Dart said:Yeah. Too bad archaeologists have never been able to prove historical accounts false in the Bible, eh? Bummer for the "lie" card. :
or many to prove its true.
or many to prove its true.
stealth toilet
Moderator
Kegster said:
If this discussion is going to continue then everyone's beliefs have to be respected. If you're going to say "all religions are a lie" then you better be able to back it up. Since that is something no one can do I would advise you stop making such statements, as they do nothing but antagonize others and discredit your opinion on the matter entirely.
If you think Scientology does or does not have merit, feel welcome to explain why you hold that belief either way. But do not use this discussion as a platform to insult people of every faith.
Dart said:Yeah. Too bad archaeologists have never been able to prove historical accounts false in the Bible, eh? Bummer for the "lie" card. :
Yah. Too bad that science disproved those historical accounts centuries ago. And who made those account anyway you must ask yourself. Well, the same people who run the church and reep the hefty rewards from it. You know their is no document in the historical records that can prove jesus even existed, you would think a guy who suposidly turned water into wine, wlaked on water, and resurrected from the dead would make a big mark in the historical records. funny that he didnt eh
Kegster said:Yah. Too bad that science disproved those historical accounts centuries ago. And who made those account anyway you must ask yourself. Well, the same people who run the church and reep the hefty rewards from it. You know their is no document in the historical records that can prove jesus even existed, you would think a guy who suposidly turned water into wine, wlaked on water, and resurrected from the dead would make a big mark in the historical records. funny that he didnt eh
I won't waste my breath (or text) on someone who is so close-minded that they didn't read what I wrote in the first place...
Oh, and welcome to the forums. Rule one is to play nice...
stealth toilet
Moderator
Kegster said:Yah. Too bad that science disproved those historical accounts centuries ago. And who made those account anyway you must ask yourself. Well, the same people who run the church and reep the hefty rewards from it. You know their is no document in the historical records that can prove jesus even existed, you would think a guy who suposidly turned water into wine, wlaked on water, and resurrected from the dead would make a big mark in the historical records. funny that he didnt eh
Found on wikipedia:
Original Source:
Other sources that agree with Van Voorst's conclusion:
Is that the end of the debate? Of course not, it was even recently proposed that the theological figure of Jesus was actually a culmination of three Egyptian Sun Deities mixed in with Hellenistic mythos. It is definitely an interesting debate, one that I'm sure will continue for many years, but this debate stems from a search for truth, not a search to find evidence that supports the theory of all religions being a lie. And I guarantee you that the scholars listed here are but a few modern examples of such truth seeking individuals, an entire body of scholars agree with them whole heartedly, and I am positive they know much more about the subject than either you or I.
The Egyptian deities being Osiris, Horus, and Isis? I have heard of these three being drawn upon as inspiration for the idea of the holy trinity, but Jesus himself? That's a new one.stealth toilet said:
stealth toilet
Moderator
Homicidal Cherry53 said:
Well, it's not so much a valid argument at this point as much as it is a supposition. I actually only heard of it through my religious prof who keeps pretty up to date on current religious works, so I'm probably butchering this theory :lol. Essentially, the three deities you mentioned all exhibit some aspects of Christ (ex. Horus is a shepherd, at least I think it's Horus, might be wrong on that) and they're all associated with the "Sun," so one scholar proposed that through Greek misunderstanding (and the fact that Greeks like to personify everything) these "sun gods" were thought to be "the son of god," one person who personified the attributes of all three Egyptian gods. However, I'm not sure how this theory accounts for the Bible being initially written in Hebrew and translated to Latin before it was translated into Greek, or any number of other inconsistencies, but like I said, it's more a supposition now than anything.
Pretty interesting though, at any rate.
Try 'wasteing' ur breath on saying something intelligent, i say that cause i read your previus comment. Shouldn't the fact that their is no historical evidence that the man who you worship ( just asuming here) ever existed raise questions about the validity of his existance. The bibel paints a pretty picture for the man but anyone can write a bookDart said:I won't waste my breath (or text) on someone who is so close-minded that they didn't read what I wrote in the first place...
Oh, and welcome to the forums. Rule one is to play nice...
I don't know how my previous comment makes me close minded, but if thats how you recieve factual, agnostic comments, then have fun arguing with yourself.
You should re-write the rule book here, it should be
Rule one, dont be a jack ass
And thank you for the greeting
At least in my mind, it's not the ideas you're saying, themselves. It's the condescending arrogance you're presenting it with.Kegster said:
I too am an agnostic. I too don't believe that Jesus was the son of god, but you don't see me, walking around, belittling another person's views.
As for the closed-mindedness, you are calling a book false, but you can't even spell its name. It's clear you don't know much about the Bible, yet you have walled yourself off to its ideas completely.
Kegster said:
Tell you what. I'll respect your opinion as long as you respect mine. As for name calling, don't try to lock horns with me or any other member in this site. You will be on the losing end. Your free pass has been granted this once. One more time and you'll be history.
Homicidal Cherry53 said:
Taking three distinct "dieties" would make a triad. The Trinity, or the Triune nature of God that he manifestred himself in the three Persons that make the Trinity. God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Much like water in vapro form, ice form and liquid form. It's still water...
After a bit of research, it turns out my memory is starting to fail me. :lolDart said:
Many scholars have suggested that the early Catholic Church changed Mary's image to parallel that of Isis. At the time, the Cult of Isis was hugely popular, and the theory is that the church capitalized on this by making Mary similar to Isis, winning many converts from the cult.
So basically, I confused the Holy Trinity with Mary, Joseph, and Jesus.
Wow, I wonder which denomination you are. :Dart said:
:lolPersonally, I've considered Saint Worship ridiculous, since my grandparents sent my family a little Saint figure, and told us to bury it in the backyard to help sell our house. >_>
Homicidal Cherry53 said:Wow, I wonder which denomination you are. :
Personally, I've considered Saint Worship ridiculous, since my grandparents sent my family a little Saint figure, and told us to bury it in the backyard to help sell our house. >_>
Non-denominational Christian. http://www.calvarychapelwakeforest.org/ to be exact. I just have an unusual curiosity towards faiths that differ from my own and why people hold onto these beliefs...
Homicidal Cherry53 said:Wow, I wonder which denomination you are. :
Personally, I've considered Saint Worship ridiculous, since my grandparents sent my family a little Saint figure, and told us to bury it in the backyard to help sell our house. >_>
Is this the "You're a Christian, but what kind?" question?
I personnaly, choose Deism, which follows similarly to standard CHristianity, but with a few changes:
-God does not interfere / intervene with what goes on here. No miracles, none of that stuff.
-No belief in the Book of Genesis. Basically, the idea of Evolutionism and Darwinism takes the place of Creationism and "God's choice".
Basically, Deism deals with the beleif that we are masters of our own path, not God, and that it's been that way since time began. Or as I like to call it "God created the Big Bang, and watches it like a movie, occasionally throwing popcorn whenever something stupid happens".
Anyway, I've seen the "Un-funny truth YTMND", and a handful of the Youtube video's about it. Now, I can't speak out against Scientology, since I don't know the ins and outs of the religion myself. When you look at Christianity in a nutshell from an outsider POV, Christianity is that everyone worships a non-tangible being and his kid that was born 2000 something years ago, am I correct? Keep in mind, look at it from someone's POV where they have no idea what Christianity even is, and someone who also knew little about it told them what it is. That's what seems to happen with Scientology.
What I will say about the religion is that they need to lightne up. If you say "I think Christianity is full of crap" to the pope, he'll tell you that he respects your beliefs, and move one. If you say "I think Scientology is full of crap" to whoever "runs" it, then expect to either start paying them money, or be lynched. That's the impression I get from those video's and that YTMND in particular. Also, don't take pictures of them, they apaprently all have bed-hair.
Mai Valentine
Moderator
I just think Tom Cruise is overrated, and I don't see why people make such a big fuss over him.
I don't actually know enough about Scientology to say anything about it one way or the other, which is why I haven't posted about it.
I don't actually know enough about Scientology to say anything about it one way or the other, which is why I haven't posted about it.
No, I just thought it seemed obvious he was some type of Protestant, based off of his post.Nova said: