Let's Talk About Sin

[Roustabout]

So you rationalize your god over others by saying that the Christian god makes the most sense according to science.

Oh boy.

Look, another strawman. Nice to meet you.
The question is "why not other gods?"

Science simply means knowledge.

 

[Roustabout]

So your argument is that your god 'is the toughest'.

Because the Bible tells you so, I presume?

Do you understand the term circular logic?

Your post is just a bigoted attack. There is nothing circular in what is presented. You obviously don't even understand what I'm stating.

 

[MercyPercy]

Look, another strawman. Nice to meet you.
The question is "why not other gods?"

Science simply means knowledge.

I'm just trying to figure out your actual stance here. Don't hate me for trying to get some clarification.

 

[Roustabout]

I'm just trying to figure out your actual stance here. Don't hate me for trying to get some clarification.

Then let me introduce you to my friend, the question mark.
?
If you want an answer it would be better to ask a question than to mistate my position.

 

[Roustabout]

Why?

Thanks. I should have provided more detail earlier but pressed for time. I suppose it's necessary to clarify whether you are speaking towards an organized religion that makes specific claims about its deity or something vague and undeveloped like deism? Natural theology is a long established field of study. The arguments are deep and developed. Yes, any religion can offer an impersonal creator god. However, we can examine whether those faiths present a creator that holds up to the known creation. The birth of modern science was due to men of faith who believed the cosmos to be intelligible.
There seems to be a dangerous presupposition in this thread that to be a believer one must reject science. That is utter nonsense.

Depends on what you mean. I do not think absolute knowledge of the external can be achieved. I do think we can have (some) knowledge of the external.

Thanks, that does tell me a lot about you philosophically.

Not science fiction nor empirically proven.

Arguing for a multiverse is a super natural explanation that removes the moral and intelligent components of God. There is no evidence for it, and it is untestable. One cannot be consistent and invoke a multiverse theory and deny the possibility for an intelligent, moral agent who brought our universe into existence.

Insignificant in the that it is just one planet circling one star, in one galaxy in a universe considering of billions of galaxies with billions of stars who have their own planets (just in the observable universe).

Having a creator or not having has nothing to do with significance

That is a two edged sword. The anthropic principle (a probability argument) is the other edge.
Also, you will need to define significance. Let's rewind the clock before man existed on the earth. Now, how do you measure significance?



That is the best possible story?[/QUOTE]
I could ask the same about the multiverse.

 

[MercyPercy]

Multiverse theory is actually encouraged by many leading physicists. There's math and crap far beyond my level of expertise.

 

[Roustabout]

What necessitates those qualities/characteristics?

I would point you towards Aquinas' Five ways.

Einstein actually backed off atheism and abandoned his cosmological constant for some of the reasons we are discussing. The universe is space, time, energy and matter. What do we know?
-The universe exists.
-Modern science agrees that the universe came into existence. (it had a beginning)
-Everything that comes into existence has a cause.
-The universe came into existence, therefore the universe has a cause.

Then, by definition, that cause must be immaterial, timeless, and transcendent.

So, if a religion makes a creation claim then it only makes sense that we filter it through the argument and see if it holds up. Keep in mind, we haven't even brought up a personal or moral component.

That is not circular because I am NOT saying this proves the God of the Bible. I am saying, we can apply this argument to any creation claim. Based on what we KNOW (a posteriori) about the universe we can infer what must be. And, as I've said, every pagan religion can be dismissed on this alone.

Now please understand, as others have misunderstood, I am not saying, the cosmological argument proves the Bible is true. It is important to understand what is being argued for, as well as what is not. Keep in mind that the foundations of this argument were brought forth from non Judeo/Christian philosophers who lived in pagan culture.
So, what is being argued for? This is from a personal friend of mine. Grounding the Kalam Cosmological Argument (Chris Morrison) - YouTube

 

[Roustabout]

Multiverse theory is actually encouraged by many leading physicists. There's math and crap far beyond my level of expertise.

Of course it is. Because they KNOW that the universe had a beginning.
Math relies on proofs. If you have any proofs for a multiverse then I am all ears.

 

[MustafaRasta]

That Jesus existed is widely accepted as a genuine historical fact. To state otherwise is absurd. Ehrman is a rabid atheist, so, why would he build a an argument to verify Jesus' existence?
The Case for Christianity: Part 1 - The Historicity of the Bible
http://www.theopedia.com/Historicity_of_the_New_Testament
Top Ten New Testament Archaeological Finds of the... | Christianity Today

So are we going to trade biased sources here? You say my source is a rabid atheists so you give me Christian theists sources to back that point up? OK. Well it is what it is then.

 

[MustafaRasta]

The Bible is no more factual that Homer's Illiad/Odyssey

How Our Present Day Bible Came To Be - this source I think you'll validate also. I may be guilty slight hyperbole when I compared it directly to Homer's work but the point I was making was that they were a collection of stories, parables and poems.


The gospels were written 150 years after the events they claim.

Gospel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Now, I'll be the first to admit that a WIKI page is not exactly the end all and be all of information. There are citations on the page though for each and every date.

When were the gospels written and by whom?|What are the dates and authors of the gospels? | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry - This link is from a Christian apologist website in which the absolute earliest date they give to the gospel of Mark is 60 AD. I tried to find sources that you would approve of and figured even though the previous link list the dates a bit earlier than I suggested I believe it still gets the point across.

Christianity borrowed their Messiah from competing religions.

This is the story of Horus:
Horus was born on Dec 25th to the virgin Isis-Meri via immaculate conception. His birth was signified by a star in the East upon which three kings followed in order to find and adorn the new born savior. In the Bible Mary flees into Egypt to save Jesus from King Herod, Horus' mother, ISIS-MERI flees into another part of Egypt in order to save Horus from "Set." Horus was a child prodigy teacher at the age of 12, there is a GAP in his story from the age of 12 to 30, and just like Jesus at the age of 30 he is baptised (by Anup the baptizer who is later beheaded just like John the baptist) and thus begins his ministry. He had 12 disciples that he traveled about with performing miracles such as healing the sick, restoring sight to the blind, raising the dead and walking on water. Horus was known as "The Truth," "The Light," "The Lamb of God," "The Good Shepard," and many other names including the "KRST" (Horus the KRST). "Christ" is not a name it is a word which simply means "anointed one." In the days of Jesus purported life, Christ was a very common add on to people's names and many political leaders were "christed" as well as the fact that the name "Jesus" was as common then as the names "John" or "Dave" are today. Horus was betrayed by Typhon, persecuted, put on trial and crucified, buried in a tomb and after 3 days was resurrected. He was known as the savior of all mankind, and most Egyptians believed him to be a real person. He also happened to deliver a "Sermon on the Mount." All of this from 3000 BC.

Attis of Phrygia predated Christ. Before and during the years the Christian Gospels were written (from the reign of Claudius, AD 41 - 54) the Festival of Joy, celebrated Attis' death and rebirth was celebrated yearly in Rome.

A Christian writer of the fourth century AD, recounted ongoing disputes between Pagans and Christians over the remarkable similarities of the death and resurrection of their two Gods. The Pagans argued that their God was older and therefore original. The Christians admitted Christ came later, but claimed Attis was a work of the devil whose similarity to Christ, and the fact he predated Christ, were intended to confuse and mislead men. This was apparently the stock answer -- the Christian apologist Tertullian makes the same argument.

Birth Attis of Phrygia was born of the Virgin Nana on December 25th. He was both the Father and the Divine Son.

The Festival of Joy -- the celebration of Attis' death and rebirth

On March 22 a pine tree was brought to the sanctuary of Cybele, on it hung the effigy of Attis. The God was dead. Two days of mourning followed, but when night fell on the eve of the third day, March 25th, the worshippers turned to joy. "For suddenly a light shone in the darkness; the tomb was opened; the God had risen from the dead...[and the priest] softly whispered in their ears the glad tidings of salvation. The resurrection of the God was hailed by his disciples as a promise that they too would issue triumphant from the corruption of the grave." [for more see Frazer, Attis, chapter 1]

Attis' worshipers at a sacramental meal of bread and wine. The wine represented the God's blood; the bread became the body of the savoir. They were baptized in this way: a bull was placed over a grating, the devotee stood under the grating. The bull was stabbed with a consecrated spear. "It's hot reeking blood poured in torrents through the apertures and was received with devout eagerness by the worshiper...who had been born again to eternal life and had washed away his sins in the blood of the bull." [for more see Frazer, Attis, chapter 1]

Attis was called "the Good Sheppard," the "Most High God," the "Only Begotten Son" and "Savior."

[In Rome the new birth and the remission of sins by shedding of bull's blood took place on what is now Vatican Hill, in our days the site of the great basilica of St. Peter's]

The following are some of the similarities between Attis and the Christian story of Jesus:


1. Attis was born on December 25th of the Virgin Nana.

2. He was considered the savior who was slain for the salvation of mankind.

3. His body as bread was eaten by his worshippers.

4. His priests were "eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven."

5. He was both the Divine Son and the Father.

6. On "Black Friday," he was crucified on a tree, from which his holy blood ran down to redeem the earth.

7. He descended into the underworld.

8. After three days, Attis was resurrected on March 25th (as tradition held of Jesus) as the "Most High God."

9. It is recorded that Attis was represented as a "a man tied to a tree, at the foot of which was a lamb, and, without doubt also as a man nailed to a tree..."

10. Itis reported that on March 22nd, a pine tree was felled and "an effigy of the god was affixed to it, thus being slain and hung on a tree..." Later the priests are supposed to have found Attis' grave empty.

Mithra was a Persian savior. The worship of Mithra became common throughout the Roman Empire, particularly among the Roman civil service and military. The Mithraism and Christianity were competitors until the 4th century. Mithra believed to have been born on December 25. Mithra's birth was witnessed by shepherds and by gift-carrying Magi, or - the three wise men. - This was celebrated as the, - Dies Natalis Solic Invite. - The Birthday of the Unconquered Son. - Many followers believed that Mithra was born of a virgin. During his life, Mithra performed many miracles, cured many illnesses, and cast out devils. Mithra celebrated a - - Last Supper with his 12 Disciples. - He ascended to heaven at the time of the spring equinox, about March 21, the first day of spring.

_______________________________________

Now I do want to address something;

I come across as curt and terse in real life because of words I regularly use in my writing, knowing how easy it is to misinterpret "tone" over the internet it's my hope that you give me the benift of the doubt that I am not attacking any of you and I will do the same for you.

My posts on this topic will be more thought out than what I write in the regular VOL forums because here I am going to assume that we're all trying to be adults.

 

[Roustabout]

So are we going to trade biased sources here? You say my source is a rabid atheists so you give me Christian theists sources to back that point up? OK. Well it is what it is then.

The bias of a source has nothing to do with whether it's claims have merit. This is simply a diversionary tactic to avoid dealing with the information presented. Be your definition I could say any source your cite is biased because you are biased.

To make even more hilarious, you cite an anti-Christian bias (Ehrman) as a source arguing for the historical Jesus. Nice one.

Oh, and I hope you understand that the Bible NEVER mentions December 25 as when Christ was born. Comical.

Let me ask you this. Have you actually studied Horus, or Mithra, or are you just taking on faith that these claims are genuine? Hmmmmm?

Let's see.

• Horus was born to Isis; there is no mention in history of her being called “Mary.” Moreover, “Mary” is our Anglicized form of her real name, Miryam or Miriam. “Mary” was not even used in the original texts of Scripture.
• Isis was not a virgin; she was the widow of Osiris and conceived Horus with Osiris.
• Horus was born during month of Khoiak (Oct/Nov), not December 25. Further, there is no mention in the Bible as to Christ’s actual birth date.
• There is no record of three kings visiting Horus at his birth. The Bible never states the actual number of magi that came to see Christ.
• Horus is not a “savior” in any way; he did not die for anyone.
• There are no accounts of Horus being a teacher at the age of 12.
• Horus was not “baptized.” The only account of Horus that involves water is one story where Horus is torn to pieces, with Isis requesting the crocodile god to fish him out of the water.
• Horus did not have a “ministry.”
• Horus did not have 12 disciples. According to the Horus accounts, Horus had four demigods that followed him, and there are some indications of 16 human followers and an unknown number of blacksmiths that went into battle with him.
• There is no account of Horus being betrayed by a friend.
• Horus did not die by crucifixion. There are various accounts of Horus’ death, but none of them involve crucifixion.
• There is no account of Horus being buried for three days.
• Horus was not resurrected. There is no account of Horus coming out of the grave with the body he went in with. Some accounts have Horus/Osiris being brought back to life by Isis and then becoming the lord of the underworld.

Read more: Is Jesus a myth? Is Jesus just a copy of the pagan gods of other ancient religions?

And although we know these pagan religions to predate Jesus historically, the majority of writings we have from these religions date to the 3rd and 4th century. :good!:

 

[MercyPercy]

MustafaRasta just dropped the mother load. I need to go make some popcorn..

 

[MustafaRasta]

The bias of a source has nothing to do with whether it's claims have merit. This is simply a diversionary tactic to avoid dealing with the information presented. Be your definition I could say any source your cite is biased because you are biased.

To make even more hilarious, you cite an anti-Christian bias (Ehrman) as a source arguing for the historical Jesus. Nice one.

Oh, and I hope you understand that the Bible NEVER mentions December 25 as when Christ was born. Comical.

Let me ask you this. Have you actually studied Horus, or Mithra, or are you just taking on faith that these claims are genuine? Hmmmmm?

Let's see.

wow you found 6 ways they were different. They also wore different clothes.. Eureka!

Also I mentioned my source was biased, that's what trading biased sources means.

 

[Roustabout]

MustafaRasta just dropped the mother load. I need to go make some popcorn..

Me thinks you are celebrating to quick.

Old, tired, asked and answered.

Musty,
I think you need to reread. I edited.

 

[MercyPercy]

Me thinks you are celebrating to quick.

Old, tired, asked and answered.

Musty,
I think you need to reread. I edited.

To deny that christianity has borrowed heavily from older religions is simply blind christian homerism.

You big old christ homer.

 

[MustafaRasta]

Me thinks you are celebrating to quick.

Old, tired, asked and answered.

Musty,
I think you need to reread. I edited.

no sir. You didn't even bother to read my post, I know this because you responded while I was still editing it after I initially hit the send button. There is no way you managed to read my posted word count, all the linked information and check the sources in 32 seconds. You are not be an honest intellectual debater.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Thanks. I should have provided more detail earlier but pressed for time. I suppose it's necessary to clarify whether you are speaking towards an organized religion that makes specific claims about its deity or something vague and undeveloped like deism? Natural theology is a long established field of study. The arguments are deep and developed. Yes, any religion can offer an impersonal creator god. However, we can examine whether those faiths present a creator that holds up to the known creation. The birth of modern science was due to men of faith who believed the cosmos to be intelligible.
There seems to be a dangerous presupposition in this thread that to be a believer one must reject science. That is utter nonsense.

I was referring to the fact that there could be a supernatural being that set things into motion if you will. That is all the cosmological argument can claim. Claims beyond that have no basis rooted in the "creator" argument.

Thanks, that does tell me a lot about you philosophically.

No problem.

Arguing for a multiverse is a super natural explanation that removes the moral and intelligent components of God. There is no evidence for it, and it is untestable. One cannot be consistent and invoke a multiverse theory and deny the possibility for an intelligent, moral agent who brought our universe into existence.

Slow down here, lots of claims flying around.

The multiverse theory does have roots in the mathematics of string theory. Yes, it is not testable (beyond dispute) at present moment but that does not mean it won't be untestible in the future.

The multiverse theory has nothing to do with "removing the moral and intelligent components of God". I have no idea where the hell that came from. God or a supernatural being could still exist. The cosmological argument would still apply; it would just extend past the Big Bang.

That is a two edged sword. The anthropic principle (a probability argument) is the other edge.
Also, you will need to define significance. Let's rewind the clock before man existed on the earth. Now, how do you measure significance?

I'm not sure what the anthropic principle has to do with anything unless you are trying to state that you find consciousness significant (which I believe every conscious being would). The problem with the anthropic principle is that we have no idea what other natural laws would be possible, thus you would have no idea whether you could enhance consciousness with different natural laws. But that is neither here nor there.

