View Full Version : It's the 21st century CE, why do people still believe in ancient myths?


Medicine*Woman
08-28-05, 02:30 PM
*************
M*W: Christianity is declining worldwide. There is no proof that Jesus existed. Bible errancy has been proven beyond the shadow of doubt. There is conflict and corruption in the Christian religion. Yet, people still believe. These same people don't seem to grow or advance. They hold onto ancient myths. Their reasoning is fantastic. Why do they refuse to see the truth? :confused:

ellion
08-28-05, 02:42 PM
what you are asking couold be asked of any one, christian, anti-christ, theist, atheist, scientist or beggar.
your question equates to; why do people not identify reality in a way which is a true representation of reality?

i ask of you this question and it will answer for me your question? why do you ask your question only of the religious and choose to ignore those who are not religious and still fail to accurately identify reality?

Yorda_7
08-28-05, 03:01 PM
Christianity is declining worldwide.

i doubt it.


There is no proof that Jesus existed.

it doesnt matter. there's no need proof for everything. in fact, some things are true and you can't find proof of them. atlantis and lemuria perhaps.


Bible errancy has been proven beyond the shadow of doubt.

not really, there's just a few errors in that book.


There is conflict and corruption in the Christian religion.

not for all people.


Yet, people still believe. These same people don't seem to grow or advance.

you can't affect the whole world just like that. it takes hundreds of years.


They hold onto ancient myths.

myths include truth.


Their reasoning is fantastic. Why do they refuse to see the truth? :confused:

they have seen their personal truth.

Medicine*Woman
08-28-05, 03:19 PM
what you are asking couold be asked of any one, christian, anti-christ, theist, atheist, scientist or beggar.
your question equates to; why do people not identify reality in a way which is a true representation of reality?

i ask of you this question and it will answer for me your question? why do you ask your question only of the religious and choose to ignore those who are not religious and still fail to accurately identify reality?
*************
M*W: Good point. My question is that I don't understand the religious who still believe in ancient myths. For the others, whatever their beliefs may be, may not be reality to me, but it is to them. I specifically didn't ask the question of everyone, only the religious who believe in fantasies. There are those who may or may not be religious but who live outside of reality. Although I have sympathy for them, I didn't expect to solicit their answers. I'm only interested in those who profess Christianity in the 21st century CE after being informed that there is no evidence for Jesus' existence, and that the bible is grossly errant, etc. (And they most definitely HAVE BEEN informed here on sciforums).

Ophiolite
08-28-05, 03:26 PM
why do people not identify reality in a way which is a true representation of reality?
It rather seemd to me that MW was asking "why do people not identify reality in a way which matches my perception of reality?"
The answer then becomes self evident and no reply is necessary.

Medicine*Woman
08-28-05, 03:38 PM
It rather seemd to me that MW was asking "why do people not identify reality in a way which matches my perception of reality?"
The answer then becomes self evident and no reply is necessary.
*************
M*W: My reality of religion is that it is just a fantasy people hold on to for whatever their reasons may be. I'm an atheist. I'm not looking for atheist's replies. Religionists may have many reasons they hold on to religion. I'm not looking for replies that agree with my idea of reality. I'm looking for replies from religionists, mostly Christians.

Raithere
08-28-05, 03:45 PM
I've thought about this a lot. I have no definitive conclusions but I do have some observations and ideas.

The human brain has not really evolved for logic or scientific thought. It has evolved largely to make real-time quick and dirty decisions regarding survival. Emotional impetus, generalizations, quick and imprecise pattern recognition, and correlation recognition are its primary tools. These can lead to imprecise and inaccurate but often useful survival strategies.

In other words, our brains evolved to survive. Whether or not our conclusions are truthful and accurate was not nearly as important as how well they affect the odds of our survival. The problem is that as our capacity to acquire and measure information has increased, our ability to accurately process this data properly on a daily basis has not.

Case point:

Q: Which is more dangerous for a child for you to have at home; a gun or a swimming pool?

A: A typical survey reveals that the average American believes that guns are a much larger threat to children than swimming pools. However, the statistics reveal that the average American child is 100 times more likely to die in a swimming pool than by gunshot. Not only that but 1 child dies annually per every 11,000 swimming pools while only 1 child dies annually for every million guns. Clearly swimming pools are FAR more dangerous to own than guns. So why do most people believe exactly the opposite of the truth?

Emotion: Guns are scarier than swimming pools. Guns are designed to kill, swimming pools are not. Guns also kill because of a deliberate act or a mistake in judgment. Pools deaths are almost entirely accidental.

Reliance on testimonial evidence / Inaccurate reporting of data: Due to its emotional content, gun deaths are broadcast much more thoroughly than pool deaths. Everyone with a television, newspaper, or radio has heard testimonial evidence about many gun deaths. How many times have you heard about a child dieing in a swimming pool, particularly on the national news? This unbalanced data gives a gross misrepresentation of the facts. People then found their beliefs on such extremely biased data.

Correlation: Correlation in the two cases is perceived differently. Because guns require a human act to be dangerous the correlation between the gun and the death is perceived as being linked much more directly. Pools are perceived more as existing hazards, more often it is the failure to act (such as watching a child or closing a gate) that is seen as being in immediate correlation. That the swimming pool itself is the causative agent tends to be neglected. How many parents have you heard of starting a nationwide campaign to eliminate swimming pools? How many for guns?

I really can't stress correlation enough. It is the fulcrum on which the whole process swings. When it is off-center the decision will swing in a particular direction no matter how much factual weight is on the other side. (e.g. One believed anecdote of a miraculous healing will offset a mountain of contrary medical evidence.) It is the foundation for all superstitious and magical thinking.

There are two things to note:

One is that being afraid of guns even when the belief that they are more dangerous than pools is inaccurate does improve the odds of survival even if it doesn't help as much as knowing that pools are more dangerous. The strategy works on an individual family level. The problem is that when we act on a broad scale it doesn't work. If our goal is to prevent children from dying, then we should be more concerned at this point with swimming pools than guns.

The second is that in a small tribal society, testimonial evidence is far more accurate. If you know every individual in your tribe of 40 or so people, you will hear every story. Even if the story about the one child dieing by gun death is repeated more often you will still have heard about the 10 others who drowned. This was our environment for the bulk of our evolution. And again, it worked in that environment as a survival strategy.

That's enough to read. I'll leave it here for now and we'll see how the discussion proceeds. :)

~Raithere

cosmictraveler
08-28-05, 03:50 PM
To you Jesus didn't exist however there are over 1 billion humans who believe he did. No matter how anyone interperts the Bible, there are always those who will believe in Jesus no matter how much can be "proven" he didn't exist.

I think he did but he was a great medicine man of his time and humans then thought such powers were god like so they worshiped him as a diety and it just grew into the mess it has become, run by con men/ women to make a living.

ellion
08-28-05, 04:16 PM
It rather seemd to me that MW was asking "why do people not identify reality in a way which matches my perception of reality?"
The answer then becomes self evident and no reply is necessary.

i can agree with this definitely. it seems that there is a desperate need to have this perception validated in someway. those perceptions that do not validate
this particular perception must be invalidated at all cost.

ellion
08-28-05, 04:23 PM
raithere i keep wondering how you pronounce raithere is it like;

rayt here / right here / rayth here / ryth here or something else? help!
it is so frustrating arrgh!! :confused:

Raithere
08-28-05, 05:30 PM
raithere i keep wondering how you pronounce raithere is it like;

rayt here / right here / rayth here / ryth here or something else? help!
it is so frustrating arrgh!! :confused:Sorry... ;) It's wraith-here. Just a made-up name from my gaming days.

~Raithere

KennyJC
08-28-05, 05:35 PM
There's still so much we don't know, so religion and myths etc will be around for a while yet... One minute there's nothing then I'm typing here, there has to be a creator right?

Well maybe... But I believe religion has a distorted view of this. Luckily, even though I was raised and could be called a 'Christian' I grew up to think it's the biggest load of old cobblers. And new generations are thinking that also which possibly explains that consistently falling church attendances in this country.

altec
08-28-05, 05:52 PM
i doubt it.

Keep on doubting then. It doesn't change the fact that people are starting to remove the wool from over their eyes.


it doesnt matter. there's no need proof for everything. in fact, some things are true and you can't find proof of them. atlantis and lemuria perhaps.

You cannot come to the conclusion that something is inherently true unless you have some sort of 'proof'. What the hell are you mumbling about?


not really, there's just a few errors in that book.

Really, just a few? I can name a few off the top of my head, and I haven't even read the whole damn thing. I am almost certain that there are more than the few that I can rattle off though. From what I have read, the Bible has pretty much been refuted. Sorry.


you can't affect the whole world just like that. it takes hundreds of years.

I can't really respond to this, but I have to point out that you think it only takes a few hundred years for thinking, society, and a species to evolve. Do you have any concept of how long this sort of thing takes? Are you mad?


myths include truth.

Myth: A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology. I am not too sure how that includes truth....but keep on telling yourself that.


they have seen their personal truth.

Please don't use the term truth in that context. Truth cannot be personal. When you speak of truth and fiction you are speaking of something that is unchangeable, someones personal OPINION or BELIEF is NOT truth.

Yorda_7
08-28-05, 06:24 PM
Keep on doubting then. It doesn't change the fact that people are starting to remove the wool from over their eyes.

Your perspective of reality is just one among countless others. It is no more right than anyone elses. The wool people are removing over their eyes, I removed ages ago. I realized that this wool was nothing but a new alternate perspective, and it only seemed to be the "truth" because I didn't understand everything.


Really, just a few? I can name a few off the top of my head, and I haven't even read the whole damn thing.

I also saw many errors in the Bible before I understood it. Lastly, it starts to seem that there are no "errors", anywhere. Errors start to seem just like a different form (negative aspect) of truth.


I can't really respond to this, but I have to point out that you think it only takes a few hundred years for thinking, society, and a species to evolve.

How do you know what I think? Just because I wrote it?

Maybe you misunderstood it.
Maybe I was lying.
Maybe I've changed my mind.
Maybe not.
Who knows, except one who is omniscient?


Are you mad?

Not from my own perspective, but I might seem, to those who are on a different level of consciousness.


Myth: A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology. I am not too sure how that includes truth....but keep on telling yourself that.

Myth: A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth.


Please don't use the term truth in that context.

I have free will to use it in any way I want.


Truth cannot be personal.

Is that truth, or a personal truth. If it was truth, I would agree.


When you speak of truth and fiction you are speaking of something that is unchangeable, someones personal OPINION or BELIEF is NOT truth.

Is there an absolute truth? If there was, why would people argue? Everything is relative. Everything I have ever said is merely my opinion, my perspective of reality. It is not any kind of truth, except for me if I choose so.

"Nothing" is true. That's the only thing I could imagine that might be "true". But in nothing, there is no truth, because there is nothing.

altec
08-28-05, 08:43 PM
Your perspective of reality is just one among countless others. It is no more right than anyone elses. The wool people are removing over their eyes, I removed ages ago. I realized that this wool was nothing but a new alternate perspective, and it only seemed to be the "truth" because I didn't understand everything.

However you want to look at it my friend. It is much easier to make the logical deduction that God does not exist, based on scientific theories, and multiple natural laws that science has come across. I simply cannot fathom how someone can believe in a diety whose existance cannot be proven.


I also saw many errors in the Bible before I understood it. Lastly, it starts to seem that there are no "errors", anywhere. Errors start to seem just like a different form (negative aspect) of truth.

Before we really get into this, I want you to understand that you are not speaking to someone who does not know the Bible, or has a limited knowledge of it. I may not have read the book in it's entirety, but that is because I believe it is a load of shit.

I did however go to an evangelical Christian high school, and am well versed in Christian Dogma, and rhetoric.

And as to you saying there are no "errors": Doesn't the Bible tell us to love everyone as we love our God? Then why does it also tell us to condemn gays, or to stone prostitutes to death, or the other numerous contradictions to that world view?


How do you know what I think? Just because I wrote it?

Maybe you misunderstood it.
Maybe I was lying.
Maybe I've changed my mind.
Maybe not.
Who knows, except one who is omniscient?

What do you not want me to make assumptions based on what you type here? How else am I supposed to carry on this conversation, if I cannot trust that you mean what you are saying.



Myth: A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth.


How does this prove that a myth involves truth? I still see the word supernatural which tells me that myth does not necessarily include truth, if ever.



I have free will to use it in any way I want.

Thats true, you do.



Is there an absolute truth? If there was, why would people argue? Everything is relative. Everything I have ever said is merely my opinion, my perspective of reality. It is not any kind of truth, except for me if I choose so.

"Nothing" is true. That's the only thing I could imagine that might be "true". But in nothing, there is no truth, because there is nothing.

That is exactly the point that I was trying to make to you. I simply dislike it when people use the word truth the way that you did. It implies that what you are saying is absolute, when it is simply an opinion. And as we all know: Opinions are like assholes: everyone's got em'.

Yorda_7
08-28-05, 09:55 PM
I simply cannot fathom how someone can believe in a diety whose existance cannot be proven.

Yeah, it's very hard, but not anymore, since I have understood that God is a representation of the self within us. Buddhism doesn't teach that we should follow "God", but only ourselves. The people at that country were able to understand the concept of the self, so there was no need to invent a separate, personal entity called God. Hinduism also teaches that the self is equal with God. And it is easy to see even in Western religions, once you know and understand it.

The existence of the self cannot be proven, but there is no reason to doubt it.

I usually use the word God when I talk with people since it is the word which they understand best and are familiar with.


I did however go to an evangelical Christian high school, and am well versed in Christian Dogma, and rhetoric.

Why did you go to an evangelical Christian high school? Was that what you personally wanted?


Doesn't the Bible tell us to love everyone as we love our God?

It also says: love others as yourself.


And as to you saying there are no "errors":

I didn't say that there are NO errors, I said that there aren't so many errors.


Then why does it also tell us to condemn gays, or to stone prostitutes to death, or the other numerous contradictions to that world view?

It is easy to recognize which parts are true (which parts come from God). Jesus never said anything about stoning prostitues or condemning gays, such ideas were created by people's egoism.

God gives everything to us, even himself, but people, because of their selfish minds, make a curse of everything, even their holy scriptures.

If there's something I don't believe in the Bible I simply don't believe it. It's like any other thing in this world. God says in the Bible that he originally didn't want to write his law in a dead book, but in man's living and changing heart, where it would always be up to date.


What do you not want me to make assumptions based on what you type here? How else am I supposed to carry on this conversation, if I cannot trust that you mean what you are saying.

People who are for their thoughts are against other thoughts and it leads to war. Don't take my words so seriously, as though if I was trying to make you believe me. I don't want you to believe me, if you don't believe me. Just follow your personal way.


How does this prove that a myth involves truth? I still see the word supernatural which tells me that myth does not necessarily include truth, if ever.

I wasn't trying to 'prove' that myths involve truth. I was just giving a different description of the word myth. I understand myths, so I believe in them. Before I understood them, when I only saw the outer core, they sounded incredibly ridiculous.


I simply dislike it when people use the word truth the way that you did. It implies that what you are saying is absolute, when it is simply an opinion. And as we all know: Opinions are like assholes: everyone's got em'.

If you know that there are no absolutes, there's no need for you to get upset for what people say, since you know that it's just an opinion. BTW, you also sounded like you believed that the things you say were absolute (that's why I was implying that you should be neutral) Usually it's very hard to not sound like that.

altec
08-28-05, 10:44 PM
Yeah, it's very hard, but not anymore, since I have understood that God is a representation of the self within us. Buddhism doesn't teach that we should follow "God", but only ourselves. The people at that country were able to understand the concept of the self, so there was no need to invent a separate, personal entity called God. Hinduism also teaches that the self is equal with God. And it is easy to see even in Western religions, once you know and understand it.

Ah, so you're a Buddhist? If the Self is equal with God, then why is he there? If he created beings that are as glorious as he, what fun could he have? :p
See, I dont think that Christianity shares that in common at all. Christians have this self-loathing 'we are all sinners, and there is nothing we can do about it' nonsense, which can be very detremental to a person. I couldn't imagine going around worshipping a diety while thinking that I was 'as dirty as a tampon' (I cant remember, but there is a verse that says that in there somewhere).


The existence of the self cannot be proven, but there is no reason to doubt it.

I usually use the word God when I talk with people since it is the word which they understand best and are familiar with.

I think that is where Buddhism actually differs from Christianity. You do not worship a diety, but you recognize that all life is important, and therefore it should be cherished, and that brings you to happiness. You essentially worship life. Or am I wrong?



Why did you go to an evangelical Christian high school? Was that what you personally wanted?

It was not for me. I got into a little too much trouble at public school, so I was sent there, in hopes it would straighten me out. But you know what, I really believe that the environment at that school: intolerance, judgement, hatred, etc....is what led me to atheism. It really messed with me for a long time.




It is easy to recognize which parts are true (which parts come from God). Jesus never said anything about stoning prostitues or condemning gays, such ideas were created by people's egoism.

God gives everything to us, even himself, but people, because of their selfish minds, make a curse of everything, even their holy scriptures.

If there's something I don't believe in the Bible I simply don't believe it. It's like any other thing in this world. God says in the Bible that he originally didn't want to write his law in a dead book, but in man's living and changing heart, where it would always be up to date.

But Christians also believe the Bible is infallible. So how do you take some and leave some? That in-itself kinda says to me: "It's all bullshit"!


People who are for their thoughts are against other thoughts and it leads to war. Don't take my words so seriously, as though if I was trying to make you believe me. I don't want you to believe me, if you don't believe me. Just follow your personal way.

I dont think you're trying to make me believe anything, I just like to argue. :D

Yorda_7
08-29-05, 04:02 PM
Ah, so you're a Buddhist?

No, I have no religious belief


If the Self is equal with God, then why is he there?

... what? where?


If he created beings that are as glorious as he, what fun could he have?

beings... the bodies... are instruments for God/self. the self clothes itself in all kinds of bodies. human bodies are more advanced than animal bodies, so god, the self, can express himself more precisely. but humans can also go against themselves and serve the spirit of matter.

Only through someone like Jesus, God can express himself as he really is. Only someone who has found himself can be himself... otherwise they will mix the Self with outer things (instruments)

god isn't... a conscious being..... only through a body, it is possible to become conscious (limited)


Christians have this self-loathing 'we are all sinners, and there is nothing we can do about it' nonsense, which can be very detremental to a person.

4000 years ago some people were really egoistical, so instead of saying that the self within them is "god", they were told that there is an all-powerful separate god who created them all and owns them all and they're nothing in comparison...

But... even though people honor a being which they call God, it is still the same self, they are just not conscious of it... ex. when religious people say: "I have found Jesus", a normal person would say "I have found myself", and they would say "I hope God forgives me", and the ordinary would say "I hope I can forgive myself".....


I think that is where Buddhism actually differs from Christianity. You do not worship a diety, but you recognize that all life is important, and therefore it should be cherished, and that brings you to happiness. You essentially worship life. Or am I wrong?

I don't think buddhists "worship" anything.

Yorda_7
08-29-05, 08:23 PM
The dryland is not a myth, I've seen it! Kevin Costner, Waterworld

(Q)
08-29-05, 08:35 PM
It's wraith-here. Just a made-up name from my gaming days.

The thing is, after looking at that avatar for a few years now, I can't help but think that is actually you.

Yorda_7
08-29-05, 08:45 PM
(Q), you don't remember me, do you...?

(Q)
08-30-05, 10:54 AM
(Q), you don't remember me, do you...?

Have I met you before?

Raithere
08-30-05, 11:05 AM
The thing is, after looking at that avatar for a few years now, I can't help but think that is actually you.I bear a striking resemblance.

I think it has something to do with my horns. ;)

~Raithere

(Q)
08-30-05, 11:56 AM
I think it has something to do with my horns.

I might have guessed. :D

It certainly doesn't look anything like Nelly Furtado.

spidergoat
08-30-05, 12:39 PM
Buddhism is identical to the teachings of Jesus, however not identical to Christianity.
Sorry, MW, but there is proof of the existence of Jesus in Roman reports of his execution.

Yorda seems to understand it the best. They thought Jesus was arrogant to call himself God, because the OT taught them that there is some separation between people and a devine power. Since there isn't, that means that Jesus and you are equally devine. People couldn't handle this, so they created a complex mythology around Jesus that only required one to repeat a certain phrase or acknowledge some belief, thinking that this is what he wanted, it was easier than examining yourself.

Raithere
08-30-05, 12:57 PM
It certainly doesn't look anything like Nelly Furtado.Don't be so sure. ;)

~Raithere

(Q)
08-30-05, 02:43 PM
hehe - where did the horns go?

