful :)
You could be Slaves to The System?

You could be Slaves to The System?

Slaves? No way... No slavery to the system. Same as Scientology has nothing to do with science whatsoever ;)

That new religion sounds like non-theistic universalism.

But calling it that would be a little cumbersome. hehehe

That new religion sounds like non-theistic universalism.

But calling it that would be a little cumbersome. hehehe

Theistic universalism. We believe god is universal...

You could be Slaves to The System?Nuuu! We're not really subordinate to the system. We, like you, make up the system; the cogs in the machine that helps everything within it to work. We all have something to bring to it, and if we act with those around us in the intention of the good of all, we benefit both everyone within and the system as a whole.

Theistic universalism. We believe god is universal...

Not sure I agree... It sure sounds like you're making the deity into something else. Something more universal and less theistic.

But hey... it's your new religion. hehehe

Theistic universalism. We believe god is universal...Yeah, we believe essentially that God is a very real being, but that we aren't physically separate from him/her. Through life in the universe is God made, and within God is life in the universe made. It's like humans and their body cells, only on a vaster, all-encompassing scale.

Yeah, we believe essentially that God is a very real being, but that we aren't physically separate from him/her. Through life in the universe is God made, and within God is life in the universe made. It's like humans and their body cells, only on a vaster, all-encompassing scale.

I guess you're our first prophet :)

I guess you're our first prophet :)0_o

I'm not entirely sure if I really want that title! It'd be nice to just be some sort of guide or the like. After all, one of the big points in Systemity is encouraging people to think for themselves, and I think the idea of a prophet just kinda encourages people to think too linearly.

But thanks for the vote of confidence! ^_^

<prophet>"There is one who shall come after me. And he shall bring forth pie of the most glorious magnitude from which ye shall all feast."</prophet>

Yeah, we believe essentially that God is a very real being, but that we aren't physically separate from him/her. Through life in the universe is God made, and within God is life in the universe made. It's like humans and their body cells, only on a vaster, all-encompassing scale.

Shoot. For a moment there I thought you believed the same thing I did. Guess not. hehehe

Shoot. For a moment there I thought you believed the same thing I did. Guess not. hehehe

Well, what do you believe?

Shoot. For a moment there I thought you believed the same thing I did. Guess not. hehehe
What do you believe, though? It's probably quite close. Either way, we're all on the same journey, and I'd love to hear about your own ideas.
( Hehe... Cabra asked the same question. ^_^ )

0_o

I'm not entirely sure if I really want that title! It'd be nice to just be some sort of guide or the like. After all, one of the big points in Systemity is encouraging people to think for themselves, and I think the idea of a prophet just kinda encourages people to think too linearly.

But thanks for the vote of confidence! ^_^

<prophet>"There is one who shall come after me. And he shall bring forth pie of the most glorious magnitude from which ye shall all feast."</prophet>

Any good prophet will encourage independent thought and meditation in his followers. Only the bad ones demand obedience.

But either way, bring forth the pie! :D

I'm non-theistic. I believe that we are all parts of a greater entity, but I don't believe that entity has its own separate consciousness. That is, of course, unless you define the sum total of all consciousness as a separate consciousness in its own right.

What do you believe, though? It's probably quite close. Either way, we're all on the same journey, and I'd love to hear about your own ideas.
( Hehe... Cabra asked the same question. ^_^ )


It's extremely close. The only difference I see is that I do not believe the Infinite Entity (as I call it) has its own separate consciousness. I believe that it is made of all energy and thought, and as such is completely dependent upon its constituent parts.

I'm non-theistic. I believe that we are all parts of a greater entity, but I don't believe that entity has its own separate consciousness. That is, of course, unless you define the sum total of all consciousness as a separate consciousness in its own right.Well, we think that summing together all consciousness does result in a separate consciousness, but that it's a bit more than just the sum total, just like a complex organism is more than just a group of organ systems, tissues or cells.

This is simplifying it a bit, but it's something like

Consciousness + Consciousness + ... + Coexistence (related to the degree of interaction between those consciousnesses) = Greater Entity.

... Well, maybe that's not the best way of looking at it. You could have a look at the Wiki entry on Emergence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence) if you'd like a better idea of the concept.

Well, we think that summing together all consciousness does result in a separate consciousness, but that it's a bit more than just the sum total, just like a complex organism is more than just a group of organ systems, tissues or cells.

This is simplifying it a bit, but it's something like

Consciousness + Consciousness + ... + Coexistence (related to the degree of interaction between those consciousnesses) = Greater Entity.

... Well, maybe that's not the best way of looking at it. You could have a look at the Wiki entry on Emergence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence) if you'd like a better idea of the concept.

Interesting... But where are the signs of this emergence? By that I mean, of course, where are the signs that there is a theistic entity acting separate from the natural laws that ostensibly compose it?

If your deity has emerged as something constructed by smaller agents, those agents include the natural laws that govern them. So how can you make an argument that your deity has emerged if you divorce him from observation and/or natural law?

Interesting... But where are the signs of this emergence? By that I mean, of course, where are the signs that there is a theistic entity acting separate from the natural laws that ostensibly compose it?

If your deity has emerged as something constructed by smaller agents, those agents include the natural laws that govern them. So how can you make an argument that your deity has emerged if you divorce him from observation and/or natural law?
Did I ever suggest that the deity was separate from the natural laws? I don't think I did. In fact, God could be considered an entirely natural entity that adheres to nature. It just has an identity that separates it from being "just everything else"

As for the signs, well, firstly we have millions of people who would testify as to the genuine nature of their experiences with divinity. Life-changing encounters or the power of prayer for others follow that side of things; many people claim to have been affected by whatever God they believed in acting through other people or by giving them encouragement through visions or whatever. Assuming that at least some of these people are being honest and not just making these up, we're simply applying an explanation to evidence they've already experienced.

Secondly, we've seen a similar pattern on a lower level before, and quite frequently. Are you aware of the idea of Pack behaviour? You may have noticed it yourself; cohabiting with a group can often lead you to act in a way you wouldn't outside of it. Anthropologists often note that in many cases, a group of individuals can be treated as a unique entity in itself, often with an unexpected behaviour given the component people.

Can groups be considered conscious? It's debatable. I argue that they probably can, since they contain the same component parts that create the same phenomenon in Humans, albeit somewhat more separated from each other.

What is somewhat harder to refute is the idea that Pack Behaviour does influence our own mindsets and conscious thought in a very similar way to that in which prayer and divine inspiration are said to.

I suppose the primary signs of the emergent consciousness are simply (a) the fact that so many people in the world today search to fulfill an innate sense of spirituality and that, when they appeal to this entity, they often get a response, and (b) that similar emergence is an accepted part of macrobiology as we know it anyway.

Well, since both Christians and Atheists on this forum seem to feel quite some missionary fevor now and then, but can't seem to find an outlet for it except for threads that are trying to discuss religious topics, I give you a once in a liftime chance.

About the convertee (me) :
Born and bred Roman Catholic, leaning towards agnosticism lately.
Most important value : tolerance
Generally pro-choice, anti-gun (or rather, pro-gun registration), anti-death penalty
Believes in freedom of expression and speech, but holds politness very dear.

So, in case anybody want to give it a try, go ahead and convert me. :)
Can I attempt to convert you to the philosophy of astrology? Is that within bounds?

Well, since both Christians and Atheists on this forum seem to feel quite some missionary fevor now and then, but can't seem to find an outlet for it except for threads that are trying to discuss religious topics, I give you a once in a liftime chance.

About the convertee (me) :
Born and bred Roman Catholic, leaning towards agnosticism lately.
Most important value : tolerance
Generally pro-choice, anti-gun (or rather, pro-gun registration), anti-death penalty
Believes in freedom of expression and speech, but holds politness very dear.

So, in case anybody want to give it a try, go ahead and convert me. :)
Agnosticism is the belief that you cannot know whether or not God exists. Since that is the honest truth, you shouldn't bother with any other position. You cannot know that there is no "God" (particularly since nobody can even give a propper universal definition of "God"), and you could never know if there is a "God." Why waste your time? Do you waste your time pondering the possible existence of magical space elves who may or may not have built humanity out of their magic elvish TinkerToys?

Do you waste your time pondering the possible existence of magical space elves who may or may not have built humanity out of their magic elvish TinkerToys?

So I'm not the only one who has considered that... :cool:

I'm not mad at god, and I'm emotionally quite positive that he/she/it exists. If anything, I'm mad at intolerant, cruel, unfair and hateful religions.
So, if anybody feels the need to portray their religion and convince me that it is NOT intolerant, cruel, unfair and hateful, I'm very interested. You could say I'm looking for a new way, not a new goal.
if you know that God exsists then why would you let others decide for you what you want to believe. It is illogical to blame God for others actions.

I don't believe my religion is cruel, unfair, or hateful. We are intolerant of sin, but strive to love people whether they are sinners or not. We are called to live a life in which we strive to be more like Christ.

So I'm not the only one who has considered that... :cool:
Crap, they're on to me...

I also have some interesting theories about the 2000-ton fluorescent orange centaurs who provide us with our moral definitions of Good and Evil.

Well, so far I thought sin was what hurt others... About right, yes. Hurting anyone needlessly.
I'd love to post more, but I'm back at school now (sixth form yay!), and the school computers are terrible about banning nationstates forums. :( back in a couple of hours.

Agnosticism is the belief that you cannot know whether or not God exists. Since that is the honest truth, you shouldn't bother with any other position. You cannot know that there is no "God" (particularly since nobody can even give a propper universal definition of "God"), and you could never know if there is a "God." Why waste your time? Do you waste your time pondering the possible existence of magical space elves who may or may not have built humanity out of their magic elvish TinkerToys?

Because of strong evidence reinforcing biblical claims? Christianity is not so silly as many would make it out to be and, unlike Magical Space Elvesism, it actually has historical basis.

Because of strong evidence reinforcing biblical claims? Christianity is not so silly as many would make it out to be and, unlike Magical Space Elvesism, it actually has historical basis.
Yup, Christianity has piles of historical evidence, particularly since the entire Jesus myth was plagerized from the myth of Horus. :)

Remember, Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure contains references to many actual places and actual historical figures. That does not mean that Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure "has historical basis."

Yup, Christianity has piles of historical evidence, particularly since the entire Jesus myth was plagerized from the myth of Horus. :)
can you actually back up that claim?

can you actually back up that claim?
Sure. Here's what we know of the story of Horus, from physical sources dating hundreds and thousands of years before the supposed birth of Christ:

Horus was the only son of God (Osiris), begotten through immaculate conception with a virgin (Meri/Isis), born to her and her husband Seb (tr. Jo-Seph) who was of royal descent. His coming was announced to his mother by an angel. His birth was heralded by a brilliant star in the east. Shepards witnessed his birth, and three Kings (or possibly solar dieties) came to visit him shortly after his birth (something referred to as "the Adoration").

Herut (Herod) tried to have Horus murdered while he was still an infant. An angel appeared to Horus' mother and told her, "Come, thou goddess Isis, hide thyself with thy child." (An angel told Jesus' father to "Arise and take the young child and his mother and flee into Egypt.")

Horus came of age at 12, and there is a break in his life history between the ages of 12 and 30. At 30 he was baptized in the river by Anup the Baptiser (who was subsequently beheaded). His baptism transformed Horus into the beloved and only begotten Son of the Father, the Holy Spirit, represented by a bird.

Horus was taken from the desert of Amenta up a high mountain by his arch-rival Sut (a.k.a. Set), who was a precursor for the Hebrew Satan. There Horus was tempted, but he resisted the temptation.

Horus had 12 followers, or "disciples," who followed him for much of his time on Earth. Horus performed miracles, including walking on water, casting out demons, healing the sick, and restoring sight to the blind. He "stilled the sea by his power." (Jesus ordered the sea with a "Peace, be still" command.)

Horus even raised the dead. Asar was an alternate name for Osirus, Horus' father, who Horus raised from the dead. He was referred to as "the Asar," as a sign of respect. Translated into Hebrew, this is "El-Asar." The Romans added the prefix "us" to indicate a male name, producing "Elasarus." Over time, the "E" was dropped and "s" became "z," producing "Lazarus."

This miracle resurrectionin occured in a city called Anu; Hebrews added their prefix for house ("beth") to "Anu" to produce "Beth-Anu" or the "House of Anu." Since "u" and "y" were interchangeable in antiquity, "Bethanu" became "Bethany" (the location mentioned in John 11).

Horus was trasfigured on a mountain. He delivered a key address referred to as the Sermon on the Mount. Horus was executed by crucifixion, was accompanied by two thieves, and was buried in a tomb. He then descended into Hell and resurrected after three days. Several women discovered he had risen.

Images often depict the Virgin Isis holding infant Horus. His common title is KRST, the anointed one ("Christ" is Greek for "annointed one"). He is also known as the good shepard, the bread of life, the lamb of God, the son of man, and the Word.

Agnosticism is the belief that you cannot know whether or not God exists. Since that is the honest truth, you shouldn't bother with any other position. You cannot know that there is no "God" (particularly since nobody can even give a propper universal definition of "God"), and you could never know if there is a "God." Why waste your time? Do you waste your time pondering the possible existence of magical space elves who may or may not have built humanity out of their magic elvish TinkerToys?
You're correct, that pondering whether god exists is a waste of time. It is also unnecessary to having a religion. The real existence of god is not the point of religion, any religion; if it is, that is not a religion but idolatry.

Religion is a relationship that we make with a our individual concept of the divine. Whatever that divine is is irrelevant. What we do on our end of the relationship (or 'bargain' as it is in Christianity) is what matters.

Sure. Here's what we know of the story of Horus, from physical sources dating hundreds and thousands of years before the supposed birth of Christ:

Horus was the only son of God (Osiris), begotten through immaculate conception with a virgin (Meri/Isis), born to her and her husband Seb (tr. Jo-Seph) who was of royal descent. His coming was announced to his mother by an angel. His birth was heralded by a brilliant star in the east. Shepards witnessed his birth, and three Kings (or possibly solar dieties) came to visit him shortly after his birth (something referred to as "the Adoration").

Herut (Herod) tried to have Horus murdered while he was still an infant. An angel appeared to Horus' mother and told her, "Come, thou goddess Isis, hide thyself with thy child." (An angel told Jesus' father to "Arise and take the young child and his mother and flee into Egypt.")

Horus came of age at 12, and there is a break in his life history between the ages of 12 and 30. At 30 he was baptized in the river by Anup the Baptiser (who was subsequently beheaded). His baptism transformed Horus into the beloved and only begotten Son of the Father, the Holy Spirit, represented by a bird.

Horus was taken from the desert of Amenta up a high mountain by his arch-rival Sut (a.k.a. Set), who was a precursor for the Hebrew Satan. There Horus was tempted, but he resisted the temptation.

Horus had 12 followers, or "disciples," who followed him for much of his time on Earth. Horus performed miracles, including walking on water, casting out demons, healing the sick, and restoring sight to the blind. He "stilled the sea by his power." (Jesus ordered the sea with a "Peace, be still" command.)

Horus even raised the dead. Asar was an alternate name for Osirus, Horus' father, who Horus raised from the dead. He was referred to as "the Asar," as a sign of respect. Translated into Hebrew, this is "El-Asar." The Romans added the prefix "us" to indicate a male name, producing "Elasarus." Over time, the "E" was dropped and "s" became "z," producing "Lazarus."

This miracle resurrectionin occured in a city called Anu; Hebrews added their prefix for house ("beth") to "Anu" to produce "Beth-Anu" or the "House of Anu." Since "u" and "y" were interchangeable in antiquity, "Bethanu" became "Bethany" (the location mentioned in John 11).

Horus was trasfigured on a mountain. He delivered a key address referred to as the Sermon on the Mount. Horus was executed by crucifixion, was accompanied by two thieves, and was buried in a tomb. He then descended into Hell and resurrected after three days. Several women discovered he had risen.

Images often depict the Virgin Isis holding infant Horus. His common title is KRST, the anointed one ("Christ" is Greek for "annointed one"). He is also known as the good shepard, the bread of life, the lamb of God, the son of man, and the Word.


I’ve heard repeated here several times that Horus, an Egyptian god, is carbon copy of Jesus. The obvious implication by those that have made this statement is that Jesus is a copycat version of an earlier Egyptian deity. The purpose of this entry is to disembowel that proposition once and for all.

When I first heard that Horus was the inspiration for Jesus several years ago, I didn’t give it much credence because I couldn’t establish any source material for the claims. I still can’t, but the internet is as adept at allowing anybody and everybody to pass on misinformation.

Upon further research, I’ve concluded that this theory originated with Gerald Massey, an English poet, born 1828, died 1927. He published primarily poems, but had an interest in Egypt. He parlayed that interest in Egypt into several books and lectures in which he set forth the proposition that Horus was in essence the first Jesus, and Jesus was a cheap imitation. The primary basis for his writing is the Egyptian Book of the Dead. This is available on-line and you can easily look it up to read it yourself. Be forewarned that forced reading of this would be an extremely efficient form of torture.

It should be noted that Massey’s actual proposition was that Jesus was a copycat from more than just Horus. According to Massey, Jesus was a compilation of an innumerable number of Egyptian deities. There were over 2,000 deities who had every human and godlike characteristic one can think of, excepting Superman’s power to stop a speeding bullet.

Since Massey, there is a dearth of anybody with any credentials that has adopted a straight Horus=Jesus theory. There is a one individual that has adopted some of Massey’s thoughts and incorporated them into a book-The Christ Conspiracy. This appears to be the basis for the claims that I see. The author is Acharya S. Her website is http://www.truthbeknown.com I note that Richard Price, a noted Christ Myther, and one that I take much more seriously then Acharya, said the following:

"Those of use who uphold any version of the controversial Christ Myth theory find ourselves immediately the object not just of criticism, but even of ridicule. And it causes us chagrin to be lumped together with certain writers with whom we share the Christ Myth butt little else.....

His other criticism, like mine, is that she uses very dated sources (19th Century) who were in Price’s words “eccentrics, freethinkers, and theosophists.”

Les, I am using your post from 1/3/05 as an example of the claims because you carry more credibility than most. That said here are the claims and what I have found:

Claim #1-Horus and Jesus are born from a virgin.

Horus’s mother is Isis. Isis was married to Osiris. We do not know for what length of time, but presumably the marriage was consummated. Whether it was or wasn’t doesn’t matter though. After Osiris is killed, Isis puts him back together again (he was hacked into 14 pieces) except for his penis which was tossed in a river or a lake. Iris fashions a substitute penis for him, humps him and here comes Horus. There is nothing virginal about that.

Claim #2-Both Horus and Jesus were born to a Mary and Joseph. (Seb)

As noted Isis is Horus’s mother’s name not Mary. In addition, Seb is not Horus’s father, Osiris is. Seb is Osiris’s father. Further, Seb is a distinct name from Joseph. Putting them side by side does not make them synonyms, and that appears to be what was done here.

Claim #3-Both were born of royal descent.

This is accurate.

Claim #4-Both births were announced by angels and witnessed by shepherds.

I can find nothing that mentions that the birth of Horus was announced by an angel or witnessed by shepherds. I have found that Horus was born in a swamp, which is a pretty unlikely place for shepherds. In addition Acharya mentions that Horus was born in a cave. Massey makes no mention of this, although he does represent that Mithra was born in a cave.

Claim #5-Both were heralded by stars and angels.

There is no star that heralded Horus’s birth nor is there any angel announcing it. Archarya in a footnote in The Origins of Christianity indicates that that there are three stars named the three kings in Orion and then relates this to the birth of Jesus. When we look to the stories regarding Horus, we find no star or angel announcing his birth. To the extent that Acharya S relies upon Massey and Massey relies upon what is depicted in the panels at Luxor see (from an atheist) further regarding virgin birth and pronouncement by angels http://www.frontline-apologetics.com/carrier_luxor_inscription.htm

Claim #6-Both had later visitors (Horus-3 deities and Jesus-3 wisemen.)

There is no indication that there ever were 3 wisemen. The bible never mentions the number of wisemen, nor is there any document that reflects 3 deities at the birth of Horus. See the website referenced in Claim #5.

Claim #7-Both had murder plots against them.

There is mention that Seth did want to kill Horus, and Herod wanted to kill Jesus. so this is accurate.

Claim#8-Both came of age at 12, were baptized and their baptizers were executed.

There is no indication that Horus was preaching in a temple when he was 12. In fact, Massey indicates that Hours the child was depicted as a “weakling.” That doesn’t jive with story of Jesus preaching in the temple. Again this appears to have been a confabulation from Acharya and repeated by others.

Horus was never baptized in any of the Horus stories. In addition, Acharya mentions that John the Baptist is actually Anup the Baptizer. This individual is never mentioned anywhere in any Horus account. There is not even a footnote in Archaya’s on-line work The Origins of Christianity to support this. There is nothing.

Claim #9-Both had 12 disciples.

According to the Horus accounts, Horus had four semi-gods that were followers. There is some indication of 16 human followers and an unknown number of blacksmiths that went into battle with him. Horus did not have 12 disciples. Jesus reportedly did. Acharya failed to give a footnote to support this.

Massey points to a mural in the Book of Hades in which there are twelve reapers. Horus is not present in this scene. For Massey to make this connection he goes to a different scene within the same mural. In this scene there is a picture of a god whose name is the Master of Joy. Horus is never depicted although in other murals the artists do depict Horus. Had the artists ascribed 12 reapers in any relation to Horus all they had to do was put Horus at the scene. They did not.

Claim #10-Both walked on water.

Horus didn’t, or at least there is no record that I can find that he did. Massey does not maintain that Hours did. Massey uses wild conjecture to connect the story of fish man, Oannes, not Horus, to Jesus. Oannes came out of the sea during the day, and went back into the sea at night. Massey makes the two analogous because by his calculations, Jesus walked on water during the day.

As to Acharya, she as usual provides nothing to substantiate this.

Claim #11-Both performed miracles.

This is true although the miracles were different in scope and nature.

Claim #12 Both exorcised demons and raised Lazarus.

The actual claim is that Horus raised Osiris from the dead and that the name Osiris morphed to Lazarus. It doesn’t matter because Horus did not bring Osiris back to life. There is no mention of this in any document regarding the story. Horus did avenge Osiris’s death, but that did not raise Osiris from the dead.

Claim #13-Both held a Sermon on the Mount; both were transfigured on a mountain, died by crucifixion along with two thieves and were buried in tombs where they paid a quick visit to Hell and then rose from the dead after 3 days time, both resurrections were witness by women, and both will supposedly reign for 1,000 years in the Millennium.

These are the most damning claims if they were proven true in my opinion. Yet, I can locate none of this. No sermon, no transfiguration, certainly no crucifixion w/ two thieves, no trip to hell and no resurrection. There was an incident in which Horus was torn to pieces and Iris requested the crocodile god to fish him out of the water he was tossed into, which was done, but that’s it. I am at a loss to refute this because I can not find anything to support it.

Massey does compares a story about the Autumn Equinox related to Osiris, not Horus, as the symbolic crucifixion. There is no indication that Horus is involved in any way. There is no mention by Massey of any Sermon on the Mount. No mention or any actual crucifixion, no two thieves, no burial in a tomb. Massey does not maintain that anything of the sort occurred with Horus.

In short, of the claims outlined in this entry, I find the comparison between Horus and Jesus to consist of the following: they were of royal descent, they allegedly worked miracles and there were murder plots against them.

Did I ever suggest that the deity was separate from the natural laws? I don't think I did. In fact, God could be considered an entirely natural entity that adheres to nature. It just has an identity that separates it from being "just everything else"

As for the signs, well, firstly we have millions of people who would testify as to the genuine nature of their experiences with divinity. Life-changing encounters or the power of prayer for others follow that side of things; many people claim to have been affected by whatever God they believed in acting through other people or by giving them encouragement through visions or whatever. Assuming that at least some of these people are being honest and not just making these up, we're simply applying an explanation to evidence they've already experienced.

Secondly, we've seen a similar pattern on a lower level before, and quite frequently. Are you aware of the idea of Pack behaviour? You may have noticed it yourself; cohabiting with a group can often lead you to act in a way you wouldn't outside of it. Anthropologists often note that in many cases, a group of individuals can be treated as a unique entity in itself, often with an unexpected behaviour given the component people.

Can groups be considered conscious? It's debatable. I argue that they probably can, since they contain the same component parts that create the same phenomenon in Humans, albeit somewhat more separated from each other.

What is somewhat harder to refute is the idea that Pack Behaviour does influence our own mindsets and conscious thought in a very similar way to that in which prayer and divine inspiration are said to.

I suppose the primary signs of the emergent consciousness are simply (a) the fact that so many people in the world today search to fulfill an innate sense of spirituality and that, when they appeal to this entity, they often get a response, and (b) that similar emergence is an accepted part of macrobiology as we know it anyway.

I would argue that the power of prayer and/or faith is simply humanity reconnecting with our innate power. A power we have forgotten.

Think of it... if we are constituent parts of the Infinite Entity, that means that there is no reason we could not learn to connect on a deeper level to the greater whole. Tap into the vast reservoirs of energy around us. Come to understand our own "divinity."

That does not necessitate the existence of an external deity. It simply requires that we refute the limitations of our current paradigm and learn how to re-connect with the universe.

The group consciousness you speak of wouldn't exist without the sentient thought of its constituent parts. It may not be the sum total of those parts... indeed, it may exceed the sum total... but it is not a separate consciousness on its own. It is a social context interpreted through each individual.

Because of strong evidence reinforcing biblical claims? Christianity is not so silly as many would make it out to be and, unlike Magical Space Elvesism, it actually has historical basis.

Evidence that Jesus existed is not evidence that he was the son of a god.

Evidence that biblical places existed is not evidence of supernatural occurrences there.

What evidence could you possibly have that supports Christianity?

It doesn't surprise me that the myth of Horus resembled Christianity. Often religions resemble each other, as do the teachings. However, I don't think it was copied from Horus, since that was a part of Egyptian religion, and the Israelites really did not like the Egyptians… and they left their lands way before Jesus was born.

Yup, Christianity has piles of historical evidence, particularly since the entire Jesus myth was plagerized from the myth of Horus. :)

Remember, Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure contains references to many actual places and actual historical figures. That does not mean that Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure "has historical basis."


Plagiarized? Yes, I suppose you're right. All those innumerable disciples, apostles, and Christians, many who lived and saw Christ, died horrible deaths through burning, crucifixion, being grilled alive, etc. because they were all victims of one mass illusion. Even the Romans and the Jews who crucified him were really crucifying a big nothing :rolleyes:


Here, consider these little tidbits of scientific claims made long before people actually knew them:

1. The earth is circular Isaiah 40:22

2. The earth orbits freely and hangs upon nothing Job 26:7

3. The essential elements of life are found in dust/clay Genesis 2:7

4. The sea has paths and currents Psalm 8:8

5. There is a water cycle of evaporation and condensation Ecclesiastes 1:7

6. Washing one's hands in running water is preferrable to washing hands in still water (Ask Pasteur and Koch what I'm talking about) Leviticus 15:3

7. Light is in motion as opposed to being still Job 38:19

8. The wind has regular circuits Ecclesiastes 1:6

9. Laughter is a good medicine Proverbs 17:22

10. The life of the flesh is in the blood Leviticus 17:11



In the fifth century B.C. a prophet named Zechariah declared that the Messiah would be betrayed for the price of a slave: thirty pieces of silver, according to the Jewish law, and also that this money would be used to buy a burial ground for Jerusalem's poor foreigners (Zechariah 11:12-13). Bible writers and secular historians both record thirty pieces of silver as the sum paid to Judas Iscariot for betraying Jesus, and they indicate that the money went to purchase a "potter's field," used just as predicted for the burial of poor aliens (Matthew 27:3-10).


Also, I recommend you read this: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/8449/two.html

Plagiarized? Yes, I suppose you're right. All those innumerable disciples, apostles, and Christians, many who lived and saw Christ, died horrible deaths through burning, crucifixion, being grilled alive, etc. because they were all victims of one mass illusion. Even the Romans and the Jews who crucified him were really crucifying a big nothing :rolleyes:


Here, consider these little tidbits of scientific claims made long before people actually knew them:

1. The earth is circular Isaiah 40:22

2. The earth orbits freely and hangs upon nothing Job 26:7

3. The essential elements of life are found in dust/clay Genesis 2:7

4. The sea has paths and currents Psalm 8:8

5. There is a water cycle of evaporation and condensation Ecclesiastes 1:7

6. Washing one's hands in running water is preferrable to washing hands in still water (Ask Pasteur and Koch what I'm talking about) Leviticus 15:3

7. Light is in motion as opposed to being still Job 38:19

8. The wind has regular circuits Ecclesiastes 1:6

9. Laughter is a good medicine Proverbs 17:22

10. The life of the flesh is in the blood Leviticus 17:11



In the fifth century B.C. a prophet named Zechariah declared that the Messiah would be betrayed for the price of a slave: thirty pieces of silver, according to the Jewish law, and also that this money would be used to buy a burial ground for Jerusalem's poor foreigners (Zechariah 11:12-13). Bible writers and secular historians both record thirty pieces of silver as the sum paid to Judas Iscariot for betraying Jesus, and they indicate that the money went to purchase a "potter's field," used just as predicted for the burial of poor aliens (Matthew 27:3-10).


Also, I recommend you read this: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/8449/two.html

Not refuting everything that you've said here, because I don't know the truth or falsity of some of them.

However the Earth and Moon were considered spheres by the Egyptians and, very possibly, the Babylonians. There is circumstantial evidence that suggests the Sumerians (c. 3500BC) knew that the Earth was a sphere.

The Phoenicians (c. 2000BC) knew of ocean currents and regular "wind circuits".

Biblical writers could have gotten that information easily.

I followed the link you included. Among the many unsound assertions the author makes, one stands out.

Saying that the Biblical accounts of supernatural goings-on must be accurate because the socio-geographic history in the Bible is accurate is pure nonsense.

Let us say that I publish a book about the Cold War. In this book I include accurate geographic and political data. I include transcripts of speeches and other things that can be proven. Yet I come to the conclusion that Ronald Reagan was the Second Coming of Christ and the Soviet Union was the Anti-Christ. The inclusion of provable things does not validate my assertions of the unprovable.

<snip>

So, observations of nature and geology are proof that god exists?

So, observations of nature and geology are proof that god exists? I think the idea was that N. R. meant that it wasn't plagiarised from the Horus cult.

Because of strong evidence reinforcing biblical claims? Christianity is not so silly as many would make it out to be and, unlike Magical Space Elvesism, it actually has historical basis.

Yes but so does the Illiad. There really was a place called Troy, there really was a major war in around that city in about the right time period.

In fairness, I lean a little towards being religious, more out of a gut feeling than out of logic, really.
But I can't bring myself to blindly follow some strange old men trying to tell me what's sin and what's not without me being able to see any sense in that.

Find some church that isn't run by strange old men. I don't know where you are but a lot of churches in more liberal traditions have strong youth sections. Far more relatable if nothing else. Remember, Religion is about your journey with God, not what church you attend.

Yes but so does the Illiad. There really was a place called Troy, there really was a major war in around that city in about the right time period.

And the fact that this is true does not mean that Athena (or whichever Greek deity it was... I can't remember) dipped Achilles by his heel.

Just like historical proof of geological and civic events does not prove anything supernatural about Jesus and his god.

So, observations of nature and geology are proof that god exists?
I always wanted to ask when someone said "oh yeah well you can't prove that God exists"
can you prove he doesn't?
but that seems to be just the kind of argument that 3 year olds have.
"am too"
"am not"
"am too"

so I won't ask you to prove that God doesn't exist, ( because we know you can't) but I will ask, why does it bother so many if we do believe in God? If in your eyes it isn't going to make a flip of a difference after we all die, then why not leave us alone?

so I won't ask you to prove that God doesn't exist, ( because we know you can't) but I will ask, why does it bother so many if we do believe in God? If in your eyes it isn't going to make a flip of a difference after we all die, then why not leave us alone?

Speaking from my own experience (and just that), most of the people who are yelling at me from street corners telling me that I am going to Hell are not atheists. Most of the people that try and convert me have been conservative Christians. I have never had a problem with religion with anyone who has not tried to convert me, be they Christian, atheist, Buddhist or nudist. The problem I have had is with people trying to force their views on me.

So, observations of nature and geology are proof that god exists?


No, but the fact that most were not even heard of at the time lends credence to the rest of biblical claims.

I always wanted to ask when someone said "oh yeah well you can't prove that God exists"
can you prove he doesn't?
but that seems to be just the kind of argument that 3 year olds have.
"am too"
"am not"
"am too"

so I won't ask you to prove that God doesn't exist, ( because we know you can't) but I will ask, why does it bother so many if we do believe in God? If in your eyes it isn't going to make a flip of a difference after we all die, then why not leave us alone?

You misunderstand my intention ;)
I know you can't proof god, and I'm perfectly happy with that fact. I don't have to proof god to somehow understand that it exists.
However if somebody claims to have proof that god does exist, I demand logical, flawless evidence.

Sorry, I know I'm being nasty, but I just hate this kind of attitude... it actually is that attitude paraded around by so many proclaimed Christians that is slowly making me turn away from that confession.

No, but the fact that most were not even heard of at the time lends credence to the rest of biblical claims.

The old testament is a poor 4000 years old. You will find that all those claims you stated were known to humanity for quite some time back then.

You misunderstand my intention ;)
I know you can't proof god, and I'm perfectly happy with that fact. I don't have to proof god to somehow understand that it exists.
However if somebody claims to have proof that god does exist, I demand logical, flawless evidence.

Sorry, I know I'm being nasty, but I just hate this kind of attitude... it actually is that attitude paraded around by so many proclaimed Christians that is slowly making me turn away from that confession. I know what you mean about somehow just "understanding" something… it's very frustrating because it's hard, nigh on impossible, to explain to others, and they bloody well demand explanations.

What kind of attitude do you mean? Holier-than-thouism and judgementalism? 'Tis a very easy path to go down, but the dark side it certainly is.

Speaking from my own experience (and just that), most of the people who are yelling at me from street corners telling me that I am going to Hell are not atheists. Most of the people that try and convert me have been conservative Christians. I have never had a problem with religion with anyone who has not tried to convert me, be they Christian, atheist, Buddhist or nudist. The problem I have had is with people trying to force their views on me.
In our veiw it does make a difference if you believe or not. I personally don't care for the people who yell from the street corners and tell people they are going to hell, basically because it has never seemed to me that doing that would do anything but push people away. I have tried to mind my own business and show people Christ's love through the way that I live my life and answer questions when asked. I do get annoyed with people who claim the bible says things that it doesn't or that Christians believe things that we don't, or that are constantly trying to discredit the bible in general. I am working on that though, and as we know nobody is perfect.
I am sorry that you have had bad experiences with some Christains. Try not to hold it against all of us. ( I know that is difficult if you have one constantly bothering you)

No, but the fact that most were not even heard of at the time lends credence to the rest of biblical claims.

No, no, no. No.

Just because the Bible contains things that are provable historically doesn't mean that the things it asserts that are unprovable are automatically true.

That's like saying the Tunguska Event was a crash landing of aliens just because a place called Tunguska exists.

You misunderstand my intention ;)
I know you can't proof god, and I'm perfectly happy with that fact. I don't have to proof god to somehow understand that it exists.
However if somebody claims to have proof that god does exist, I demand logical, flawless evidence.

Sorry, I know I'm being nasty, but I just hate this kind of attitude... it actually is that attitude paraded around by so many proclaimed Christians that is slowly making me turn away from that confession.
I don't believe that I have ever claimed to have proof (at least scientific style flawless proof) that God exists. If I have I was mistaken. I do get annoyed with people sometimes who seem to derive joy from trying to prove to me that my faith is misplaced when they can't even prove that thiers isn't. I didn't mean to direct all of that anger at you. I am just trying to understand why, people don't just leave Christains alone sometime, I mean a lot of people think we are idiots who are wasting our time, why not just sit back and laugh at us? why the push to make all the world atheists? what is the motivation?
sorry if I offended you. I was just trying to find out why anyone would be actively trying to convert anyone to atheism.

on another note. if you do believe in God, why let others, whom you see to be misguided in thier Christain faith(ie hypocrites) keep you from God?

*clipped for length*
Glad to see there's at least one more person who's not scared of research!

I don't want to hijack this thread too much by going point-by-point with you (since this is really a whole other topic entirely), but I think the main problem we are having is one of sources. The Horus myth as you describe it throughout your post simply doesn't mesh with the sources I have used...it's like it's not even the same myth at all. Of course, the Jesus myth varies quite a bit depending on which sources you believe, so we get into quite a muddle.