As for significance, it is a value judgement. You invoked consciousness as your value judge (I think everyone would). I would value planets over asteroids, stars more than planets, black holes more than stars, etc. due to what I think affects more things within the universe. Just my own value judgement. But this is way off on a tangent.

I could ask the same about the multiverse.

Sure. Is it the best possible story given what we know? Maybe. I think it fits better than Genesis (personal value judgement). Either way, I don't find Genesis persuasive at all unless you interpret the stories so allegorically that they would lose all conventional meaning.

 

[Roustabout]

no sir. You didn't even bother to read my post, I know this because you responded while I was still editing it after I initially hit the send button. There is no way you managed to read my posted word count, all the linked information and check the sources in 32 seconds. You are not be an honest intellectual debater.

You really think this is my first rodeo?
I've read all of that. I've debated every topic extensively.

 

[PKT_VOL]

I would point you towards Aquinas' Five ways.

I know Aquinas' Five ways. I fail to understand how those arguments (which have their own problems) necessitate those characteristics.

Einstein actually backed off atheism and abandoned his cosmological constant for some of the reasons we are discussing. The universe is space, time, energy and matter. What do we know?
-The universe exists.
-Modern science agrees that the universe came into existence. (it had a beginning)
-Everything that comes into existence has a cause.
-The universe came into existence, therefore the universe has a cause.

Then, by definition, that cause must be immaterial, timeless, and transcendent.

So, if a religion makes a creation claim then it only makes sense that we filter it through the argument and see if it holds up. Keep in mind, we haven't even brought up a personal or moral component.

That is not circular because I am NOT saying this proves the God of the Bible. I am saying, we can apply this argument to any creation claim. Based on what we KNOW (a posteriori) about the universe we can infer what must be. And, as I've said, every pagan religion can be dismissed on this alone.

Now please understand, as others have misunderstood, I am not saying, the cosmological argument proves the Bible is true. It is important to understand what is being argued for, as well as what is not. Keep in mind that the foundations of this argument were brought forth from non Judeo/Christian philosophers who lived in pagan culture.
So, what is being argued for? This is from a personal friend of mine. Grounding the Kalam Cosmological Argument (Chris Morrison) - YouTube

1) Interesting that you cited Einstein. He was a pantheist, like myself, although he prescribed to a different type of pantheism.

2) Your argument is not valid. Your premises do not necessitate your conclusion. The cause could certainty be material (another universe). The cause could subscribe to time (not necessarily the same universal time we are seemingly confined to).

 

[Roustabout]

I know Aquinas' Five ways. I fail to understand how those arguments (which have their own problems) necessitate those characteristics.



1) Interesting that you cited Einstein. He was a pantheist, like myself, although he prescribed to a different type of pantheism.

2) Your argument is not valid. Your premises do not necessitate your conclusion. The cause could certainty be material (another universe). The cause could subscribe to time (not necessarily the same universal time we are seemingly confined to).

You watched the link?
The Kalam may be a lot of things, but a non sequitur is not one of them.

 

[MustafaRasta]

You really think this is my first rodeo?
I've read all of that. I've debated every topic extensively.

Ya Ok. So since both of us have done this before lets just respond with our own talking points as soon as we see each others name attached to a post. Brilliant Idea. That way I don't have to waste time in my day actually typing things in a forum.

Orange Crush, Big Orange Train -I'll still talk with you.

 

[PKT_VOL]

You watched the link?
The Kalam may be a lot of things, but a non sequitur is not one of them.

I'm not watching a 57 minute video tonight. I'll watch tomorrow.

I was just working off the premises and conclusion you posted.

 

[Orange_Crush]

no sir. You didn't even bother to read my post, I know this because you responded while I was still editing it after I initially hit the send button. There is no way you managed to read my posted word count, all the linked information and check the sources in 32 seconds. You are not be an honest intellectual debater.

I'm going to ask this very carefully...

Did you study the myths posted, and from where? I find many un-factual representations there that are tire repeats of tired, questionable claims. They are mostly repeats from Religulous (2008 anti-religious "documentary"), which was a repeat of The Pagan Christ (2005 book), which was a repeat of Ancient Egypt, Light of the world (1907 book, written by an amateur Egyptologist and is widely debunked), and The Golden Bough (debunked since the mid-20th century).

