Disbelief of evolution on the rise...but not in the US

[Rhyfelwyr]

Yah, you think this is a first time I heard this? People go through colossal feats of logic, knowledge, resources, pure effort and most of all, stupidity, to justify their faith. I am not pointing fingers at anyone because everyone is doing it. I can justify anything using your logic. Anything. The point that irked me the most, though, was what would happen to Jews after Christ came? Why in the blooping heel would God, the epitome of all tings reactionary, stable, unchanging, etc turn a whole religion upside down and force people to accept an entirely new truth after believing in another truth for millennia after millenia? Yah, right.

The thing is, I'm don't think that the early Christians really were that different from the Jews. Although some atheists use the term "Jesus sect" mockingly, it's really quite appropriate for what was a liberal messianic offshoot of Judaism. After Christianity became accepted in the Roman Empire, it did of course change dramatically. But before Christians actively tried to dissasociate themselves from Jews by doing things like changing the sabbath, they really musn't have appeared that different. At the end of the day, both Jews and Christians still follow the Ten Commandments, and the same moral law in general. They share concepts such as a sabbath day and it is for both Saturday (although Jesus was morelaid back about it). The biggest difference is in terms of the ceremonial practices of the Jews, however it should be remembered that these were only ever given by God to ethnic Israel, and not Gentiles. So I think Christianity's break from it's Jewish roots was a very gradual process, and they have been increasingly revived through several theories. For example, the idea of 'spiritual Israel', or even more ethnic based, British Israelism.

And seriously, how many millions were slaughtered by God's commands in the Old Testament? You had thousands murdered for the smallest of things, sometimes so small, it becomes laughable. How does Jesus' principle of "turning the other cheek" fit into this? I mean, we are going from a Hitler to Ghandi change here. You think I will swallow that? Did God just change his morals or what?

Yes, I you may say I am simplifying things, but what is your excuse for this? I want to hear it.

Sure, I can digest the fact God gives different instructions to people. Alright. But we are talking about god himself changing. Day after day I wonder how people can remain theistic. If anything, ignorance is the chief factor. Now you and PVC are certainly not that, as you have though aplenty on this topic, but does it console you that the vast majority of your colleagues stick their heads up their rumps and flush their brains down the drains in order to adhere to their beliefs?

Regarding 'turning the other cheek', that is due to the fact that Jesus says that all judgment rests with God alone.

Also, I don't think that God changes in the NT from the OT. People always say how Jesus says God is all about love etc... but at the same time, remember, Jesus believed that God was going to send the majority of mankind to burn in hell. This 'paradox' of a wrathful/loving God isn't between the genocidal God of the OT and the loving God of the NT, since those stereotypes are wrong. It's very much a paradox of the NT.

Indeed, I feel that many Christians today do not try to adress this apparent paradox. They say that my understanding of Christianity (Calvinism) is hypoctrical since Jesus was so accepting... they seem to be forgetting that Jesus would turn people away if they refused to surrender everything when they would leave to join him. They say Jesus was always about forgiveness, and yet as I said above, he believed most people were going to a very nasty place. Frequently I've been told that Puritans/Presbyterians etc put the message of the OT over the NT, but it seems to me like these people are just picking and choosing the bits they like from the NT.

As to whether this is in fact a paradox or not, that would require a big theological discussion. Generally, I would say it boils down to a case of 'tough love' - Jesus is accepting of even the worst of sinner, but only when they come in genuine repentance.

Yeah, right. I am SURE you yourself do not believe that. Right? Please say yes. Christianity, as all religions, changes so much over time that... Well, no need to blabber any more on this aspect.

I don't quite understand what you're saying there, but I believe there is one true Christian faith. I don't believe we become Christians because we are raised in a certain environment, one that has changed dramatically over the centuries with various historic forces, political maneuvres etc. Rather, I attribute it to the regenerative power of Christ. I'm sure it seems silly to non-Christians, but it's a pretty central idea to the faith.

Of course, this does not mean that I am not aware of just how much 'Christianity' has changed ever since it became institutionalised and prone to corruption. To borrow Ian Paisley's phrase, I believe 'Bible Protestantism' is the true continuation of what the earliest Christians believed.

Of course they are not taking seriously. We all know they exist, we all know Mithraism existed around six hundred years before Christ and that it became popular over a wide area around the time of Jesus, but srsly, who cares? So much easier to ignore it, right? Who wants to challenge their beliefs. Happy are those who are ignorant. Change is stressful. Change is bad.

Look, Rhy, your argument(?) is pushing the boundary of farce and humour. I struggled to maintain my dignity as I was typing in the Uni library. I know nothing of TWC - the only sorts of forums I visited there were the EB forums. (nvm, I thought you meant that because so many people use my argument on TWC, it is thus rendered invalid, sorry, I misunderstood you) However, what is known is that at least half the time, commonly circulating arguments probably have good grounds. The other half, they may not. Mostly, though, every argument contains at least a portion of truth.

I lol'd at the misunderstanding, that would have been a spectacular ad hominem if I had meant that.

My point was simply that from what I've seen, many of these stories of startling similarities between various ancient Gods and Jesus are not really so spectacular once people get the facts straight. Of course, I would expect there to be some degree of truth in them, considering how people so often traded myths and Gods around these times. However, to use them as proof that Christianity is plagiarised is a bit unfair from what I've seen (I'm no expert just going from what little I know on this). Here's an example of one of the threads I'm talking about at the TWC.

It just seems that these Zeitgeist theories are part of a slightly 'tacky' atheist culture which seems to have been spawned by internet debates between militant atheists and US Evangelical fundamentalists. Other elements of this culture, like the whole "religion causes wars" thing can be cringeworthy at times. Of course, we Christians are just as bad, and we argue in turn how Hitler was an atheist and that Darwin's theory of evolution caused the Holocuast. But so goes the magical world of the internet (except here, of course).