Put it to you this way: there are versions of the myth of Horus, taken directly from primary sources (i.e. "documents" from the time period, often in the form of carvings etc) that relate the story as I have given it. I would not be at all surprised to learn that there are also sources telling the myth as you have given it. The point is simply that a great many major details of the Christ myth were carved into stone centuries before Christianity claims Christ was alive...why a person should believe that those details are literally true in the case of Christ, but not in the case of Horus, is merely a matter of indoctrination.

I know what you mean about somehow just "understanding" something… it's very frustrating because it's hard, nigh on impossible, to explain to others, and they bloody well demand explanations.

What kind of attitude do you mean? Holier-than-thouism and judgementalism? 'Tis a very easy path to go down, but the dark side it certainly is.

Both, plus this patronising "I feel so sorry for you, as you will go to hell because you don't believe the exact same things I do"-attitude.
And the hiding-behind-the-bible-attitude. That is to say people who tell you "Homosexuality/premarital sex/any other faith/working on Sunday is wrong because the bible says so". Not a single thought or emotion invested on their side, they just thumped through an ancient book and proclaim to know god's will.
I don't know god's will. And I seriously doubt that it can be found in the bible. If anything, it can be found in one's own meditation and conscience. But it takes guts and energy and some stance to follow your believes that way, it's so much easier to hide behind the book; after all, it has to be true if it is that old and so many people profess to believe in it, right? :rolleyes:

I never ever tried to convert anybody, I think the mere attempt is somehow wrong. But as so many people seem intend on converting others... bring it on!

In our veiw it does make a difference if you believe or not. I personally don't care for the people who yell from the street corners and tell people they are going to hell, basically because it has never seemed to me that doing that would do anything but push people away. I have tried to mind my own business and show people Christ's love through the way that I live my life and answer questions when asked. I do get annoyed with people who claim the bible says things that it doesn't or that Christians believe things that we don't, or that are constantly trying to discredit the bible in general. I am working on that though, and as we know nobody is perfect.
I am sorry that you have had bad experiences with some Christains. Try not to hold it against all of us. ( I know that is difficult if you have one constantly bothering you)

Smunkeeville, it sounds like I would respect you and I deffinatley try not to hold my bad experiences against Christianity as a whole. That said, the whole certainty thing bothers me. Heck, today I was getting ready for work picked out the tie I wanted to wear and checked to make sure it was the right one. It wasn't till I got to school that I relized I put on the wrong one after all. If I can't be sure what tie I'm picking out in the morning I'm sure as heck not going to be sure with my ideas on the Divine and I don't see how others can be either.

I don't believe that I have ever claimed to have proof (at least scientific style flawless proof) that God exists. If I have I was mistaken. I do get annoyed with people sometimes who seem to derive joy from trying to prove to me that my faith is misplaced when they can't even prove that thiers isn't. I didn't mean to direct all of that anger at you. I am just trying to understand why, people don't just leave Christains alone sometime, I mean a lot of people think we are idiots who are wasting our time, why not just sit back and laugh at us? why the push to make all the world atheists? what is the motivation?
sorry if I offended you. I was just trying to find out why anyone would be actively trying to convert anyone to atheism.

on another note. if you do believe in God, why let others, whom you see to be misguided in thier Christain faith(ie hypocrites) keep you from God?

Can't speak for anyone but myself here... but in my experience it's been the Christians who won't leave those who believe something other than them alone.

I've had waaaaaay too many Christians try to "save" me without bothering to ask me if I wanted to be "saved."

I don't know about Catholisism, but in Judaism we don't require you to convert in order to be a good person. They just have to follow the seven Noahide laws. This means that agnostics can follow these seven rules and they don't really have to decide one way or the other. These rules are:

1. No Idolatry. That's pretty easy, just don't start praying to idols.

2. No Incestuous or adulterous relations. So don't do your sister.

3. Don't Murder. You're already against that.

4.Don't curse the name of God. This reffers to a specific name which you are probably not familiar with, so it will be hard for you to curse it.

5. Don't steal.

6. Don't tear a limb off a living animal. Yeah, cause I was planning on doing that...

7. Establish courts of law. If you live in a country such as the US or England, you've got that covered.

So you see, no need to make up your mind quite yet, just don't do any of these things that you weren't going to do anyway.

I don't believe that I have ever claimed to have proof (at least scientific style flawless proof) that God exists. If I have I was mistaken. I do get annoyed with people sometimes who seem to derive joy from trying to prove to me that my faith is misplaced when they can't even prove that thiers isn't. I didn't mean to direct all of that anger at you. I am just trying to understand why, people don't just leave Christains alone sometime, I mean a lot of people think we are idiots who are wasting our time, why not just sit back and laugh at us? why the push to make all the world atheists? what is the motivation?

No offense, but it's a bit like throwing peanuts at monkeys in the zoo... I think people are just curious as to how long they can poke you before you get anry.


on another note. if you do believe in God, why let others, whom you see to be misguided in thier Christain faith(ie hypocrites) keep you from God?

I wouldn't say that I let them keep me from god, but it makes me doubt. the thought is "If these folks are really Christians, I don't think I can possibly be one". They just make me look for a new way as I don't care too much for their company on the way I had so far. Agnosticism is the next logical step.

Glad to see there's at least one more person who's not scared of research!

I don't want to hijack this thread too much by going point-by-point with you (since this is really a whole other topic entirely), but I think the main problem we are having is one of sources. The Horus myth as you describe it throughout your post simply doesn't mesh with the sources I have used...it's like it's not even the same myth at all. Of course, the Jesus myth varies quite a bit depending on which sources you believe, so we get into quite a muddle.

Put it to you this way: there are versions of the myth of Horus, taken directly from primary sources (i.e. "documents" from the time period, often in the form of carvings etc) that relate the story as I have given it. I would not be at all surprised to learn that there are also sources telling the myth as you have given it. The point is simply that a great many major details of the Christ myth were carved into stone centuries before Christianity claims Christ was alive...why a person should believe that those details are literally true in the case of Christ, but not in the case of Horus, is merely a matter of indoctrination.

ah but myths do change a lot over time. I don't believe that Jesus' story has changed very much. I do agree that this discussion should probibly be handled outside this thread.

Plagiarized? Yes, I suppose you're right. All those innumerable disciples, apostles, and Christians, many who lived and saw Christ, died horrible deaths through burning, crucifixion, being grilled alive, etc. because they were all victims of one mass illusion. Even the Romans and the Jews who crucified him were really crucifying a big nothing :rolleyes:

I guess that means the events described in the Illiad literally occured, then? All those compelling characters who lived and saw the gods, who fought, loved, and died...I guess we can't claim they were fiction, eh?


Here, consider these little tidbits of scientific claims made long before people actually knew them:

1. The earth is circular Isaiah 40:22

2. The earth orbits freely and hangs upon nothing Job 26:7

3. The essential elements of life are found in dust/clay Genesis 2:7

4. The sea has paths and currents Psalm 8:8

5. There is a water cycle of evaporation and condensation Ecclesiastes 1:7

6. Washing one's hands in running water is preferrable to washing hands in still water (Ask Pasteur and Koch what I'm talking about) Leviticus 15:3

7. Light is in motion as opposed to being still Job 38:19

8. The wind has regular circuits Ecclesiastes 1:6

9. Laughter is a good medicine Proverbs 17:22

10. The life of the flesh is in the blood Leviticus 17:11

In the fifth century B.C. a prophet named Zechariah declared that the Messiah would be betrayed for the price of a slave: thirty pieces of silver, according to the Jewish law, and also that this money would be used to buy a burial ground for Jerusalem's poor foreigners (Zechariah 11:12-13). Bible writers and secular historians both record thirty pieces of silver as the sum paid to Judas Iscariot for betraying Jesus, and they indicate that the money went to purchase a "potter's field," used just as predicted for the burial of poor aliens (Matthew 27:3-10).

Um, yes, people knew things about the empirical world back then. None of what you posted was news to the Greeks, for instance. I have no idea what you are trying to prove. After all, the Bible also claims that snakes talk and all the world's animals fit on a single boat...if you want to play the "empiricism" game then you probably shouldn't use the Bible as your gamepiece.

Like I said before, Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure contains factual pieces of information, and specific references to real people who really lived and real places that really exist(ed). That doesn't mean that people 2000 years from now should believe that the events described in Bill and Ted really took place.


Also, I recommend you read this: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/8449/two.html
Meh. It wasn't very useful, to be honest.

Well, since both Christians and Atheists on this forum seem to feel quite some missionary fevor now and then, but can't seem to find an outlet for it except for threads that are trying to discuss religious topics, I give you a once in a liftime chance.

About the convertee (me) :
Born and bred Roman Catholic, leaning towards agnosticism lately.
Most important value : tolerance
Generally pro-choice, anti-gun (or rather, pro-gun registration), anti-death penalty
Believes in freedom of expression and speech, but holds politness very dear.

So, in case anybody want to give it a try, go ahead and convert me. :)

Convert you to what? A protein shake? That would require a very large
blender, which I do not possess.

Oh,.. to a religion. Oh,...

Let's see,.. you are, by the qualities you chose to display to us, a boring
and/or not-boring wannabe feel-good juvenile leftist.

What can we do with that... hmmm...

If you need to "liven things up" a bit, I would suggest atheistic libertine
lesbianism (if female) with a touch of "art school" and just a hint of "medium
grade drug abuser". Do stay away from the really hard-stuff though.

If male, just subsitute bi-sexualism for lesbianism. Strict "gayism" is NOT
recommended for you as it's not only out of fashion, but not nearly as
versatile, and you seem like someone in need of "a way out" of situations
that you find yourself in if you're not comfortable with them.

If you DON'T need to liven things up, become either a wiccan or an
Aguilera/Madonna devotee.

No Jesus stuff for you until you grow up a bit. It's WAY to complex/subtle for
you..!

Oh,.. and I really think you should lose the "politeness" attribute, and
substitute "telling truth to idiots" instead.

You can practice on me.

Thanks..! :D

-The REAL Iakeo

ah but myths do change a lot over time. I don't believe that Jesus' story has changed very much.

Given that entire books of the Jesus myth have been removed over the last couple of thousand years, I'd say that's a very risky claim to make.


I do agree that this discussion should probibly be handled outside this thread.
Roger that.

No offense, but it's a bit like throwing peanuts at monkeys in the zoo... I think people are just curious as to how long they can poke you before you get anry.



I wouldn't say that I let them keep me from god, but it makes me doubt. the thought is "If these folks are really Christians, I don't think I can possibly be one". They just make me look for a new way as I don't care too much for their company on the way I had so far. Agnosticism is the next logical step.
yeah I can get the first part. I guess I was letting my annoyance get in the way.
I don't think that Christainity should be judged by it's followers. Most "good Christains" are humble and unassuming. It is the hypocrites who draw attention to themselves. For example I could look at Tom Cruise and say "he is a nut, if he is an american, I don't want to be one" of course the vast majority of the nation isn't anything like Tom Cruise, but he is the one bouncing on the couch. It would be sad for someone to give up all of the benifits of being an American because Tom Cruise had done something to make them question all of us. I hope I explained better.

yeah I can get the first part. I guess I was letting my annoyance get in the way.
I don't think that Christainity should be judged by it's followers. Most "good Christains" are humble and unassuming. It is the hypocrites who draw attention to themselves. For example I could look at Tom Cruise and say "he is a nut, if he is an american, I don't want to be one" of course the vast majority of the nation isn't anything like Tom Cruise, but he is the one bouncing on the couch. It would be sad for someone to give up all of the benifits of being an American because Tom Cruise had done something to make them question all of us. I hope I explained better. Truthfully is it said: "Empty vessels make most noise".

Given that entire books of the Jesus myth have been removed over the last couple of thousand years, I'd say that's a very risky claim to make.

such as? you can telegram me if you want so we don't further hijack the conversation but I would really like to know what the heck you are talking about so I can research that too.

4.Don't curse the name of God. This reffers to a specific name which you are probably not familiar with, so it will be hard for you to curse it. Yahweh, is that the one? Or is it Jehovah… I forget.

ah but myths do change a lot over time. I don't believe that Jesus' story has changed very much. I do agree that this discussion should probibly be handled outside this thread.

Considering the time that past before the first accounts of Jesus' life were actually written down, plus the time it took until the four gospels to be included in the bible were agreed on, I daresay a LOT had been slightly altered or added to the story. After all, the bible as we know it was compile at the third council of Constantinople, in the 4th century AD.
Please consider the attitude of the people back then: People were trying to make Jesus as impressive as they percieved him to be, the idea to give a clear account of the events, and only that, without emotions, judgement, perceptions and interpretations would have been strange and incomprehensible to them. They were as a general rule comparatively simple and highly superstitious. Yes, they would have added other myths and legends to the story, as this would have made it easier to recognise in its impact by their contemporaries, and as it would have made the whole thing much more credible.
Why do you think we celebrate Christmas on the 25th of December? Or Easter based on the lunar calendar in spring? Do you think those are historical dates, think again.

such as? you can telegram me if you want so we don't further hijack the conversation but I would really like to know what the heck you are talking about so I can research that too.

As the OP, I ask you to keep that here. I would like to follow that discussion as well... if you really want to take that out of here, just open a new thread :)

Considering the time that past before the first accounts of Jesus' life were actually written down, plus the time it took until the four gospels to be included in the bible were agreed on, I daresay a LOT had been slightly altered or added to the story. After all, the bible as we know it was compile at the third council of Constantinople, in the 4th century AD.
Please consider the attitude of the people back then: People were trying to make Jesus as impressive as they percieved him to be, the idea to give a clear account of the events, and only that, without emotions, judgement, perceptions and interpretations would have been strange and incomprehensible to them. They were as a general rule comparatively simple and highly superstitious. Yes, they would have added other myths and legends to the story, as this would have made it easier to recognise in its impact by their contemporaries, and as it would have made the whole thing much more credible.
Why do you think we celebrate Christmas on the 25th of December? Or Easter based on the lunar calendar in spring? Do you think those are historical dates, think again.

I am quite aware of all of that. It isn't going to shake my faith at all. Why should it? I have a personal relationship with Jesus. I don't need proof outside of that. I know in my heart what is right.
If you are really interested you should check out psalm 36 in the KJV 36 words from the begining is shake count 36 words from the end is spear.
shakespear yup that's right freaky huh? yeah I don't care. God is God, and Jesus loves me and died for my sins, and I am going to heaven Whoo hoo.

oops sorry.

I am quite aware of all of that. It isn't going to shake my faith at all. Why should it? I have a personal relationship with Jesus. I don't need proof outside of that. I know in my heart what is right.
If you are really interested you should check out psalm 36 in the KJV 36 words from the begining is shake count 36 words from the end is spear.
shakespear yup that's right freaky huh? yeah I don't care. God is God, and Jesus loves me and died for my sins, and I am going to heaven Whoo hoo.

oops sorry. Do you plan to drag as many down with you as you can? Die and take others with you… the warrior ethic is good. :)
Incidentally, it was spelled Shakespeare.

No, no, no. No.

Just because the Bible contains things that are provable historically doesn't mean that the things it asserts that are unprovable are automatically true.

That's like saying the Tunguska Event was a crash landing of aliens just because a place called Tunguska exists.



When it makes unlikely claims that are far ahead of their time which end up being correct, it kinda leans towards being true. I wasn't relying on historical evidence alone, there is scientific evidence.

According to the Horus accounts, Horus had four semi-gods that were followers.
Hmmm... I found this on a website. "Horus was known as Harpocrates by the Greeks and Romans, because he was the silent one." I wonder if the four semi-gods (http://www.marx-brothers.org/) were Grouchocrates, Chicocrates, Gummocrates and Zeppocrates? ;-)

Do you plan to drag as many down with you as you can? Die and take others with you… the warrior ethic is good. :)
Incidentally, it was spelled Shakespeare.
yeah I know that too. I was being... well there really isn't any defense for it. I was being mean. I am tired of people who think they are big bad Biblical scholars because someone told them that so and so is messed up in the Bible. It is hilarious to me, having studied the Bible my whole life, the things people think are going to trip me up. Like the fact that many Christain holidays are celebrated on days that are associated with pagan holidays, or that gnostic gospels were left out of the Bible. I really don't care. sorry if that is offending to anyone, but I don't really care about that either. The Bible says nowhere "thou shall not offend" it does however say many things about when foolish people should just keep thier mouths shut, so on that note. I think I am going to exit this conversation for a while unless someone has a question that I can answer specifically.

Hmmm... I found this on a website. "Horus was known as Harpocrates by the Greeks and Romans, because he was the silent one." I wonder if the four semi-gods (http://www.marx-brothers.org/) were Grouchocrates, Chicocrates, Gummocrates and Zeppocrates? ;-)
LOL

ah but myths do change a lot over time. I don't believe that Jesus' story has changed very much. I do agree that this discussion should probibly be handled outside this thread.

Really? The Illiad has remained pretty constant through the years and I would bet you would consider that myth. As for Jesus' story changing or not I believe it has. Put the Gospels in order of date written (best guess) Mark (around 70 AD), Mathew (Around 85-90), Luke (90ish), John (100 or later) and I believe you will see an interesting pattern. Jesus becomes more and more God-like with more and more unexplainable powers. In the very oldest copies of Mark we know about, we don't even see the resurected Jesus as it ends in 16:7-8 But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you. And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid. (note: "goeth before you into Galilee" may be reffering to a state of mind not a phyisical destination) And it is only John (the last Gospel to be written) that says explicitly that Jesus and God are the same. Add to the fact that there are 25 other known Gospels and the Divinity of Jesus was not established for good until the Council of Nicea in 325 AD I think that how Jesus is viewed has changed over time and is changing today.

Really? The Illiad has remained pretty constant through the years and I would bet you would consider that myth. As for Jesus' story changing or not I believe it has. Put the Gospels in order of date written (best guess) Mark (around 70 AD), Mathew (Around 85-90), Luke (90ish), John (100 or later) and I believe you will see an interesting pattern. Jesus becomes more and more God-like with more and more unexplainable powers. In the very oldest copies of Mark we know about, we don't even see the resurected Jesus as it ends in 16:7-8 But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you. And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid. (note: "goeth before you into Galilee" may be reffering to a state of mind not a phyisical destination) And it is only John (the last Gospel to be written) that says explicitly that Jesus and God are the same. Add to the fact that there are 25 other known Gospels and the Divinity of Jesus was not established for good until the Council of Nicea in 325 AD I think that how Jesus is viewed has changed over time and is changing today.
a lot of that can be attributed to different writing styles, you can nit pick just about anything you want. like I said I don't really care.

If however you would like to come up with some specific examples of changes (ie actual verses) I would be happy to go point by point with you and try to explain to the best of my ability.

I guess that means the events described in the Illiad literally occured, then? All those compelling characters who lived and saw the gods, who fought, loved, and died...I guess we can't claim they were fiction, eh?


Um, yes, people knew things about the empirical world back then. None of what you posted was news to the Greeks, for instance. I have no idea what you are trying to prove. After all, the Bible also claims that snakes talk and all the world's animals fit on a single boat...if you want to play the "empiricism" game then you probably shouldn't use the Bible as your gamepiece.

Like I said before, Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure contains factual pieces of information, and specific references to real people who really lived and real places that really exist(ed). That doesn't mean that people 2000 years from now should believe that the events described in Bill and Ted really took place.


Meh. It wasn't very useful, to be honest.


Most of the claims I provided were not verifiable via empricism at the time they were presented. The thing is, you like to hide behind the "Historical evidence alone isn't proof of anything" argument, no matter how much historical or scientific evidence is provided. It's the same thing that some creationists use on evolutionists, it's just denial of evidence. Perhaps if you can make several scientific predictions with no evidence of their veracity, and have them be proven exactly true 2000 years from now, people will take your Bill and Ted story seriously....that is, if you hadn't admitted to making it up out of mockery. Remember the issue of the snake: These things were recognized as supernatural events, which defied natural laws. Were talking snakes accepted as the norm? No. That is the concept of a "miracle."

As for the ark issue: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/answersbook/arksize13.asp

Also, these things were written several hundred to a thousand years before the advent of Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates....

yeah I know that too. I was being... well there really isn't any defense for it. I was being mean. I am tired of people who think they are big bad Biblical scholars because someone told them that so and so is messed up in the Bible. It is hilarious to me, having studied the Bible my whole life, the things people think are going to trip me up. Like the fact that many Christain holidays are celebrated on days that are associated with pagan holidays, or that gnostic gospels were left out of the Bible. I really don't care. sorry if that is offending to anyone, but I don't really care about that either. The Bible says nowhere "thou shall not offend" it does however say many things about when foolish people should just keep thier mouths shut, so on that note. I think I am going to exit this conversation for a while unless someone has a question that I can answer specifically.

Again, that post wasn't aimed at you so much as at others who would claim that the bible is something it isn't - the literal truth.
I can accept the fact that there are many different influences in the bible, I agree with some, I disagree with others, but on the whole I think they serve to enrich the lively imagery and metaphors the bible is written in. There is some truth in many or most of its accounts, but to take them all at face value seems very naive to me.

Most of the claims I provided were not verifiable via empricism at the time they were presented.

Actually, all of them were...

Again, that post wasn't aimed at you so much as at others who would claim that the bible is something it isn't - the literal truth.
I can accept the fact that there are many different influences in the bible, I agree with some, I disagree with others, but on the whole I think they serve to enrich the lively imagery and metaphors the bible is written in. There is some truth in many or most of its accounts, but to take them all at face value seems very naive to me.
taking anything at face value is extreemly naive. I always research everything, my main annoyance is people who do not. The people who believe what they believe because someone told them it was so. I know sounds funny coming from a Christian huh?

taking anything at face value is extreemly naive. I always research everything, my main annoyance is people who do not. The people who believe what they believe because someone told them it was so. I know sounds funny coming from a Christian huh?

Not really, when I still was one, that was one of my own arguments ;)

taking anything at face value is extreemly naive. I always research everything, my main annoyance is people who do not. The people who believe what they believe because someone told them it was so. I know sounds funny coming from a Christian huh? No, more like (as Cohen the Barbarian put it) "A refreshing fart in a roomful of roses".

Originally Posted by Smunkeeville
According to the Horus accounts, Horus had four semi-gods that were followers.

Hmmm... I found this on a website. "Horus was known as Harpocrates by the Greeks and Romans, because he was the silent one." I wonder if the four semi-gods (http://www.marx-brothers.org/) were Grouchocrates, Chicocrates, Gummocrates and Zeppocrates? ;-)

Yes... yes they were.

But we mustn't forget:

Moecury, Larryus, and Curlyros..!


-The REAL Iakeo

Not really, when I still was one, that was one of my own arguments ;)
you would be surprised how many people who I have come across in life with big bad vendettas against Christianity because they were quoted a peice of a verse that was taken out of context.

I always try to tell people look it up for yourself. Even when I quote verses I would be a lot more comfortable if everyone didn't take my word for it and looked it up, you never know when the person you are talking to is full of it.

a lot of that can be attributed to different writing styles, you can nit pick just about anything you want. like I said I don't really care.

If however you would like to come up with some specific examples of changes (ie actual verses) I would be happy to go point by point with you and try to explain to the best of my ability.

And I am happy with my understanding of the Bible and feel no need to nitpick various things because I read them as myths (there is nothing wrong with myths and they can point to fundamental Truth). However I was pointing out that the undsterdanding of Jesus has changed over time and is changing today (whether for the better or worse is up to debate). Even if you don't believe as the Gnostics and Monophysites did, you can't deny that they did exist. You have to admit that the Story of Jesus means different things to Southern Baptists and other conservative Christian groups than it does to the Prespyterians and Methodists and other moderates than it does to Unitarians and United Church of Christ and other liberals and it means yet another thing to the Mormons and another thing to Seventh Day Adventists. Heck the fact that the Jesus story means something different to you and me indicates that it has changed over time. I admit I am probably wrong with many (if not most) of my ideas about the Divine (after all I can't even pick out the right tie in the morning), however if someone is going to say they know for sure, I'm going to demand a mathematical type proof, because that is the only thing that is certain.

And I am happy with my understanding of the Bible and feel no need to nitpick various things because I read them as myths (there is nothing wrong with myths and they can point to fundamental Truth). However I was pointing out that the undsterdanding of Jesus has changed over time and is changing today (whether for the better or worse is up to debate). Even if you don't believe as the Gnostics and Monophysites did, you can't deny that they did exist. You have to admit that the Story of Jesus means different things to Southern Baptists and other conservative Christian groups than it does to the Prespyterians and Methodists and other moderates than it does to Unitarians and United Church of Christ and other liberals and it means yet another thing to the Mormons and another thing to Seventh Day Adventists. Heck the fact that the Jesus story means something different to you and me indicates that it has changed over time. I admit I am probably wrong with many (if not most) of my ideas about the Divine (after all I can't even pick out the right tie in the morning), however if someone is going to say they know for sure, I'm going to demand a mathematical type proof, because that is the only thing that is certain.
I can understand that point of veiw. I am not sure that God can be proven as such. I don't claim to have such proof either.
You are right that the bible is interpreted differently from one denomination to the next. I can attest to that being brought up Southern Baptist who married in to a Church of Christ family, and the sister in law of a practicing Mormon. Yeah those dinner table discussions get pretty interesting at Christmas.
Thank you for clarifying and please excuse my foolish behavior. I am working on it daily.

Actually, all of them were...

The spread of germs was observable? Why, and here I was thinking that the microscope wasn't invented until a few thousand years later...

taking anything at face value is extreemly naive. I always research everything, my main annoyance is people who do not. The people who believe what they believe because someone told them it was so. I know sounds funny coming from a Christian huh?


Yeah...if more people would actually spend time studying the Bible before blindly supporting/attacking it, I would have a lot less headaches...

The spread of germs was observable? Why, and here I was thinking that the microscope wasn't invented until a few thousand years later...

Show me where it says "germs", please.
I assume you are refering to the "wash you hands in flowing water" bit. Would it suprise you to learn that the Egyptians treated wounds with disinfectant a good few centuries before the bible was written? Without ever having seen a germ....

When it makes unlikely claims that are far ahead of their time which end up being correct, it kinda leans towards being true. I wasn't relying on historical evidence alone, there is scientific evidence.

There are at least a few of those things you posted earlier that prior civilizations knew. The writers of the Bible could easily have gotten that information from other sources than divine inspiration.

Most of the claims I provided were not verifiable via empricism at the time they were presented. The thing is, you like to hide behind the "Historical evidence alone isn't proof of anything" argument, no matter how much historical or scientific evidence is provided. It's the same thing that some creationists use on evolutionists, it's just denial of evidence. Perhaps if you can make several scientific predictions with no evidence of their veracity, and have them be proven exactly true 2000 years from now, people will take your Bill and Ted story seriously....that is, if you hadn't admitted to making it up out of mockery. Remember the issue of the snake: These things were recognized as supernatural events, which defied natural laws. Were talking snakes accepted as the norm? No. That is the concept of a "miracle."

As for the ark issue: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/answersbook/arksize13.asp

Also, these things were written several hundred to a thousand years before the advent of Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates....

Let me ask you something...

Do you think that the Epic of Gilgamesh is literally true?

Yeah...if more people would actually spend time studying the Bible before blindly supporting/attacking it, I would have a lot less headaches...
me too.

No, more like (as Cohen the Barbarian put it) "A refreshing fart in a roomful of roses".
I am sorry. It must be the combo of still suffering from heat exhastion from yesterday and my allergy meds. but I can't quite get that one. can you clarify?
pardon my confusion

I am sorry. It must be the combo of still suffering from heat exhastion from yesterday and my allergy meds. but I can't quite get that one. can you clarify?
pardon my confusion

I take it you never heard of the Discworld (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discworld) ?

Cohen the Barbarian (http://www.ull.ac.uk/exhibitions/pratchett/cohen.jpg) is one of the carakters

I take it you never heard of the Discworld (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discworld) ?

Cohen the Barbarian (http://www.ull.ac.uk/exhibitions/pratchett/cohen.jpg) is one of the carakters
nope can't say I have.

Hmm... ok, so far, no confessing atheist showed up to enlighten me and show me the Truth...

Hmm... ok, so far, no confessing atheist showed up to enlighten me and show me the Truth...
I really don't think there is as much motivation for an athiest to convert anyone. I mean Christains think they are saving you from hell, athiests aren't saving you from anything.

I really don't think there is as much motivation for an athiest to convert anyone. I mean Christains think they are saving you from hell, athiests aren't saving you from anything.

I assumed they would be hiding somewhere, as so many Christians here claim that they keep getting attacked by atheists who won't let them speak about their faith?

So... did you convert?

So... did you convert?

I'm a systemist now :D

No, seriously, this thread hasn't changed much yet.

Originally Posted by Willamena
So... did you convert?

I'm a systemist now :D

No, seriously, this thread hasn't changed much yet.

A what...?

Is that a sys-TEM-ist, or a SYSTEM-ist..?

There IS a difference, you know. Do you believe in the "systemic-ness" of
reality (your metaphysics), or some "system" that is, or is controlled by,
reality..?

Do you believe in the great "Programmer" in heaven and earth, or the
great "Program" in heaven and earth (however you want to
define "heaven" of course)..?

Just curious.. :)

-The REAL Iakeo

A what...?

Is that a sys-TEM-ist, or a SYSTEM-ist..?

There IS a difference, you know. Do you believe in the "systemic-ness" of
reality (your metaphysics), or some "system" that is, or is controlled by,
reality..?

Do you believe in the great "Programmer" in heaven and earth, or the
great "Program" in heaven and earth (however you want to
define "heaven" of course)..?

Just curious.. :)

-The REAL Iakeo

Try here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9592827&postcount=21)

Or just read this thread :D

Try here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9592827&postcount=21)

Or just read this thread :D

Now you're just being lazy and circular. :)

I did read the post, actually. I'd like to hear YOUR explanation of it, in terms
of how that would be different from your (apparent) used-to-be-affiliated-
with catholicism practices.

I'd rather talk to you, as opposed to not, as you sound like an interesting
person.

..and it seems you believe more in the great "Programmer", than the
great "Program", in the sky,.. as it were.

If man created god, out of the aggregate "meme" that is humanity, then
shouldn't we be very careful of the god created by the aggregation of all the
ants on the planet,.. or even MORE careful of the ALGAE GOD..!!!?

..though that does beg the question as to what gods (as defined as the
aggregation of "critter/definable-object" memes) actually DO, as I'm dubious
about any similarity in function between the human god and the algae god.

Anyway,.. just curious..! :)


-The REAL Iakeo

I could be wrong here, but I think the "Systemist" thing mentioned in this thread would say that there is no separate Algae God or Ant God. I think what they're saying is that algae and ants help to make up the "Programmer" as you call it, just as we humans do.

*Shrug*

Join me, and together we can make a new religion!

Basic ideas:
We believe in complex systems theory, which states that consciousness arises from the congregation of living things. Human consciousness is a result of the complexity of our biological systems working in harmony with each other.
We believe that God is the result of this same occurrance, but on a universal level. He's a Gestalt being, if you like. God has a personality, and is a being of him/her/itself, but he affects the world only by influencing the cellular constructs of himself.
We believe that since we're all parts of the God system, it makes sense to go about our lives as we would be inclined to do, but to also bear in mind that working with those around us rather than against them will bring positive results.
We believe that the best standard of behaviour is therefore human empathy, as what is good for our fellow humans is also in God's best interests. However, we also feel that human empathy is an appropriate reaction to other beings like ourselves anyway, so that is not supposed to be a motivation; merely a description of consequence.
We believe that many people have a sense of awareness of God due to our part in his emergence, and that religion has arisen as a result of trying to put some sort of explanation to this awareness.
We therefore believe that all religion is valid as an attempt to reach out to this consciousness so long as it does not break the laws of human empathy.
We do not explicitly believe in spiritual rebirth, simply because death is part of maintaining God's general health. We do however allow for a belief in earthly reincarnation, as our materials on death will be redistributed into other life forms some day and we will become a part of that being.
We as a faith are open to all sorts of changes and strongly encourage scientific discovery. We condemn any train of thought that seeks to restrict the areas into which one may explore.
We believe that evolution seems like the most reasonable explanation for the origin of both God and Universe, although we are willing to accept the possibility that other Gods, Universes or beings, also formed through their own evolutionary process, may have created our ones by using physical laws and definitions (pointing to computation science as a possible example of replicating this possibility).
We believe that the figures such as Buddha, Jesus and Mohammed had a profound awareness of God. We furthermore believe that, by and large, they were who they say they were. For all intents and purposes, everyone is a son or daughter of God, an incarnation of the ultimate and a servant to their deity.
We believe that we should look after ourselves, and should analyse our lifestyle with the intention of removing that which deliberately does us harm.
We believe that the cause of evil in the world is raw human self-indulgence at the expense of others.
We believe that sin can be overcome by human endeavour, but also that aspiration to and influence by God can give us encouragement and enthusiasm to do so.
We believe in the intrinsic value of contemplation, meditation or prayer, we believe in living out our faith through our lives and we believe in charity towards those in need.
Finally, we believe that crass evangelising is pointless unless we have been asked to do so by those who wish to learn about our faith. Ultimately, what we believe has no consequence on any otherworldly incarnation, and we accept that people can be selfless without adherence to our ideas.

How does that sound? We can even all group together to come up with other ideas and a name! ^^

You have no idea how close to Hinduism this is do you?


'Cept we believe in making our posts easy to read.

;)

You have no idea how close to Hinduism this is do you?


'Cept we believe in making our posts easy to read.

;)

Don't Hindus revere cows as the highest form of reincarnation?

I could be wrong here, but I think the "Systemist" thing mentioned in this thread would say that there is no separate Algae God or Ant God. I think what they're saying is that algae and ants help to make up the "Programmer" as you call it, just as we humans do.

There's no programmer, that's one of the points. There is no creator in the traditional *puff, let there be light - sense. The ideas is that god IS the univers, and we are part of it and therefore parts of god himself.
He didn't program us any more than you program your skin cells to produce melatonin, he exists and we exist in him. Everything you see around you is part of god's divine nature.
It's a form of pantheism, I would say. And yes, it is comparable to Hinduism in some respects, Buddhism in others, it's comparable to most religions.

Good or evil is determined by how we treat god... that is to say the entire rest of the world. If we manage to live peacefully and respect life, we will live happily and will prosper. If we tip the balance, don't respect life and mistreat others, we will feel the effects in the same way as god does. You could compare that to an illness, really.

There's no promis of salvation or eternal life... we live this live, and when it is over, our physical parts will return to the cycle of creation, and so would our souls.

It's a philosophy I can live by and agree with.

You have no idea how close to Hinduism this is do you?


'Cept we believe in making our posts easy to read.

;)I actually have a pretty decent idea how similar it is to grassroots Hinduism; it's a part of the inspiration for Systemity. Eastern thinking in general is a fascinating field that the West could probably learn a lot from if it wasn't so put off by the non-christian nature of its spirituality and some of what has been misinterpreted as bizarrities of its tradition.

That said, Hinduism isn't alone in its influence; there's some Buddhist, some Christian, some Evolutionist Atheist and a little Pagan thinking in there too. Plus, added to the mix is a little western-style moral repercussions, Baha'i tolerance and the obligatory philosophical long-windedness. ^^

Well, since both Christians and Atheists on this forum seem to feel quite some missionary fevor now and then, but can't seem to find an outlet for it except for threads that are trying to discuss religious topics, I give you a once in a liftime chance.

About the convertee (me) :
Born and bred Roman Catholic, leaning towards agnosticism lately.
Most important value : tolerance
Generally pro-choice, anti-gun (or rather, pro-gun registration), anti-death penalty
Believes in freedom of expression and speech, but holds politness very dear.

So, in case anybody want to give it a try, go ahead and convert me. :)
Convert or I'll shoot you!

Convert or I'll shoot you!

It might help if you told me what to convert to first...

Convert or I'll shoot you!*Notes to self; include the possibility of provision for non-lethal self-defence martial arts tutoring*

^^;

When it comes to religion, agnostics are always right. Even if it turns out they're going to hell, at least they're right
Heh
True

Research and make up your own mind. I'm trying to convert you to think for yoursefl! Goodluck, whichever way ya go!
I recommend the thinking one... far too many people don't bother trying it...

It might help if you told me what to convert to first...

Well...You're the one who asked to be converted...So convert to whatever you want me to convert you to! I'm not a patient man. NOW!!!