Results 1 to 30 of 95

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

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Voluntary Suspension Voluntary Suspension Philippus Flavius Homovallumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    13,477

    Default Re: Disbelief of evolution on the rise...but not in the US

    Quote Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus View Post
    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.
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."

    [IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]

  2. #2
    Guest Aemilius Paulus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Russia/Europe in the summer, Florida rest of the time
    Posts
    3,473

    Question Re: Disbelief of evolution on the rise...but not in the US

    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.

  3. #3
    Guest Aemilius Paulus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Russia/Europe in the summer, Florida rest of the time
    Posts
    3,473

    Talking Re: Disbelief of evolution on the rise...but not in the US

    Quote Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla View Post
    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:
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr View Post
    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).
    Last edited by Aemilius Paulus; 11-19-2009 at 17:46.

  4. #4
    Ranting madman of the .org Senior Member Fly Shoot Champion, Helicopter Champion, Pedestrian Killer Champion, Sharpshooter Champion, NFS Underground Champion Rhyfelwyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    In a hopeless place with no future
    Posts
    8,646

    Default Re: Disbelief of evolution on the rise...but not in the US

    Quote Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Rhyfelwyr; 11-19-2009 at 18:48.
    At the end of the day politics is just trash compared to the Gospel.

  5. #5
    Guest Aemilius Paulus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Russia/Europe in the summer, Florida rest of the time
    Posts
    3,473

    Post Re: Disbelief of evolution on the rise...but not in the US

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr View Post
    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?



    Quote Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Aemilius Paulus; 11-19-2009 at 21:00.

  6. #6
    Ranting madman of the .org Senior Member Fly Shoot Champion, Helicopter Champion, Pedestrian Killer Champion, Sharpshooter Champion, NFS Underground Champion Rhyfelwyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    In a hopeless place with no future
    Posts
    8,646

    Default Re: Disbelief of evolution on the rise...but not in the US

    Quote Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus View Post
    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).
    At the end of the day politics is just trash compared to the Gospel.

  7. #7
    Banned Kadagar_AV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    In average 2000m above sea level.
    Posts
    4,176

    Default Re: Disbelief of evolution on the rise...but not in the US

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr View Post
    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...

  8. #8
    Guest Aemilius Paulus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Russia/Europe in the summer, Florida rest of the time
    Posts
    3,473

    Smile Re: Disbelief of evolution on the rise...but not in the US

    Quote Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV View Post
    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...

  9. #9
    Ranting madman of the .org Senior Member Fly Shoot Champion, Helicopter Champion, Pedestrian Killer Champion, Sharpshooter Champion, NFS Underground Champion Rhyfelwyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    In a hopeless place with no future
    Posts
    8,646

    Default Re: Disbelief of evolution on the rise...but not in the US

    Quote Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV View Post
    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?
    At the end of the day politics is just trash compared to the Gospel.

  10. #10
    Voluntary Suspension Voluntary Suspension Philippus Flavius Homovallumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    13,477

    Default Re: Disbelief of evolution on the rise...but not in the US

    Quote Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus View Post
    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.
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."

    [IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]

  11. #11
    Banned Kadagar_AV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    In average 2000m above sea level.
    Posts
    4,176

    Default Re: Disbelief of evolution on the rise...but not in the US

    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.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO