tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post84424511285864411..comments2023-09-05T04:09:28.653-04:00Comments on Sacred Space: Questioning candidates about faithUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-56237833431431272662008-01-17T11:12:00.000-05:002008-01-17T11:12:00.000-05:00Nick- "If you believe there is no morality, there ...Nick- "If you believe there is no morality, there is no good and evil, there is no Heaven to gain or Hell to lose, and there is no God to judge on the last day, then why not treat everyone as you see fit?"<BR/><BR/>I'm an atheist. I don't believe in a theology of sin and evil, I don't believe in hell, there is no one to judge me on the last day. I have no desire to hurt other people in any way. A lot of the time I want to help people.<BR/><BR/>People who ask the question you did, I wonder if they would go out and murder and rape if they didn't believe in God? If so, please keep believing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-41380554892994547332007-12-19T11:40:00.000-05:002007-12-19T11:40:00.000-05:00Me: "By the way, it is actually when atheism has b...Me: "By the way, it is actually when atheism has been in charge that things have been for the worse. Mao, Pol-Pot, Stalin, etc. They've murdered far more than religion ever did."<BR/><BR/>Iztok: Since this was brought up several times.<BR/><BR/>Stalin and alike (Hitler wasn't an atheist) did terrible things because they were terrible persons (you could argue that Stalin has a good religious education that enabled him doing what he did) not because they were atheists. On the other hand we all know that 9/11 terrorists did their thing because and in the name of religion. We all know what their last words before they died were.<BR/><BR/>Me: Notice I didn't include Hitler for a reason. However, Hitler had a great hatred of Christianity. Now as for this, it's quite amazing! Everyone else when they commit murder, it is because of their beliefs! The beliefs of tyrants though don't lead them to commit murder!<BR/><BR/>Quite the contrary. Stalin was hand-picked by Lenin for his hatred of all things religious. Marx and Engels made it clear their thoughts on religion. Why is it the underground church in China is persecuted today?<BR/><BR/>If you believe there is no morality, there is no good and evil, there is no Heaven to gain or Hell to lose, and there is no God to judge on the last day, then why not treat everyone as you see fit?<BR/><BR/>Again though, you say that these were bad men implying a moral standard that has yet to be given. I'd urge you to remember these men were living out what Dostoyevsky said. "If God does not exist, anything goes."<BR/><BR/>Iztok: Big difference in reasoning behind the bad deeds.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand aforementioned terrorists as well as crusaders, inquisition, Mother Theresa, Pope etc... are responsible for millions of death because of the religion (and in the name of). Every day people die in Africa because of Aids. Why? Pope and alike are telling them that AIDS is bad, but condoms are worse. Some Mullahs are telling that vaccination is bad and now we have influx of diseases we thought we all but eliminated and they are back with a vengeance. Mother Theresa was no saint either. Her conviction was responsible for many deaths. Thing with her was that she actually didn't believe in it anymore, yet she was forcing herself in the name of religion to do things, to follow Pope. She would be much better if she would come out of the closet. At least we could respect her and understand her better. Lucky her letters all but attesting her lack of belief and her struggle for believing in beliefs.<BR/><BR/>Sincerely,<BR/>Iztok<BR/><BR/>Me: Unfortunately, your historical information is incorrect again. It is doubtful that millions were killed in these events. The hardest Inquisition for instance most likely killed 3,500. Compare that to what went on in the Gulag in Russia. <BR/><BR/>As for the Muslims, yes. I do blame Islam for that. That is a direct outworking of the Muslim worldview. Is what is going on in the Crusades though the same? No. Christ never told us to pick up the sword to evangelize. <BR/><BR/>And as for Africa, condoms won't stop the spread of AIDS there. The only thing that will do that is morality and the way that will be done is through Christ. My suggestion is sending missionaries over to preach the gospel to the people and give them proper sexual ethics.<BR/><BR/>btw, I noticed there was no reply on the Christ-myth, the copycat thesis, or the dating of the gospels. Surely you have something better than the Temple of Edfu.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16175830373964472006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-83039146956515731342007-12-19T06:06:00.000-05:002007-12-19T06:06:00.000-05:00"By the way, it is actually when atheism has been ..."By the way, it is actually when atheism has been in charge that things have been for the worse. Mao, Pol-Pot, Stalin, etc. They've murdered far more than religion ever did."<BR/><BR/>Since this was brought up several times.<BR/><BR/>Stalin and alike (Hitler wasn't an atheist) did terrible things because they were terrible persons (you could argue that Stalin has a good religious education that enabled him doing what he did) not because they were atheists. On the other hand we all know that 9/11 terrorists did their thing because and in the name of religion. We all know what their last words before they died were.<BR/><BR/>Big difference in reasoning behind the bad deeds.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand aforementioned terrorists as well as crusaders, inquisition, Mother Theresa, Pope etc... are responsible for millions of death because of the religion (and in the name of). Every day people die in Africa because of Aids. Why? Pope and alike are telling them that AIDS is bad, but condoms are worse. Some Mullahs are telling that vaccination is bad and now we have influx of diseases we thought we all but eliminated and they are back with a vengeance. Mother Theresa was no saint either. Her conviction was responsible for many deaths. Thing with her was that she actually didn't believe in it anymore, yet she was forcing herself in the name of religion to do things, to follow Pope. She would be much better if she would come out of the closet. At least we could respect her and understand her better. Lucky her letters all but attesting her lack of belief and her struggle for believing in beliefs.<BR/><BR/>Sincerely,<BR/> IztokAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-12978645003227660882007-12-18T18:46:00.000-05:002007-12-18T18:46:00.000-05:00Iztok: Nick,The Temple of Edfu is a good primary s...Iztok: Nick,<BR/><BR/>The Temple of Edfu is a good primary source to look into Osiris and Horus. Well predating story of Jesus.<BR/><BR/>Me: Does the temple have any writings or is it all hieroglyphs? Those can easily have stories read into them later on such as Tom Harpur does. <BR/><BR/>Btw, you do know about Osiris I'm sure. That he never rose from the dead. Instead, his body was dismembered and when put together, he was made Lord of the Underworld. Right?<BR/><BR/>Iztok: But then again the candidate this thread is all about has its own golden plates story.<BR/><BR/>Me: Correct<BR/><BR/><BR/>Iztok: Care to show us this archaeological confirmations? I mean something that would show his resurrection? Not merely some right names of the towns and places?<BR/><BR/>Me: Got any towns and places it has wrong yet? Archaeology can only go so far. It can show us that the gospels are reliable and along with textual criticism we can date the gospels easily to before 70 AD.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Iztok: I thought Bible was about inerrancy at the first place? And supposedly is the word of God?<BR/><BR/>Me: Inerrancy doesn't have to be true for my argument to hold. All that has to be accepted is the Bible is a set of documents claiming to make a case in history.<BR/><BR/>Iztok: If the gospels make the case about historical event, how come they are so different, even as far as where event(s) took place as well as timing etc...<BR/><BR/>Me: How come the two accounts of Hannibal crossing the Alps are flat-out contradictory if they are describing a historical event?<BR/><BR/>Iztok: Not to mention that Bible was edited (books added/removed) later on and there are still different Christian sects that have different number/set of books in the Bible. Certainly something to say about it.<BR/><BR/>Me: Right. That's actually quite secondary to my case as I would start with not even the gospels but 1 Corinthians and Galatians which the overwhelming majority of scholars will grant you that Paul wrote.<BR/><BR/>If you want to try to make the case that the Bible has been changed over the years, feel free.<BR/><BR/>Iztok: I would like to use this to get us back on topic where it all started.<BR/><BR/>Me: You can, but I would also like to see some real evidence of the copycat theory. I happen to like to place beliefs on firm evidence after all.<BR/><BR/>Iztok: The LDS sect with Mitt Romney (with him being a version of a bishop in it) is certainly a good example on how religion/faith gets started and grows. We are entitled to ask him about his background (we are not the government where there is a "no religious test should be given" is a paramount - despite the fact that NC constitution actually requires a religious test) and question how his belief system will influence his presidency. I for example don't want theocracy in this (or any other country) as it is show from the history that where religion plays major role in politics we see bad things happen. I want a candidate that supports science (and no, your comment that church supported science is plain wrong, just as Galileo). I want a candidate that has clear moral standards on his own, not just because he is afraid of punishment from some big daddy in the sky or because he is oping for a reward. I want a candidate to do good because he wants to on his own.<BR/><BR/>Me: You think my statement is plain wrong? Show it. You'll need more than Andrew White's book also. You do know Galileo was never seen as faith vs. science until 300 years after the events. Right?<BR/><BR/>By the way, it is actually when atheism has been in charge that things have been for the worse. Mao, Pol-Pot, Stalin, etc. They've murdered far more than religion ever did.<BR/><BR/>Iztok: I want a candidate that believes on firm evidence only.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Sincerely,<BR/>Iztok<BR/><BR/>Me: A question. Do all beliefs have to be backed by evidence to have epistemological warrant?Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16175830373964472006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-41129908799885774292007-12-18T09:49:00.000-05:002007-12-18T09:49:00.000-05:00Back on questioning the candidates.Here is what I ...Back on questioning the candidates.<BR/><BR/>Here is what I would like to ask (any) Christian (presidential candidates especially):<BR/><BR/>1. If you had a chance, would you save Jesus?<BR/><BR/>2. If no one wanted to "sacrifice Jesus for our sins", would yo step up and do it yourself?<BR/><BR/>Wonder what explanations of the answers would be.<BR/><BR/>Sincerely,<BR/> IztokAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-10014428706300083292007-12-18T09:37:00.000-05:002007-12-18T09:37:00.000-05:00Nick,The Temple of Edfu is a good primary source t...Nick,<BR/><BR/>The Temple of Edfu is a good primary source to look into Osiris and Horus. Well predating story of Jesus.<BR/><BR/>But then again the candidate this thread is all about has its own golden plates story.<BR/><BR/>"Not only that, we do have archaeological confirmation of the gospels in that numerous places where they were thought to be wrong we are now finding that, well, they were right."<BR/><BR/>Care to show us this archaeological confirmations? I mean something that would show his resurrection? Not merely some right names of the towns and places?<BR/><BR/>"Please note this isn't about inerrancy of inspiration either. I am not asking you to take the NT as the Word of God. I'm simply asking you to take it as what it is. A set of documents claiming to make a case about a historical event."<BR/><BR/>I thought Bible was about inerrancy at the first place? And supposedly is the word of God?<BR/><BR/>If the gospels make the case about historical event, how come they are so different, even as far as where event(s) took place as well as timing etc...<BR/><BR/>Not to mention that Bible was edited (books added/removed) later on and there are still different Christian sects that have different number/set of books in the Bible. Certainly something to say about it.<BR/><BR/>I would like to use this to get us back on topic where it all started.<BR/><BR/>The LDS sect with Mitt Romney (with him being a version of a bishop in it) is certainly a good example on how religion/faith gets started and grows. We are entitled to ask him about his background (we are not the government where there is a "no religious test should be given" is a paramount - despite the fact that NC constitution actually requires a religious test) and question how his belief system will influence his presidency. I for example don't want theocracy in this (or any other country) as it is show from the history that where religion plays major role in politics we see bad things happen. I want a candidate that supports science (and no, your comment that church supported science is plain wrong, just as Galileo). I want a candidate that has clear moral standards on his own, not just because he is afraid of punishment from some big daddy in the sky or because he is oping for a reward. I want a candidate to do good because he wants to on his own.<BR/><BR/>I want a candidate that believes on firm evidence only. <BR/><BR/><BR/>Sincerely,<BR/> IztokAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-50620491995945873492007-12-16T09:03:00.000-05:002007-12-16T09:03:00.000-05:00Iztok: Nick,attempt to prove Bible with Bible is c...Iztok: Nick,<BR/><BR/>attempt to prove Bible with Bible is circular logic at its best. Even if certain geographic validity of the Bible is there that doesn't mean anything about other claims. I find it rather odd that God would reveal itself in form of Jesus to extremely uneducated and backward people vs. showing up now when we have more knowledge to test it's credibility. How convenient this is for him?<BR/><BR/>Me: Good thing I didn't do that. I used outside sources such as archaeology and Josephus and Tacitus to back my case that the Bible is reliable.<BR/><BR/>Also, you speak of them as uneducated. Have you really ready the ancients? When I want to read people that I knew thought about issues seriously, I read them first. Plato has our philosophers today beat hands-down.<BR/><BR/>Iztok: Also, as I said, no mentioned person actually lived at the time when Jesus lived. All lived after his supposed crucification. The passage in Josephus is short by his standards and out of place giving us the inevitable conclusion it was a forgery. The other one (if I remember correctly) speaks of Christian group not about Jesus.<BR/><BR/>Me: Go find the scholars of Josephus who will say that. Go ahead. I'll be waiting. Also, there was no response to Tacitus. Find the Tacitus scholar who thinks what was said was a forgery. I'll be waiting. Then, go and explain again what you mean by contemporary. Also, give the list of writers who you think should have mentioned Jesus as well as tell why Augustus is okay even though there are fewer references to him and all are much later.<BR/><BR/>Iztok: So no, by no standards you didn't show any evidence of Jesus ever lived let alone performed miracles he supposedly did. Remember that extraordinary claims (of his miracles) require extraordinary proof. So until you come up with them ...<BR/><BR/>Me: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof? Who says? I think the claim though that the Jews who were as exclusive as could be would copycat mystery religions requires extraordinary evidence. That has not been brought forth. Instead, the burden was put on me.<BR/><BR/>Also, what counts as extraordinary? You think a miracle is. I don't. I think it's simply supernatural. <BR/><BR/>Iztok: I would settle with firm evidence of walking zombies (outside of the Bible) at time of his supposed resurrection. This should make it easier for you to concentrate your efforts.<BR/><BR/>Me: And what evidence would you suggest? The Romans would write that? Of course not. They'd think it nonsense. Also, why would Mark and Luke and John mention it? It fits in best with a Jewish type and Matthew is the one that wrote to the most Jewish community there was.<BR/><BR/>Iztok: As far as Gospels are concerned, there are big discrepancies in them (as far as location goes etc...) that can't really be reconciled outside taking it on faith.<BR/><BR/>Me: And the two historians that write about Hannibal crossing the Alps have hopelessly contradictory accounts. Therefore, I conclude that Hannibal did not cross the Alps.<BR/><BR/>Remember that this is not about inerrancy.<BR/><BR/>Iztok: The issue with faith is that it really isn't a virtue, once you say you have faith (believe w/o evidence) you really are disqualified from any further discussion because there is no amount of arguments that would convince you otherwise. This is the main difference between faith and science. Science encourages different views and attempts to prove them, faith takes as is and considers it as a virtue. That is why I believe physicists and biologists etc... there is huge competition to prove certain hypothesis and supported theories. There is no such self correcting mechanism in faith/religion in fact it is discouraged to do so.<BR/><BR/>Sincerely,<BR/>Iztok<BR/><BR/>Me: Then you have a false view of faith. Faith is trust based on what has been shown to be reliable. Also, science has faith as well. Science has to assume that the material world exists, that it is rational, and that our minds correspond to it. There's a reason science arose in Christian Europe and did not arise in Greece and China. Yep. They had some inventions and such, but they never worked out intricate theories and tried to use them to explain the cosmos.<BR/><BR/>And I'm still waiting for evidence of this copycat hypothesis.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16175830373964472006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-1576335850297524542007-12-16T08:48:00.000-05:002007-12-16T08:48:00.000-05:00Nick,attempt to prove Bible with Bible is circular...Nick,<BR/><BR/>attempt to prove Bible with Bible is circular logic at its best. Even if certain geographic validity of the Bible is there that doesn't mean anything about other claims. I find it rather odd that God would reveal itself in form of Jesus to extremely uneducated and backward people vs. showing up now when we have more knowledge to test it's credibility. How convenient this is for him?<BR/><BR/>Also, as I said, no mentioned person actually lived at the time when Jesus lived. All lived after his supposed crucification. The passage in Josephus is short by his standards and out of place giving us the inevitable conclusion it was a forgery. The other one (if I remember correctly) speaks of Christian group not about Jesus.<BR/><BR/>So no, by no standards you didn't show any evidence of Jesus ever lived let alone performed miracles he supposedly did. Remember that extraordinary claims (of his miracles) require extraordinary proof. So until you come up with them ...<BR/><BR/>I would settle with firm evidence of walking zombies (outside of the Bible) at time of his supposed resurrection. This should make it easier for you to concentrate your efforts.<BR/><BR/>As far as Gospels are concerned, there are big discrepancies in them (as far as location goes etc...) that can't really be reconciled outside taking it on faith.<BR/><BR/>The issue with faith is that it really isn't a virtue, once you say you have faith (believe w/o evidence) you really are disqualified from any further discussion because there is no amount of arguments that would convince you otherwise. This is the main difference between faith and science. Science encourages different views and attempts to prove them, faith takes as is and considers it as a virtue. That is why I believe physicists and biologists etc... there is huge competition to prove certain hypothesis and supported theories. There is no such self correcting mechanism in faith/religion in fact it is discouraged to do so.<BR/><BR/>Sincerely,<BR/> IztokAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-17743559981755157412007-12-15T22:51:00.000-05:002007-12-15T22:51:00.000-05:00Iztok: Nick,I am sure you will now provide us with...Iztok: Nick,<BR/><BR/>I am sure you will now provide us with Jesus contemporary attesting to existence of Jesus, not someone who at most heard the story second hand and wrote it down. Until you do this, your sources are just as (in)credible as ones mentioned.<BR/><BR/>Me: Note this please. No sources have been given on this one. I suppose I am merely to take it by faith. Unfortunately, I don't have that kind of faith. Some primary documents could have been given or even if not that, some scholarly works, but none were.<BR/><BR/>But let us consider what is meant by contemporary? For instance, if Josephus was 1 when Jesus was alive, does that make him a contemporary?<BR/><BR/>Also, why must it be a contemporary? Very very very little of ancient history could be said to be contemporary. By this standard, no one today could write a history of the Civil War as there are no contemporaries.<BR/><BR/>Consider the case of Augustus. We have Seutonius writing 80 years after him and then Tacitus writing not much later. Does anyone really question the validity of them?<BR/><BR/>Also, Josephus and Tacitus do both refer to Christ. There is one questionable passage in Josephus, but there is one that is not questioned and even the unquestioned one has an underlying theme that is believed to fit Josephus. One simply needs to ask the scholars of Josephus and Tacitus.<BR/><BR/>However, we do have four contemporary accounts. They're called the gospels. More on this later.<BR/><BR/>Iztok: So far the number of people actually LIVING when Jesus supposed to be performing his miracles and wrote things down and we have the writings is exactly 0. The earliest is around 70 CE with average age of 35 or so it means he could barely be born at the time that Jesus died.<BR/><BR/>Me: Actually, this is based on a misnomer. There is a list going around on the internet of writers contemporary with Jesus. Unfortunately, few people take the time to look at what these people wrote about. One wrote about agriculture for instance and he was supposed to write about Jesus?<BR/><BR/>Also, there is no need to date any gospel after 70 A.D. This puts them within one generation of the events. This is monumental for ancient history.<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, Matthew and John are believed to be eyewitness accounts. Mark is the memoirs of Peter who was an eyewitness. Luke is the most thorough of the four and is said to be a historian who dots every i and crosses every t.<BR/><BR/>Not only that, we do have archaeological confirmation of the gospels in that numerous places where they were thought to be wrong we are now finding that, well, they were right.<BR/><BR/>Please note this isn't about inerrancy of inspiration either. I am not asking you to take the NT as the Word of God. I'm simply asking you to take it as what it is. A set of documents claiming to make a case about a historical event.<BR/><BR/>Iztok: So all I am asking you to provide same type of credible evidence as you demand of others, then we can talk.<BR/><BR/>Me: Fine. I've done my part. Now I ask you to provide some real evidence to back the Christ-myth hypothesis. It would not be proper to ask me to back my claim and not do the same.<BR/><BR/>Iztok:(Basis of all my claim is that there is no credible writings of any Jesus contemporary that would confirm his existence. Hence credibility of whole Christianity seems to be on a shaky grounds. You can't provide any better evidence then any other religion.)<BR/><BR/>Sincerely,<BR/>Iztok<BR/><BR/>Not only are we sure of his existence, as there are only a few out there who really deny it and they're certainly not the mainstream, we can know some facts about his life. Even the Jesus Seminar will grant you that it's a sure as fact as anything about Jesus that he was crucified. Most scholars will grant you these as well.<BR/><BR/>That Paul was a skeptic who was converted.<BR/>That James, the brother of Jesus, was a skeptic who was converted.<BR/>That the disciples claimed that they saw the risen Lord.<BR/>That the tomb was found empty on the third day.<BR/><BR/>Also, note with Paul that we have an early Christian creed in 1 Cor. 15 that even skeptical scholars will grant extremely early, to within a few years of the events. That is extraordinary for ancient writings.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16175830373964472006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-88138545364500912452007-12-15T17:06:00.000-05:002007-12-15T17:06:00.000-05:00Nick,I am sure you will now provide us with Jesus ...Nick,<BR/><BR/>I am sure you will now provide us with Jesus contemporary attesting to existence of Jesus, not someone who at most heard the story second hand and wrote it down. Until you do this, your sources are just as (in)credible as ones mentioned.<BR/><BR/>So far the number of people actually LIVING when Jesus supposed to be performing his miracles and wrote things down and we have the writings is exactly 0. The earliest is around 70 CE with average age of 35 or so it means he could barely be born at the time that Jesus died.<BR/><BR/>So all I am asking you to provide same type of credible evidence as you demand of others, then we can talk.<BR/><BR/>(Basis of all my claim is that there is no credible writings of any Jesus contemporary that would confirm his existence. Hence credibility of whole Christianity seems to be on a shaky grounds. You can't provide any better evidence then any other religion.)<BR/><BR/>Sincerely,<BR/> IztokAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-20332568797408369182007-12-15T11:49:00.000-05:002007-12-15T11:49:00.000-05:00Iztok: You already know Christmas trees and Easter...Iztok: You already know Christmas trees and Easter eggs were originally Pagan, and you probably know the seasonal timing of the two holidays is Pagan too.<BR/><BR/>Me: And these were not taught in Scripture so they're irrelevant.<BR/><BR/>Iztok: Along with miracle working sons of God, born of a mortal woman, they were common elements of pre-Christian Pagan religion. Mithras had 'em. So did Dionysus, Attis, Osiris, and Orpheus. And more.<BR/><BR/>Me: Could you provide some primary sources on these? Takes Mithras for instance? Which one do you mean? There were several types and the earliest we have of them being brought into the Roman Empire is around 69 A.D. give or take a couple of years. <BR/><BR/>Also, keep in mind Mithras was born out of a rock wearing a cap and carrying a knife. Not sure how that makes him a son of god...<BR/><BR/>As for the others, do you have any primary sources that indicate that these were going on prior to Christianity?<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Iztok: Jesus is described as the Son of God, born of a mortal woman, according to prophecy, turning water into wine, raising girls from the dead, and healing blind men with his spittle, and setting it up so His believers got eternal life in Heaven contemplating the unutterable, indescribable glory of God, and off to Hell—for the bad folks...<BR/><BR/>Me: You left out important parts.<BR/><BR/>He was born in a Jewish environment which was not prone to borrowing ideas into a distinctly monotheistic system that upheld the Law and was seen as the fulfillment of prophecy at the due time.<BR/><BR/>Iztok: Augustus is described as the Son of God, born of a mortal.<BR/><BR/>Me: Date of this claim?<BR/><BR/>Iztok: Romulus is described as the Son of God, born of a virgin.<BR/><BR/>Me: If that's in Plutarch, I don't remember reading it. Got a date for this claim?<BR/><BR/>Iztok: Pythia , the priestess at the Oracle at Delphi, in Greece, prophesied, and over and over again for a thousand years, the prophecies came true.<BR/><BR/>Me: Got sources?<BR/><BR/>Iztok: Vespatian's spittle healed a blind man.<BR/><BR/>Me: Date of this claim?<BR/><BR/>Iztok: Osiris is said to bring his believers eternal life in Egyptian Heaven, contemplating the unutterable, indescribable glory of God.<BR/><BR/>Me: Got a primary resource?<BR/><BR/>Iztok: Apollonius of Tyana raised a girl from death.<BR/><BR/>Me: And you do realize that biography dates to the third century A.D. Right? You also realize the writer was commissioned and paid to write that. Right?<BR/><BR/>Iztok: There are tons of other examples predating Jesus.<BR/><BR/>Not many is really truly original in Christianity.<BR/><BR/>Sincerely,<BR/>Iztok<BR/><BR/>Me: You're going to have to do better than this. I've seen the copycat theory for a long time and it is incredibly wanting. Scholars dropped it a long time ago. Only the internet has brought it back into style.<BR/><BR/>And if you recommend I watch the "Zeitgeist" movie, which I already have, I will be incredibly amused.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16175830373964472006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-78188559190476105372007-12-15T11:28:00.000-05:002007-12-15T11:28:00.000-05:00You already know Christmas trees and Easter eggs w...You already know Christmas trees and Easter eggs were originally Pagan, and you probably know the seasonal timing of the two holidays is Pagan too.<BR/><BR/>Along with miracle working sons of God, born of a mortal woman, they were common elements of pre-Christian Pagan religion. Mithras had 'em. So did Dionysus, Attis, Osiris, and Orpheus. And more.<BR/><BR/><BR/> <BR/> <BR/> <BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/>Jesus is described as the Son of God, born of a mortal woman, according to prophecy, turning water into wine, raising girls from the dead, and healing blind men with his spittle, and setting it up so His believers got eternal life in Heaven contemplating the unutterable, indescribable glory of God, and off to Hell—for the bad folks...<BR/><BR/>Augustus is described as the Son of God, born of a mortal.<BR/><BR/>Romulus is described as the Son of God, born of a virgin.<BR/><BR/>Pythia , the priestess at the Oracle at Delphi, in Greece, prophesied, and over and over again for a thousand years, the prophecies came true.<BR/><BR/>Vespatian's spittle healed a blind man.<BR/><BR/> Osiris is said to bring his believers eternal life in Egyptian Heaven, contemplating the unutterable, indescribable glory of God.<BR/><BR/>Apollonius of Tyana raised a girl from death.<BR/><BR/>There are tons of other examples predating Jesus.<BR/><BR/>Not many is really truly original in Christianity.<BR/><BR/>Sincerely,<BR/> IztokAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-75605524803557320702007-12-15T11:12:00.000-05:002007-12-15T11:12:00.000-05:00Iztok. Could you give some evidence of this borrow...Iztok. Could you give some evidence of this borrowing that you say took place?<BR/><BR/>Also, I do not see indeed why the LDS want to be considered under the banner of Christians today with Baptists, Methodists, etc. Especially since their prophet cast the first stone as it were when he says that God told him that all of those churches were apostate.