For instance, Horus wasn't born of immaculate conception. Osiris was murdered, dismemberered, sewn together and had sex with Horus' mother.

He was not crucified. He was nailed into a coffin and then had sex before dying. Or another story has him stung to death by scorpions.

The point that I'm making is that you are repeating undocumented claims that go back 100 years, generally invented and repeated by people with religious axes to grind.

Here's what the experts that are actually in the field have to say on the subject:

Tryggve N. D. Mettinger of Lund University in Sweden wrote in 2001:

"There is now what amounts to a scholarly consensus against the appropriateness of the concept [of dying and rising gods]. Those who still think differently are looked upon as residual members of an almost extinct species....The situation during the last half of the century was thus one when it seemed fairly clear that there were no ideas of resurrection connected with Dumuzi / Tammuz, and that the ideas of a resurrection in connection with Adonis are very late. The references to a resurrection of Adonis have been dated mainly to the Christian Era....Frazer's category was broad and all encompassing. To Frazer, Osiris, Tammuz, Adonis, and Attis were all deities of the same basic type, manifesting the yearly decay and revival of life. He explicitly identified Tammuz and Adonis. The category of dying and rising deities as propagated by Frazer can no longer be upheld." (T.N.D. Mettinger, The Riddle of Resurrection: "Dying and Rising Gods" in the Ancient Near East [2001], page 7, 40, 41)

You can read more full responses to your claims here (which takes the time to judge the claims from within the criteria that the scholars within the field use to judge supposed similarities-- with references):

copycat

and here:

Which details comparisons for each of the supposed similarities you listed.

Evidence for Jesus and Parallel Pagan "Crucified Saviors" Examined

 

[Roustabout]

Your post was links and cut and paste that did not present ANY informatiovn I am not well studied on.

My earlier links were provided to address specific issues where I see you are in error or relying on erroneous information. Your links as you noted were to prove a point you were trying to make. "See I can post links to."

You might not like how long it took me to post, but it seems your "take your ball" reply is a debate tactic to avoid the FACT that those statements and sources you linked are exaggerated and dishonest.

Let's see, mercy was quick on the trigger to claim your post as victory. I'm sure you will criticize him equally. And I'm guessing he is not familiar with the arguments as I am.

 

[Orange_Crush]

The Bible is no more factual that Homer's Illiad/Odyssey

Hyperbole is putting it mildly.

How Our Present Day Bible Came To Be - this source I think you'll validate also. I may be guilty slight hyperbole when I compared it directly to Homer's work but the point I was making was that they were a collection of stories, parables and poems.

No one has claimed that the Bible is not a collection of books, written by different authors. The dates the books were collected into a canon does not reflect the existence of the books, or the date they were written.

The gospels were written 150 years after the events they claim.

Gospel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Now, I'll be the first to admit that a WIKI page is not exactly the end all and be all of information. There are citations on the page though for each and every date.

When were the gospels written and by whom?|What are the dates and authors of the gospels? | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry - This link is from a Christian apologist website in which the absolute earliest date they give to the gospel of Mark is 60 AD. I tried to find sources that you would approve of and figured even though the previous link list the dates a bit earlier than I suggested I believe it still gets the point across.

Wikipedia and carm.org, to state that the gospels were "written 150 years after the events they claim"... The first two sentences of your second link say:

"Dating the gospels is very important. If it can be established that the gospels were written early, say before the year 70 A.D." The author then makes the case for the early writing of each gospel, and you use the link to prove that they were written 150 years later? That is odd.

Christianity borrowed their Messiah from competing religions.

...

dealt with this in another post.

Now I do want to address something;

I come across as curt and terse in real life because of words I regularly use in my writing, knowing how easy it is to misinterpret "tone" over the internet it's my hope that you give me the benift of the doubt that I am not attacking any of you and I will do the same for you.

My posts on this topic will be more thought out than what I write in the regular VOL forums because here I am going to assume that we're all trying to be adults.

I suffer the same thing in my writing and responses. I have thick skin. I can come across in written form as short and a smart___. I hope that I get the same benefit of the doubt.

:hi: