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

[Aemilius Paulus]

Grace?

Find that somewhere else, as in unmerited, uncontractural salvation achieved solely through love.

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".

That said, I am sure it is not too difficult to find holes in that. So how about Hinduism and the bhakti marga? Same principle - love brings salvation. Read Joseph Campbell. His works will show you how similar everything is. And he is no random demagogue. No, he is the father of comparative religion, in the sense that he is the most respected figure in the field. There are four yogas, four paths to moksha, the liberation of the soul from the samsara. They are raja, jnana, karma, and bhakti. Meditation and self-mastery, knowledge, work, and love (all respectively). The four paths.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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".

That's Augustine, 350 years after Jesus died. The Bible is not a "book", it is a collection of writings.

That said, I am sure it is not too difficult to find holes in that. So how about Hinduism and the bhakti marga? Same principle - love brings salvation. Read Joseph Campbell. His works will show you how similar everything is. And he is no random demagogue. No, he is the father of comparative religion, in the sense that he is the most respected figure in the field. There are four yogas, four paths to moksha, the liberation of the soul from the samsara. They are raja, jnana, karma, and bhakti. Meditation and self-mastery, knowledge, work, and love (all respectively). The four paths.

Christianity has only one path though, doesn't it?

[Aemilius Paulus]

Christianity has only one path though, doesn't it?

Bollox. Please do not seriously tell me you believe in that. I have not read one respected, objective theologian who insists Christianity is but one path. On the contrary, Smith and Campbell, the two chief authorities, argue to the opposite of what you proclaimed.

And what difference would it make, that Christianity has only one path anyway? I was pointing out that nearly everything in Christianity is plagiarised, to put it harshly. If Christianity has one path and it is not unique, then what difference does it make? My point remains. I never claimed the structure of Christianity was identical. But the details. All the details are virtually the same, although they may be re-arranged to custom-tailor the religion.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Bollox. Please do not seriously tell me you believe in that. I have not read one respected, objective theologian who insists Christianity is but one path. On the contrary, Smith and Campbell, the two chief authorities, argue to the opposite of what you proclaimed.

And what difference would it make, that Christianity has only one path anyway? I was pointing out that nearly everything in Christianity is plagiarised, to put it harshly. If Christianity has one path and it is not unique, then what difference does it make? My point remains. I never claimed the structure of Christianity was identical. But the details. All the details are virtually the same, although they may be re-arranged to custom-tailor the religion.

Campbell's work was based on his own religious beliefs (Total Nominalism). So.... No more reliable than anyone else he was also not a Theologian, but a mythologist.

In any case, demonstrate Grace is not unique to Christianity. That there is only one path is itself a unique aspect.

[Aemilius Paulus]

So how do you explain this?: Mithra was god who took on the human form and was in fact born of a virgin. If such origins are not similar enough, he belonged to the holy trinity and was the link between Heaven and Earth. Not surprisingly, he ascended into heaven after his death - he was in a tomb and it took him three days to be resurrected. Folowers of Mithraism believe in heaven and hell (with demons), a day of judgment, practise baptism, refer to Mithra as 'the Light of the World', 'Sheperd', 'Redeemer/Saviour', or even the 'Messiah'. They eat bread and drink of wine to symbolise Mithra's flesh and blood.

On top of this, Mithra had twelve companions and he travelled around, performing miracles. As in any religion, teaching of the great flood are in Mithraism as well. Oh, and of course, no wonder the Church made December 25th, the midnight, as Christ's official B-day. 'Cause Mithra's birthday was on the same date. Coincidence? Everyone knows that the Church merely wanted to monopolise on the worship on that date. Just as Mithra's day was Sunday.

I am not even going into Zoroastrianism yet... But it was the earliest example, without the messianic figure the likes of Jesus and Mithra.

[Aemilius Paulus]

In any case, demonstrate Grace is not unique to Christianity. That there is only one path is itself a unique aspect.

Look, I am not saying Christianity is a literal carbon copy of some single religion. Christianity takes practically its every concept, belief, story from someone else, often a number of faiths, and puts it in some place within its structure. You cannot expect one religion to be identical to the other - a bit of cosmetic change is needed to get people upgrade from Judaism 1.0 to Christianity 2.0.

People will not buy Windows 7 if it has absolutely zero new features and does not look different. But if it is more streamlined, merely looks different, and is given out at a lower price (Christianity was available and advertised to everyone, unlike some other religions), then people will swallow it, despite the fact it actually has less features than Vista, and still consumes vastly more resources than XP.

Grace is little different from the main tenets of Mithraism or Bhakti marga, which is where Mithraism got its idea, which was in turn 'borrowed' by Christianity. The concept is the same, save for a few aesthetic details.

BTW, good job on overlooking that the Old Testament bears little real relation to the New one though... That was quite a steal from the Jews... Not many religions can take something and adopt it practically without changing it and then call it their own... Forget the fact that the Old Testament champions entirely different laws, regulations, paths to salvation, morals, themes, etc... :S

EDIT:

That depends on what 'view' of Christianity you're talking about though.

Well yeah, I mean, I am not calling Christians idiots or anything. Someone gets a same base and everyone goes different ways from the same source. That is only natural. That is why I am not taking anything but the Bible and Early Christianity (which already had wildly differing views of course, but meh, at least they were in the beginning stages of the development).

[Rhyfelwyr]

BTW, good job on overlooking that the Old Testament bears little real relation to the New one though... That was quite a steal from the Jews... Not many religions can take something and adopt it practically without changing it and then call it their own... Forget the fact that the Old Testament champions entirely different laws, regulations, paths to salvation, morals, themes, etc... :S

The whole NT is about the fulfilment of the OT. In the OT, God gave all the ceremonial laws to the Jews as a curse for making the golden calf, but with the promise that their messiah would come eventually. The fancy laws and regulations for the Jewish peope are described in the NT as being symbolic of everything that Christ would do.

Also, things like the Ten Commandments did serve a purpose, just not what the people thought they did at the time. So whereas the Jewish people thought they had to live by some set laws to earn a place in heaven, Christ comes along at tells them that the strictness of the law only served to show them that they couldn't follow it by their own merit, and that it should have driven them to seek redemption through him instead. Otherwise, how would the language of David in the Psalms make any sense? He always speaks of his redeemer, his rock, his foundations etc... do these sound like the words of a man whose following the law by himself? No, because his failure to fulfil the law pointed him to Christ. That's why many Reformed theologians argue that Old and New Covenants were one and the same in that they were both rooted in Christ's blood; however the means were different, with the latter pointing lifting the curse of the law and pointing us to Christ more directly.

Granted, the OT and NT appear very different, in that the first speaks of salvation through works, the latter through regeneration by God. The OT is all about symbolism and ethnic Israel foreshadowing the journey of all Christians (Hebrews 7-11), the NT is about restoring the link to God more directly.

Well yeah, I mean, I am not calling Christians idiots or anything. Someone gets a same base and everyone goes different ways from the same source. That is only natural. That is why I am not taking anything but the Bible and Early Christianity (which already had wildly differing views of course, but meh, at least they were in the beginning stages of the development).

For most Christians though, their beliefs are justified by the fact that they are supposed to be the same as those of the early Christians.

Also, regarding Mithra etc, I thought these 'similarities' with the Bible weren't really taken seriously? These points pop up a lot on the TWC's religious forum, but the hardline atheists there (a guy called Tankbuster in particular if you know him) say that these theories are rubbish and were largely conjured up by some German historians in the 19th Century with a lack of any serious evidence.

[Aemilius Paulus]

The whole NT is about the fulfilment of the OT. In the OT, God gave all the ceremonial laws to the Jews as a curse for making the golden calf, but with the promise that their messiah would come eventually. The fancy laws and regulations for the Jewish peope are described in the NT as being symbolic of everything that Christ would do.

Also, things like the Ten Commandments did serve a purpose, just not what the people thought they did at the time. So whereas the Jewish people thought they had to live by some set laws to earn a place in heaven, Christ comes along at tells them that the strictness of the law only served to show them that they couldn't follow it by their own merit, and that it should have driven them to seek redemption through him instead. Otherwise, how would the language of David in the Psalms make any sense? He always speaks of his redeemer, his rock, his foundations etc... do these sound like the words of a man whose following the law by himself? No, because his failure to fulfil the law pointed him to Christ. That's why many Reformed theologians argue that Old and New Covenants were one and the same in that they were both rooted in Christ's blood; however the means were different, with the latter pointing lifting the curse of the law and pointing us to Christ more directly.

Granted, the OT and NT appear very different, in that the first speaks of salvation through works, the latter through regeneration by God. The OT is all about symbolism and ethnic Israel foreshadowing the journey of all Christians (Hebrews 7-11), the NT is about restoring the link to God more directly.

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.

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?

For most Christians though, their beliefs are justified by the fact that they are supposed to be the same as those of the early Christians.

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.

Also, regarding Mithra etc, I thought these 'similarities' with the Bible weren't really taken seriously? These points pop up a lot on the TWC's religious forum, but the hardline atheists there (a guy called Tankbuster in particular if you know him) say that these theories are rubbish and were largely conjured up by some German historians in the 19th Century with a lack of any serious evidence.

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.

That said, the reason for my amusement was that one cannot simply pull such solid facts out of nothing. These are not statistics or numbers or some random hypotheses we are speaking of. Mithraism was what I said it was. That was it. Take the facts in any manner you wish, but they are there, and simply because some deranged, bile-filled atheist is spilling them with reckless fury (yeah, I know that type, sadly) does not make the facts false. Your latter part of the post was quite a logical fallacy...

I wonder where Tankbuster is coming from. Beats me. I merely know what I read in my books on comparative religion. Mithraism is quite hazily documented, but the data is still there. And Zoroastrianism gave rise to much of Mithraism, and Zoroastrian beliefs heavily correlate with those of Mithraism. Messianic cults were commonplace back then. Countless characteristics of Mithraism were borrowed from other religions - blending is what makes every religion we now of. We can point out quite a bit of the Mithraic beliefs and their origins.

No reason why Christianity is an exception. Just as any religion, it built itself on the past. And the idea it continues Judaism is racist (towards Jews, and anti-Semitic would be a slightly better term), chauvinistic, unfounded, and downright laughable. An odd sect, one among hundreds, pops out of Judea. A charismatic figure gathers a flock of followers. The religion is persecuted, but then a state endorses it. The state happens to be a vast empire, and it spreads the message. Eventually, various religious philosophers, the clergy, historians, and general academics of the time attempt to legitimise and give depth to the religion by linking it to a old religion, claiming the new religion was just a "new revelation", but then hastily add that it is also the "final revelation" as well, lest another upstart takes away the monopoly on obfuscating and milking the hapless populace. Result: much of that part of the world believes in the "new" religion. The same story happens all the time, although usually on a smaller scale.


Nothing of that is new. Look at Islam. Founded by Mohammed, who was born in a time of unimaginable looseness of morals and behaviour in Arabia. The local populace worshiped jinns, the desert spirits all around him. Except that their reverence could barely, if at all, could be constituted as 'worship'. Empty of meaning, he went to the desert hermit-philosophers. They pointed to one of the jinns who they called 'Allah'. He was the most powerful, they said, and the only true one. Mohammed believed. But around him, people did not. For his preaching, he was eventually expelled (escaped more accurately). To a place we now call Medina. They liked him there, and he administrated them, as a governor. A helluva adept one too.

Long story short, he founded what would become the Islamic, Arab Empires. Instead of using an Empire, his followers become one, and spread the message. While on the home front, Mohammed claims he is merely continuing the tradition of the Jews, and that Moses, Abraham, Noah, Jesus, etc were all great prophets, but he was the final one. There goes the legitimisation. And it always points to the Jews, who had one of the oldest, most respected religion in the region.


Exact same story. Earlier religions, however, were not mutually exclusive, but were nevertheless often forcefully imposed. Similar trends occurred.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Look, I am not saying Christianity is a literal carbon copy of some single religion. Christianity takes practically its every concept, belief, story from someone else, often a number of faiths, and puts it in some place within its structure. You cannot expect one religion to be identical to the other - a bit of cosmetic change is needed to get people upgrade from Judaism 1.0 to Christianity 2.0.

It's every concept? That is an extremely totalitarian statement, and requires justification and evidence cited from sources if you want it to stand up.

Grace is little different from the main tenets of Mithraism or Bhakti marga, which is where Mithraism got its idea, which was in turn 'borrowed' by Christianity. The concept is the same, save for a few aesthetic details.

Christianity doesn't borrow its theology from Mithraism, just some of it's forms. The list you cited in your previous post is inaccurate. Although Mithras was born of a virgin he was not the same God as his father, and his followers did not celebrate his death, but his sacrifice of a white bullock in a cave. This is why they worshipped inside, in actual caves sometimes, but built Mithraiums did influence early church arcitechture; while the use of bread and wine was borrowed from Christians.

You have, however, missed the fundamental differences. Mithras accepted only men, and warriors to boot, Mithrists also acknowledged other Gods but worshipped only Mithras.

Well yeah, I mean, I am not calling Christians idiots or anything. Someone gets a same base and everyone goes different ways from the same source. That is only natural. That is why I am not taking anything but the Bible and Early Christianity (which already had wildly differing views of course, but meh, at least they were in the beginning stages of the development).

Seems to me like you're saying anyone with a belief is an idiot.

[Kadagar_AV]

PVC,

Seems to me like you're saying anyone with a belief is an idiot.

I think our friend Aemilius Paulus does not mean that.

Having a belief is ok... Following dogma without thinking however is, well... It is ok, people can do whatever they want as long as they dont hurt others, but you can't complain when people call you an idiot.