Medicine*Woman
08-30-05, 03:23 PM
Sorry, MW, but there is proof of the existence of Jesus in Roman reports of his execution.
*************
M*W: Please provide this evidence. Biblical quotations not accepted.

enton
09-02-05, 07:05 AM
*************
M*W: Please provide this evidence. Biblical quotations not accepted.
Pontius Pilate: http://www.livius.org/pi-pm/pilate/pilate04.html
The references to Pilate, outside the New Testament: Josephus, Antiquities 18.35, 55-64, 85-89, 177; War 2.169-177; Philo, Legatio ad Caium (Embassy to Gaius) 38; Tacitus, Annals 15.44. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontius_Pilate#References) :bugeye:

Sarkus
09-02-05, 07:37 AM
Enton, what you have provided is some evidence of the existence of Pontius Pilate - not Jesus.

This is NOT evidence of Jesus' existence.

Please try and provide actual documented evidence for the existence of JESUS - as requested by MW.
It probably does exist in anecdotal evidence somewhere outside the Bible, although whether it is reliable is another matter.

enton
09-02-05, 07:46 AM
Enton, what you have provided is some evidence of the existence of Pontius Pilate - not Jesus.It probably does exist in anecdotal evidence somewhere outside the Bible, although whether it is reliable is another matter.That's not my problem anymore. Anyway, God chooses or calls anyone He likes. Whether there is Jesus the Christ or none but because Pontius Pilate had been mentioned outside the Bible and many other things earlier than the coming of Christ in flesh, like the King Sargon mentioned in the Bible, I cannot help but refer to the prophecies in the Bible which already come to their fulness. I accept the fact that I had not seen the Lord Jesus Christ in personal but the Bible's account met the accuracy of archaeological dig. Anyway, what matters for me much is the life beyond this life. :eek:

Medicine*Woman
09-02-05, 11:52 AM
That's not my problem anymore. Anyway, God chooses or calls anyone He likes. Whether there is Jesus the Christ or none but because Pontius Pilate had been mentioned outside the Bible and many other things earlier than the coming of Christ in flesh, like the King Sargon mentioned in the Bible, I cannot help but refer to the prophecies in the Bible which already come to their fulness. I accept the fact that I had not seen the Lord Jesus Christ in personal but the Bible's account met the accuracy of archaeological dig. Anyway, what matters for me much is the life beyond this life. :eek:
*************
M*W: Bull-fucking-shit! It IS your problem, and you cannot dismiss it because you know you can't find the answer. Answer the fucking question and provide evidence for the existence of Jesus. Thus far, you have NOT provided any evidence for any of the questions posed to you. You are not a credible member of this forum. You are not going to be able to talk yourself around this one. You are a jackass. No biblical prophecy has ever been proven, not even by archeological digs, you moron.

BTW, I showed your posts to some Filipino nurses who work for me, and they were embarassed to know that you were Filipino! They also said Brother Eli is a fake preacher in your country and is in trouble with your government. Where's your Jesus H. Christ now?

enton
09-02-05, 06:30 PM
*************
M*W: Bull-fucking-shit! It IS your problem, and you cannot dismiss it because you know you can't find the answer. Answer the fucking question and provide evidence for the existence of Jesus. Thus far, you have NOT provided any evidence for any of the questions posed to you. You are not a credible member of this forum. You are not going to be able to talk yourself around this one. You are a jackass. No biblical prophecy has ever been proven, not even by archeological digs, you moron.

BTW, I showed your posts to some Filipino nurses who work for me, and they were embarassed to know that you were Filipino! They also said Brother Eli is a fake preacher in your country and is in trouble with your government. Where's your Jesus H. Christ now?That's very good M*W and you were beginning to scrutinize religions. And have you asked those "Filipino" nurses if they were sloppy and lazy?

Medicine*Woman
09-02-05, 08:37 PM
That's very good M*W and you were beginning to scrutinize religions. And have you asked those "Filipino" nurses if they were sloppy and lazy?
*************
M*W: Consider your religion scrutinized to the max. I don't need to ask those Filipino nurses if they are sloppy and lazy. I evaluate them as I see them... er... that is, when I can find them.

spidergoat
09-06-05, 03:57 PM
The proof for the existence of Jesus is extrabiblical.


Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out...
Cornelius Tacitus (55-120 AD)


Flavius Josephus (37-97 AD), court historian for Emperor Vespasian:

"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders." (Arabic translation)

However, there is no way to prove what he actually said and of course, the resurrection.

c7ityi_
09-06-05, 09:10 PM
The gospel figure of Jesus is a Jewish adaptation of the mythical godman found under many different names in ancient pagan mystery religions: in Egypt he was Osiris, in Greece Dionysus, in Asia Minor Attis, in Syria Adonis, in Italy Bacchus, in Persia Mithras. All the major elements of the Jesus story, from the virgin birth to the crucifixion and resurrection, can be found in earlier stories of pagan godmen.

The doctrines of reincarnation and karma were replaced by the irrational and unjust dogma that belief in Jesus is sufficient to absolve us of all our sins and secure us an eternity of heavenly bliss, while unbelievers will suffer eternal torment in hell.

The 'Gospel' story is merely an idealized fiction, written by Christian mystics in imitation of esoteric mysteries of the 'Pagans,' showing the initiation trials and tests of the candidate for initiation; and it is not very well done, there being much error and many mistakes in the 'Gospels.'


The 'Christ principle,' the awakened and glorified Spirit of Truth, being universal and eternal, the true Christos cannot be monopolized by any one person... We may learn from the Gospel according to Luke, that the 'worthy' were those who had been initiated into the mysteries of the Gnosis, and who were 'accounted worthy' to attain that 'resurrection from the dead' in this life... In other words, they were the great adepts of whatever religion; and the words apply to all those who, without being Initiates, strive and succeed, through personal efforts to live the life and to attain the naturally ensuing spiritual illumination in blending their personality -- (the 'Son') with (the 'Father,') their individual divine Spirit, the God within them.

This 'resurrection' can never be monopolized by the Christians, but is the spiritual birth-right of every human being endowed with soul and spirit, whatever his religion may be. Such individual is a Christ-man. On the other hand, those who choose to ignore the Christ (principle) within themselves, must die unregenerate heathens -- baptism, sacraments, lip-prayers, and belief in dogmas notwithstanding... He who finds Christos within himself and recognizes the latter as his only 'way,' becomes a follower and an "Apostle of Christ", though he may have never been baptized, nor even have met a 'Christian,' still less call himself one.

Paul299
09-06-05, 11:41 PM
There are many sources outside of christianty that referto Jesus, the talmud has a number of them
plus those listed already above..

Also this quote from the ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA 15th edition 1974. should help clear
up the matter:

"These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never
doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time on inadequate grounds by
several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th
centuriesĒ.

Raithere
09-07-05, 12:41 AM
The proof for the existence of Jesus is extrabiblicalNeither of these are first-hand accounts. Josephus was born in 37 AD and Tacitus in 55 AD. Obviously, neither of these authors was witness to any events at the time of the crucifixion which would have occurred in 30 AD.

There are further problems with both accounts:

http://www.atheists.org/christianity/didjesusexist.html

~Raithere

stretched
09-07-05, 12:54 AM
The historical Jesus is an ongoing debate, unfortunately the evidence is stacked against a historical Jesus. Herewith the as yet still unrefuted "The Jesus Puzzle"

"Part One,
"A Conspiracy of Silence," takes a detailed look at the pervasive silence on the Gospel Jesus of Nazareth which we find in almost a hundred years of earliest Christian correspondence. Not once does Paul or any other first century epistle writer identify their divine Christ Jesus with the recent historical man known from the Gospels."

The main site: http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/home.htm

Paul299
09-07-05, 04:25 AM
No unbiased historian has made any such claim- only the ignorant would believe any claim made
by such people.



The number of inscriptions from tombs from the first and second century alone kill this lunacy.

Thallus, A Samaritan historian who wrote around 52 Ad of which we have portions of his
whitens records the eclipse of the sun during the crucifixion and attempts to explain it away by
some natral means ( even though it occurred during a full moon period)

below are some links one needs to look over.

Did Jesus Christ Really Live? Annotated and Corrected (http://www.tektonics.org/gk/gauvin01.html)

Jerusalem Burial Cave Reveals:
Names, Testimonies of First Christians (http://www.leaderu.com/theology/burialcave.html)

Jesus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus)

If The Gospels Quote Other Sources, Does This Affect Their Validity? (http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/kking/ntdocs8.html)

HISTORY of the CHRISTIAN CHURCH* (http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/2_ch07.htm)





The Gospels As Historical Sources For Jesus,The Founder Of Christianity (http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth21.html)

Paul299
09-07-05, 04:31 AM
On Kenneth Humphreys' "jesuneverexisted.com" (http://www.tektonics.org/gk/humphreysk01.html)

Serb87
09-07-05, 05:47 AM
Medicine Woman, you know what, you're absolutely right. I'm compeled to believe in god because of some experiences and freaky stories i've heard from credible family members. Even though i believe in god to a certain extent, religion is a load of crap molded by priests and other assholes through the times. This doesen't just count for Christianity, other religious books have also been corrupted by worshipers for their own benifits.

I mean seriously, and i'm not being racist, which god would demise and be sexist towards the women...? i mean, in some muslim countries... if a woman cheats on the man, she is allowed to be killed on the spot. Also they wear towels around their heads, not allowed to show their hair... because its sexual in some way!? how come the men dont wear it? Also, the men are allowed to be married to multiple women at once... doesen't it sounds much more benificial to the man? I find find it hard to believe that the creator of the entire universe would be compeled to create two different sexes in which one clearly dominates the other, not just in power but also in actions... Why say this you ask? well... don't you think god would create us to be equels, and dont you think the greed of the men would result to a change in the religion to benifit them...? men are stronger then women, and if one sex is to have altered the bibles/kurans(keep in mind, *they were written by god*) to their befinits, i blame the men... thats one piece of evidence to suggest that religion is entirely bullshit, well atleast some religions.
Don't get the impression that i'm being racist towards the muslims just because im christian, it doesen't work that way, i don't follow the minor rules of christianity, i follow common sense. Going to church doesen't mean you're religious and you're going to heaven. Belieiving in god and following the simple rule: Don't be bad, and you're alright. No need for towels around your head, no need to keep your virginity 'till you get married, no need to sacrifice your life because of some bullshit people wrote thousands of years ago, at the time they burned women accusing them for witchcraft.
Damn, i'm bein very defencive of women today... lolz

stretched
09-07-05, 06:28 AM
Quote Paul299
"No unbiased historian has made any such claim- only the ignorant would believe any claim made by such people."

* Some evidence regarding bias/non bias would be appreciated (why do you make that claim?), as well as some logical comments on why, for example, you think there was such a overwhelming silence in the contemporary writings regarding a Jesus Christ?

Paul299
09-07-05, 06:43 AM
If you really believe that there is "overwhelming silence" then we have to forget about 50
percent of what we know that has happened in the past.

Itís a very poorly thought up argument dressed up in false clothes for those that have already
made up their minds about the issue.

Paul299
09-07-05, 07:10 AM
Finally, let's seal the coffin on consenus with these words from a hardened skeptic and an Emeritus Professor of History, Morton Smith [Hoff.JesH, 47-8] . Of Wells' work, this historian and skeptic of orthodox Christianity wrote:

"I don't think the arguments in (Wells') book deserve detailed refutation."

"...he argues mainly from silence."

"...many (of his arguments) are incorrect, far too many to discuss in this space."

"(Wells) presents us with a piece of private mythology that I find incredible beyond anything in the Gospels."

None of these scholars, we emphasize, are friends of fundamentalism or evangelical Christianity. Contrary to the protestations of the "Jesus-myth" consortium, they make their statements based on evidence, not ideology. Conspiracy and bias exist only in their own imagination. (http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html)

stretched
09-08-05, 04:43 AM
Quote Paul:
"If you really believe that there is "overwhelming silence" then we have to forget about 50
percent of what we know that has happened in the past.

Itís a very poorly thought up argument dressed up in false clothes for those that have already
made up their minds about the issue."

* OK, its evident you are not up to debate. Why are you here?

stretched
09-08-05, 04:53 AM
To give you some pointers as to potential debate, regarding the silence issue.

1. If someone was going around raising the dead, would this not be WELL documented in the current writings?

2. Someone who was causing tremendous political upheavel that led to cruxifiction, would this not merit more intense documentation?

3. Why does nobody mention the historical Jesus or document his history, even in Christian writings, for 100 years after his death?

4. Why did Jesus only come out of the closet in his 30`s. What did he do up until then?

* Think it through and comment.