[Kadagar_AV]

I don't quite understand what you're saying there, but I believe there is one true Christian faith. I don't believe we become Christians because we are raised in a certain environment, one that has changed dramatically over the centuries with various historic forces, political maneuvres etc. Rather, I attribute it to the regenerative power of Christ. I'm sure it seems silly to non-Christians, but it's a pretty central idea to the faith.

Are you kidding?

Would be interesting to see how you back that up.

Logic tells me that there are WAY more, say, American christians with christian parents, than chinese christians with non-christian parents...

[Aemilius Paulus]

Are you kidding?

Hey, religion never makes any sense, nor conforms to any school of logic ever devised... On the contrary, it (mainly the Christians while proselyting) exploits nearly every logical fallacy taught in your average secondary/post-secondary English Composition and Writing classes...

[Rhyfelwyr]

Are you kidding?

Would be interesting to see how you back that up.

Logic tells me that there are WAY more, say, American christians with christian parents, than chinese christians with non-christian parents...

Bah! American Evanglicalism, Orthodox, Roman Catholic Church are just torture poor souls with all the trappings of the whore of Babylon!

Most people that call themselves Christians today aren't really part of the true church. Yes how shockingly intolerant of me, Jesus accepted everyone, right!?

The only time God's promises are granted through generations of families is when they are part of the original covenant with ethnic Israel. Just like us God-fearing Protestants of Ulster and Scotland! We are the descendents of the lost tribes of Israel! Cú Chullain and then the Culdees have defended us from the pagan Romanists ever since they arrived on the British Isles from Spain! But now the beast is attacking the earthly inheritance of God's chosen people, and the Pope will desecrate the temple mount when he declares a new era of peace in the middle east and shows himself to be the antichrist! And this will coincide with a united Ireland and the break up of the Union. Coincidence?! No, Israel is foreshadowing the final persecution of the God's people by the harlot church, and the fate of all Christians will be synonymous with that of ethnic Israel as the Book of Revelation plays itself out.

Am I being a crazy enough fundamentalist now?

[Aemilius Paulus]

Am I being a crazy enough fundamentalist now?

You have always been so

[Centurion1]

Find that in the Old Testament. The Bible is overtly contradictory anyhow. And the last time I checked, up until recently, fear was the main trump card of a priest proselyting... People nowadays mainly say they "love God", but not too long ago everyone affirmed their piety by insisting they "feared God".

lol not in the old testament. Old testament is not as "nice" as the new testament

[Hax]

The pre-Islamic Arabs did believe and even worship jinns, but they also had straight up gods like Uzza and crew (and the distinction is very significant). Allah to the pre-Islamic Arabs was a god (the major God), not a jinn.

Allat was a moon god, if I recall.

lol not in the old testament. Old testament is not as "nice" as the new testament

Clearly somebody has forgotten Revelations. "Nicety" is relative.

[Kadagar_AV]

Bah! American Evanglicalism, Orthodox, Roman Catholic Church are just torture poor souls with all the trappings of the whore of Babylon!

Most people that call themselves Christians today aren't really part of the true church. Yes how shockingly intolerant of me, Jesus accepted everyone, right!?

The only time God's promises are granted through generations of families is when they are part of the original covenant with ethnic Israel. Just like us God-fearing Protestants of Ulster and Scotland! We are the descendents of the lost tribes of Israel! Cú Chullain and then the Culdees have defended us from the pagan Romanists ever since they arrived on the British Isles from Spain! But now the beast is attacking the earthly inheritance of God's chosen people, and the Pope will desecrate the temple mount when he declares a new era of peace in the middle east and shows himself to be the antichrist! And this will coincide with a united Ireland and the break up of the Union. Coincidence?! No, Israel is foreshadowing the final persecution of the God's people by the harlot church, and the fate of all Christians will be synonymous with that of ethnic Israel as the Book of Revelation plays itself out.

Am I being a crazy enough fundamentalist now?

You had me for a second...

Good one though!

I wouldnt mind you answer my original question though

[Reenk Roink]

I probably shouldn't but the Backroom topics are so boring now (especially that Tribesman is on break)...

Aemilius Paulus, the content of your posts in their wording and facts cited are quite sloppy.

You mention Campbell as a source when dealing with the influence of Mithraism on early Christianity (actually you name Campbell explicitly in a related but different avenue, but I am going to go ahead and assume that he was also one of the authors of the "books on comparative religion" you mentioned you had read). Campbell is certainly an authority in the field, however, while you seem to agree with on his conclusion on the Mithratic influence on Christianity, I request you actually go and read his actual exposition on HOW he came to those conclusions. Taking the virgin birth motif for an example, take a look at the "virgin birth" of Mithras as compared to that of Christ. Some other authorities (and pure laymen like myself) look at the inference and judgment made by Campbell to be exceptionally tenuous and questionable...

The pre-Islamic Arabs did believe and even worship jinns, but they also had straight up gods like Uzza and crew (and the distinction is very significant). Allah to the pre-Islamic Arabs was a god (the major God), not a jinn.

You've used the word 'logic' extremely loosely in many places, can I call you out to actually explicate what the heck you mean by the following claim?

Hey, religion never makes any sense, nor conforms to any school of logic ever devised...

See, I'd argue that religion actually does a pretty nice job of 'conforming' to at least one 'school of logic' (let's say classical logic for ease). Take Nicean Christianity for example, the only difficulties one might run into logically with contradictions are the trinity aspect and perhaps the predestination vs. free will debate. Of course, the theologians throughout the years have loved to talk at length about these and how they don't pose any problems.