<BR/><BR/>Why want to be connected to an apostate church?mNickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16175830373964472006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-77341139939839337152007-12-15T08:17:00.000-05:002007-12-15T08:17:00.000-05:00"If Mitt was being truthful he would tell all the ..."If Mitt was being truthful he would tell all the Baptists and Roman Catholics out there that they are false religionists, and that Mormonism was the ONLY true religion."<BR/><BR/>Isn't this the staple of all religions? They all consider themselves the only true one.<BR/><BR/>Hence it is also true that no matter what religion you believe in, there are more people on this planet that disagree with it. LDS and Scientology are just the two modern examples on how religion works/gets established. Others have just the same amount of credible evidence of older origin. (If we look at Christianity we can notice it borrowed different things from different sources, virgin birth from one place, flood from another etc...) As Nick said, just modern examples of Myths. LDS used to be a cult but more people fell for it and now it is considered a religion. Same goes for others (religion is different from cult just on number of adherents).<BR/><BR/><BR/>Sincerely,<BR/> IztokAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-50924756454685536772007-12-14T19:32:00.000-05:002007-12-14T19:32:00.000-05:00Mitt being Mormon isn't the problem. The problem ...Mitt being Mormon isn't the problem. The problem for me is that he isn't Mormon enough. An honest Mormon would reject Mormonism as being just another part of "Christianity." Joseph Smith said the true religion had disappeared from the earth and he was to resore it. If Mitt was being truthful he would tell all the Baptists and Roman Catholics out there that they are false religionists, and that Mormonism was the ONLY true religion.<BR/><BR/>But Mitt isn't honest so he will instead try to portray his faith as something Christian, and attack anyone that disagrees as being mean.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-58998568417982506072007-12-13T07:49:00.000-05:002007-12-13T07:49:00.000-05:00Sorry about the double-post. My account was acting...Sorry about the double-post. My account was acting odd today.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-22258261079983279332007-12-13T07:48:00.000-05:002007-12-13T07:48:00.000-05:00The same word is also used to describe encircling ...The same word is also used to describe encircling a city, not necessarily a sphere.<BR/><BR/>As for Magellan, that kind of thing happens too often. It has more become an atheistic myth especially common since White's book. The idea was to make science and religion mortal enemies for all time.<BR/><BR/>A real look at history shows the church and science as allies.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-24695948492161763272007-12-13T07:47:00.000-05:002007-12-13T07:47:00.000-05:00Yep. They had a word for ball. The same word was a...Yep. They had a word for ball. The same word was also used by Isaiah to describe encircling a city and surrounding it, it seems that it refers to a circular pattern instead.<BR/><BR/>As for Magellan, these kinds of quotes showed up much later, mainly with the book of White on the topic of science throughout history. This includes the ancients thinking the Earth was flat and if I'm correct, the idea of Galileo being a church vs. science thing. In other words, a modern atheist myth.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-79171208902176221262007-12-13T05:52:00.000-05:002007-12-13T05:52:00.000-05:00"They had a word for a circle which was used, but ..."They had a word for a circle which was used, but not one for a sphere."<BR/><BR/>Well considering Isaiah 40 used circle and Isaiah 22 has word ball (which is a sphere) I think the proof that Hebrew had a word for a non flat surface describing earth (ball is a sphere whereas circle is a flat 2D object) is in the Bible itself. <BR/><BR/>Re: Magellan, my source was a web site (I knew about this quote for years) and upon further research it seems Robert Ingersoll was the one who attributed it to Magellan. It seems this is something similar to supposed conversion of Darwin on his death bed that never happened.<BR/><BR/>Sincerely,<BR/> IztokAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-28381158702994774562007-12-12T21:22:00.000-05:002007-12-12T21:22:00.000-05:00Why do these get bogged down into little tiny deta...Why do these get bogged down into little tiny details and away from the main issue? <BR/><BR/>Debating the meaning of a Hebrew word? C'mon.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-51846053246770311612007-12-12T19:02:00.000-05:002007-12-12T19:02:00.000-05:00I'll grant a mistake on the Declaration and will b...I'll grant a mistake on the Declaration and will be looking into that, but not on the word for sphere.<BR/><BR/>The word simply means a circle or a circuit. They had a word for a circle which was used, but not one for a sphere. The word is used two other times and neither time does it indicate sphericity. It simply refers to a circular pattern. <BR/><BR/>So am I going to see the reference to that Magellan quote?Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16175830373964472006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-44992944454766953132007-12-12T09:41:00.000-05:002007-12-12T09:41:00.000-05:00Nick, "First off, there is no Hebrew word for a sp...Nick, "First off, there is no Hebrew word for a sphere. You can look at the word in Isaiah and find out that in multiple contexts, it does not mean sphere."<BR/><BR/>Let me see, Isaiah 40:22 "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,<BR/> and its people are like grasshoppers.<BR/> He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,<BR/> and spreads them out like a tent to live in."<BR/><BR/>Then we have Isaiah 22:17-18 we see the word "ball" in it (Hebrew dur or kadur) so if author of Isaiah 40 would really mean a spherical object he would surely use word dur instead of khug (circle). Don't you think? The author of Isaiah 40 obviously meant a flat circle with a tent (shape of sky in his mind) above it.<BR/><BR/>Sincerely,<BR/> IztokAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-27196644338041522232007-12-12T09:23:00.000-05:002007-12-12T09:23:00.000-05:00Nick, you present things youhave no knowledge abou...Nick, you present things youhave no knowledge about (such as claiming things about constitution when they are in the Declaration of Independence and now about Hebrew and lack of word for sphere).<BR/><BR/>Maybe you should check the meaning for Hebrew word "kadur" before you claim it doesn't have word describing sphere/ball. (several years of working for an Israeli company and spending some time in Israel as well as having good contacts there helps sometimes.)<BR/><BR/>I guess next time you will start claiming that bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex and that evolution is "only a theory".<BR/><BR/><BR/>Sincerely,<BR/> IztokAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-82123053782399158012007-12-12T07:48:00.000-05:002007-12-12T07:48:00.000-05:00Iztok: Re fairy tales about earth being flat... an...Iztok: Re fairy tales about earth being flat... an interesting quote:<BR/><BR/>"The church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the church."<BR/>--Ferdinand Magellan<BR/><BR/>Me: Source? <BR/><BR/>Iztok: Also, if you read the Bible it says nowhere that Earth is spherical, it refers to it as flat object (circle) and it also mentions that if you go high enough you see everything (which is never possible on spherical object). (Clearly Bible is wrong there.)<BR/><BR/>Me: First off, there is no Hebrew word for a sphere. You can look at the word in Isaiah and find out that in multiple contexts, it does not mean sphere. It refers to something else. The Hebrews just didn't have a word for it.<BR/><BR/>As for Matthew 4, you can note that this is a vision. Obviously, any reader would know there are places on the Earth you can't see the top of the mountain from and know that that isn't correct and anyone would be able to climb the mountain and see for themselves.<BR/><BR/>Iztok: Re deists, there are really plenty of evidence for it. Let me know which founding fathers you think were not deists (I'll assume rest you agree they are) and I'll give you the references to their deism or admit they were not deists.<BR/><BR/>Me: Didn't make any claim about them. I simply asked you to back yours.<BR/><BR/>Iztok: Re: morals: Again, unless you say Bible was wrong allowing people to keep slaves, then you can't talk about absolute morals. They change in time/space. Some of them are universal, but only a few. Rest are very relative.<BR/><BR/>Sincerely,<BR/>Iztok<BR/><BR/>Me: If some are universal, then you are a moral absolutist. Now tell me, what do you know about ANE culture and slavery?Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16175830373964472006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2954933932670299796.post-80467625011829308092007-12-12T06:28:00.000-05:002007-12-12T06:28:00.000-05:00Nick, "These self-evident truths that we have the ...Nick, "These self-evident truths that we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.....where do they come from again?"<BR/><BR/>Hate to say it but have you actually READ the constitution? The aforementioned things are NOT in constitution but are in Declaration of Independence. It is very sad that you do not know that. I don't see any point discussing constitution with someone who doesn't know what is written in it.<BR/><BR/>Re fairy tales about earth being flat... an interesting quote:<BR/><BR/>"The church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the church."<BR/>--Ferdinand Magellan<BR/><BR/>Also, if you read the Bible it says nowhere that Earth is spherical, it refers to it as flat object (circle) and it also mentions that if you go high enough you see everything (which is never possible on spherical object). (Clearly Bible is wrong there.)<BR/><BR/>Re deists, there are really plenty of evidence for it. Let me know which founding fathers you think were not deists (I'll assume rest you agree they are) and I'll give you the references to their deism or admit they were not deists.<BR/><BR/>Re: morals: Again, unless you say Bible was wrong allowing people to keep slaves, then you can't talk about absolute morals. They change in time/space. Some of them are universal, but only a few. Rest are very relative.<BR/><BR/>Sincerely,<BR/> IztokAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com