What Is Your Faith Story?

[Canon]

True that.. People had faith that the earth was flat for a LONG period of time.. uh.. I think it might be round now, yes?

ive heard that argument so many times with religion. you know that used to be what scientist believed? does that mean that all science now is disproved? just because people believed that the world was flat and that there was a god does not automatically disprove there being a god out there.

[Barnaby]

All I'm trying to say, having faith is not enough. You have to have evidence to back something up, or you cannot prove its existence. Has anyone read Stranger in a Strange Land. GREAT BOOK if you have not. One of the concepts in the book is the idea of having people being trained as what's called a Fair Witness. The idea is you have these people who are trained to observe events. They report with complete and accurate recollection of what they witnessed. So, think photographic memory here. But beyond that, it's how they observe things. In the book, the way this is demonstrated is if you were to ask a fair witness what color a house is, they would say the side facing me is xxxxx. Since they cannot see the other sides of the house, they cannot jump to the conclusion that the whole house is the same color. This allows them to give fair unbiased reports of what they witness.


Now, I have to agree here that is there really any other way to look at things? If something cannot be proved, why do we believe in it? Why have faith in something that has no justification of existence, other than superstition passed down from the generations, that tried to explain the workings of the world, through our primitive knowledge of the times.


How can you honestly believe someone who says "GOD HAS SPOKEN TO ME! He told me a new testament of the bible to give to all!!!" If I came out and said this, and posted some story, would you believe it? Hell no.. You'd think I'd either be lying, or off my rocker. Why is it these stories in the bible are any different? Someone way long ago supposedly said they had divine inspiration, wrote this down, yet is is to be viewed as doctrine??
Edited June 9, 2009 by Barnaby

[Tyler]

This thread has gone way too off topic and has lost its purpose. No longer checking it. Before I leave, beliving in something without proof is one of the very definitions of faith.

[Barnaby]

I understand the definition of faith, but I guess that's the problem. Trying to believe in something completely unbelievable, when a factual explanation exists for most of what religion attempts to explain.

At the end of the day, what is the purpose? To try and not be afraid of the unknown? To think you aren't really going to die completely, and you'll live on? To what end does it serve? Why do you need the stamp of approval of an unprovable deity to give your life structure, and joy? I can marvel just as well at a beautiful landscape, knowing how amazing nature is. Why do I have to think that its God's great work instead? Why do I have to be afraid of dying, and believe in an afterlife? If I didn't have and end to my life, I wouldn't feel the constraints of time closing in to achieve the things in my life I want to.

I don't think we've gone off topic. This is all part of everyone's story. Why they believe in what they believe, and to what end. How can we learn anything if we don't ask questions, and try to understand. If all anyone is doing is saying, OH Hai! My name is bob, and I'm a devout christian, what did we learn from bob? Nothing until we go, ok Bob. I do not understand where you are coming from. Please tell me. And then by further having Bob clarify and back up his ways, can we try to understand where another comes from. Atleast to a certain extent of course.

[Kapten Kanel]

True that.. People had faith that the earth was flat for a LONG period of time.. uh.. I think it might be round now, yes?

ive heard that argument so many times with religion. you know that used to be what scientist believed? does that mean that all science now is disproved? just because people believed that the world was flat and that there was a god does not automatically disprove there being a god out there.

I cannot say that there is no god (or similar "higher"/unknown existance/form etc), we will never (at least based on how things look now) be able too see things in another way/perspective than our own, what i am trying to say is kind of hard to explain. Im not talking about people having different views on things, im talking about the whole humankind, how our brains/"consciousness" work.

Our brain/"hardware" makes us percieve the "world"/everything around us in a way/we "assemble" the "world" around us in a way we/our brain can "understand". Human intellect may be "nothing", we are locked to our view of the world, damn this is some abstract shit, very hard to explain.

This is also kind of hard to explain but i believe there must be something "more" out there, what the hell is the universe? WTF is this shit, why am i sitting here? What am i? What is my consciousness? - And still we are locked to our "view" of things. There MUST be something we cannot see, something we do not understand. And all this is written by a human, with a human view of things...

Science points towards the non-existance of a god/higher form etc, thats the only thing we have to "stand" on.

I believe that people raised with religion think in a certain "closed" way, not sure how to explain this but my mind is "open" = i know i probably dont know shit, my opinions may change, my view on things may change, everything may change, what is everything? what? - I accept this



*I think this post will need to be read through a couple of times to really get what i mean, most of this shit is more like a "feeling" than anything else.

*I will probably want to edit this post, ive "jumped around" adding/removing/editing text, some weird shit is bound to happen. The edit timer really needs to be removed.

* Yes, i am probably crazy

This thread has gone way too off topic and has lost its purpose. No longer checking it. Before I leave, beliving in something without proof is one of the very definitions of faith.

There is nothing wrong with believeing in something without proof, as long as you are open to changing your "view"/belief, as long as you do not rug everything of and point to "faith" everytime someone challenges your "view"/belief. Also, dont say that you are not going to read this thread and then write your opinion again, that is just childish. Also, why am i even writing this if you are not going to read it...

[Kapten Kanel]

Also about the argument "everything is too complex to have happened by chance", WE percieve/assemble everything/the "world" around us as complex, nothing more. Also i may be wrong, or right, or...

[judgeposer]

I've interpolated my reply.

All I'm trying to say, having faith is not enough. You have to have evidence to back something up, or you cannot prove its existence. Has anyone read Stranger in a Strange Land. GREAT BOOK if you have not. One of the concepts in the book is the idea of having people being trained as what's called a Fair Witness. The idea is you have these people who are trained to observe events. They report with complete and accurate recollection of what they witnessed. So, think photographic memory here. But beyond that, it's how they observe things. In the book, the way this is demonstrated is if you were to ask a fair witness what color a house is, they would say the side facing me is xxxxx. Since they cannot see the other sides of the house, they cannot jump to the conclusion that the whole house is the same color. This allows them to give fair unbiased reports of what they witness.

I would offer that theists do have proof, that we do have "evidence" for our belief in God. For some theists, the various deductive proofs for God's existence convince them, for others, a constellation of observances, experiences and intuition assemble to build an inductive vindication for God's existence. Of course, that same evidence for others doesn't amount to anything - they are not similarly convinced. To a great extent, that's a natural playing out of the human experience: perception and acceptance.

In this regard, some theists, like St. Thomas Aquinas, and those who argue against belief in God's existence by means of an evidentialist objection (what you seem to be arguing - that belief in God is rationally acceptable only if there is evidence for it) agree. So, we have both certain atheists and certain theists agreeing that we do not have to prove God's non-existence in order to justify atheism, atheism is obligatory in the absence of any evidence for God's existence. Where the two sides disagree is on what counts as satisfactory evidence that proves God's existence. Furthermore, one strand of theists, of the sort that follows St. Thomas Aquinas's argument, says that we do have evidence, which is supplied to us by our rationality (i.e. that we can rationally deduce God's existence) and observation (i.e. that we can witness a certain complexity that has had to have been designed - their further assumption is that the designer is God).

"Faith" for this particular type of theist doesn't mean accepting God's existence without evidence, it means accepting the claims of God (e.g. religious claims made by, say, a church, in the form of, say, doctrine) - again, it's not faith in God's existence. This type of theists believes in God because they accept as evidence those certain things that point to, for them, God's existence. The concept of "faith" is something different. I hope you see the similarity and distinction I have attempted to point out. The debate then does not center on having faith in things unseen (and therefore believing in God), it centers on what counts as evidence for believing in God. In this way, this particular group of theists and this particular group of atheists (evidentialist objectors) have the same arguments - they both believe that evidence for God's existence is required for proper belief - but their disagreement centers on what that evidence is.

How can you honestly believe someone who says "GOD HAS SPOKEN TO ME! He told me a new testament of the bible to give to all!!!" If I came out and said this, and posted some story, would you believe it? Hell no.. You'd think I'd either be lying, or off my rocker. Why is it these stories in the bible are any different? Someone way long ago supposedly said they had divine inspiration, wrote this down, yet is is to be viewed as doctrine??

I think you're muddying the arguments here, if not even strawmaning them. In a previous post (#32), I offered a defense/explanation of how some Christians have arrived to rely on Scripture. The argument you have here, or the refutation you seek to employ doesn't address the Christian/Catholic understanding/argument for Scriptural reliance.

I understand the definition of faith, but I guess that's the problem. Trying to believe in something completely unbelievable, when a factual explanation exists for most of what religion attempts to explain.

Again, I think you're muddying your opposition's argument. In the end, perhaps the argument doesn't vindicate what they've concluded, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be contended with and refuted on its own merit. As a Catholic, I would find it dubious for a religion to make claims of science - it is even a matter of historical debate whether the Catholic Church has ever done this. Religion, generally speaking, doesn't seek to displace science - how could it? For a scientific conclusion, say that offered by the theory of evolution (and I do not mean theory in the way most Americans do, as some sort of yet to be established idea, rather, I use it as it is used scientifically, to mean the best explanation we have), science employs a methodology to test and vindicate findings. Religion, or really, theology, has its own. The two, however, have methodologies that suit the evidence they examine and the type of conclusion each seeks to make. It would be a categorical error for science to conclude something of religious significance just as much as it would for theology to conclude something of scientific significance. I mean to say that theology cannot offer properly scientific conclusions, and science cannot offer properly theological conclusions. Where the two tend to overlap is how should a religious person treat or otherwise amend their belief to take into account scientific truths, or how should science proceed taking into account the ethical limitations offered by religion - and ethical limitations are offered not only by religion, I do concede. This is an argument for me, as a Catholic, to say that I can happily, and quite easily believe in the doctrines of my Church, and live out the ethical life my Church encourages me to while simultaneously submitting myself to the findings of science, and the explanations science has offered of our physical world. In other words, I do not see the two as conflicted (although, some religious folk do, admittedly) in the sense that science offers material explanations to the same things religion seeks to explain - foremost because I don't see the two at all attempting to explain the same things, as your argument suggests they do.

At the end of the day, what is the purpose? To try and not be afraid of the unknown? To think you aren't really going to die completely, and you'll live on? To what end does it serve? Why do you need the stamp of approval of an unprovable deity to give your life structure, and joy? I can marvel just as well at a beautiful landscape, knowing how amazing nature is. Why do I have to think that its God's great work instead? Why do I have to be afraid of dying, and believe in an afterlife? If I didn't have and end to my life, I wouldn't feel the constraints of time closing in to achieve the things in my life I want to.

I don't find this line of argumentation at all beneficial because I think it simply misses the reality that the psychological dispositions of both believers and non-believers can be different. Where one finds security in believing in God, another finds no similar security. Where one can look out at the world and has to conclude that God created it, another can see it as some sort of geological evolution - neither of the people miss the beauty of what they're witnessing either.

[judgeposer]

I cannot say that there is no god (or similar "higher"/unknown existance/form etc), we will never (at least based on how things look now) be able too see things in another way/perspective than our own, what i am trying to say is kind of hard to explain. Im not talking about people having different views on things, im talking about the whole humankind, how our brains/"consciousness" work.

Our brain/"hardware" makes us percieve the "world"/everything around us in a way/we "assemble" the "world" around us in a way we/our brain can "understand". Human intellect may be "nothing", we are locked to our view of the world, damn this is some abstract shit, very hard to explain.

This is also kind of hard to explain but i believe there must be something "more" out there, what the hell is the universe? WTF is this shit, why am i sitting here? What am i? What is my consciousness? - And still we are locked to our "view" of things. There MUST be something we cannot see, something we do not understand. And all this is written by a human, with a human view of things...

Science points towards the non-existance of a god/higher form etc, thats the only thing we have to "stand" on.

I believe that people raised with religion think in a certain "closed" way, not sure how to explain this but my mind is "open" = i know i probably dont know shit, my opinions may change, my view on things may change, everything may change, what is everything? what? - I accept this

*I think this post will need to be read through a couple of times to really get what i mean, most of this shit is more like a "feeling" than anything else.

*I will probably want to edit this post, ive "jumped around" adding/removing/editing text, some weird shit is bound to happen. The edit timer really needs to be removed.

* Yes, i am probably crazy

You're not crazy! You're a thinker! I don't mean to patronize at all - but, you might take great interest in majoring in philosophy - assuming a bunch of things, like that you're a college student, etc.

I did - and I concluded on the side of belief, but I do know others too, most of my classmates even, who concluded differently. The major did what it was supposed to do - teach one how to unpack, distinguish, and evaluate arguments - and to some extent it teaches how to make them too.

[Barnaby]

Going into a more evidence based argument then, why is it that the story of Jesus is not unique? Almost all religions talk about a Messiah born on Dec. 25th from a virgin, was crucified, buried, and rose 3 days later. They all talk about the messiah having 12 disciples as well.

Why are there SO many similarities on these religious figures?

I present then for debate this transcript from the movie Zeitgeist:

Part One: The Greatest Story Ever Told

This is the sun. As far back as 10 thousand B.C.E., history is abundant with carvings [M] and writings reflecting people's respect and adoration for this object [S1]. And it is simple to understand why as every morning the sun would rise, bringing vision, warmth, and security, saving man from the cold, blind, predator-filled darkness of night. Without it, the cultures understood, the crops would not grow, and life on the planet would not survive. These realities made the sun the most adored object of all time.[M] Likewise, they were also very aware of the stars.[M] The tracking of the stars allowed them to recognize and anticipate events which occurred over long periods of time, such as eclipses and full moons.[M] They in turn catalogued celestial groups into what we know today as constellations.[S2]

This is the cross of the Zodiac, one of the oldest conceptual images in human history. [M] It reflects the sun as it figuratively passes through the 12 major constellations over the course of a year. It also reflects the 12 months of the year, the 4 seasons, and the solstices and equinoxes [S3] . The term Zodiac relates to the fact that constellations were anthropomorphized, or personified, as figures, or animals.[S4] [M]

In other words, the early civilizations did not just follow the sun and stars, they personified them with elaborate myths involving their movements and relationships. [S5] [M] The sun, with its life-giving and -saving qualities was personified as a representative of the unseen creator or god...[M]"God's Sun,"[M] the light of the world, the savior of human kind.[S6] Likewise, the 12 constellations represented places of travel for God's Sun and were identified by names, usually representing elements of nature that happened during that period of time. For example, Aquarius, the water bearer, who brings the Spring rains.[S7] [M] [D]

This is Horus.[M] He is the Sun God of Egypt of around 3000 BC [S8] [D]. He is the sun, anthropomorphized, and his life is a series of allegorical myths involving the sun's movement in the sky. [S9] [S10] [M] From the ancient hieroglyphics in Egypt, we know much about this solar messiah. For instance, Horus, being the sun, or the light, had an enemy known as Set and Set [D] was the personification of the darkness or night .[M] [S11] And, metaphorically speaking, every morning Horus would win the battle against Set - while in the evening, Set would conquer Horus and send him into the underworld. [S12] [S13] It is important to note that "dark vs. light" or "good vs. evil" is one of the most ubiquitous mythological dualities ever known and is still expressed on many levels to this day.

Broadly speaking, the story of Horus is as follows: Horus was born on December 25th [S14] [S15] of the virgin Isis-Meri.[S16] [S17] [S18] [D] [M] His birth was accompanied by a star in the east [S19], which in turn, three kings followed to locate and adorn the new-born savior [M] [S20] [S21] At the age of 12, he was a prodigal child teacher, and at the age of 30 [S22] [S23] he was baptized by a figure known as Anup [M] and thus began his ministry[S24] [M]. Horus had 12 disciples[S25] he traveled about with, performing miracles[S26] [S27]such as healing the sick[S28] and walking on water[S29]. Horus was known by many gestural names such as The Truth, The Light, God's Annointed Son, The Good Shepherd, The Lamb of God, and many others[S30] [S31]. After being betrayed by Typhon[S32], Horus was crucified[S33] [S34], buried for 3 days[S35], and thus, resurrected.[S36] [S37] [M].

These attributes of Horus, whether original or not, seem to permeate in many cultures of the world, for many other gods are found to have the same general mythological structure.

Attis, of Phyrigia, born of the virgin Nana on December 25th, crucified, placed in a tomb and after 3 days, was resurrected.
[S38] [S39] [S40] [S41] [S42] [S43] [M] [D]

Krishna, of India, born of the virgin Devaki with a star in the east signaling his coming, performed miracles with his disciples, and upon his death was resurrected.
[S44] [S45] [S46] [S47] [S48] [M] [M2] [D]

Dionysus of Greece, born of a virgin on December 25th, was a traveling teacher who performed miracles such as turning water into wine, he was referred to as the "King of Kings," "God's Only Begotten Son," "The Alpha and Omega," and many others, and upon his death, he was resurrected.
[S49] [S50] [S51] [S52] [S53] [M]

Mithra, of Persia, born of a virgin on December 25th, he had 12 disciples and performed miracles, and upon his death was buried for 3 days and thus resurrected, he was also referred to as "The Truth," "The Light," and many others. Interestingly, the sacred day of worship of Mithra was Sunday.
[S54] [S55] [S56] [S57] [S58] [M]

The fact of the matter is there are numerous saviors, from different periods, from all over the world, which subscribe to these general characteristics. The question remains: why these attributes, why the virgin birth on December 25th, why dead for three days and the inevitable resurrection, why 12 disciples or followers? [M] To find out, let's examine the most recent of the solar messiahs.

Jesus Christ was born of the virgin Mary on December 25th [D] in Bethlehem, his birth was announced by a star in the east, which three kings or magi followed to locate and adorn the new savior.[D] He was a child teacher at 12, at the age of 30 he was baptized by John the Baptist, and thus began his ministry. Jesus had 12 disciples which he traveled about with performing miracles such as healing the sick, walking on water, raising the dead, he was also known as the "King of Kings," the "Son of God," the "Light of the World," the "Alpha and Omega," the "Lamb of God," and many others. After being betrayed by his disciple Judas and sold for 30 pieces of silver, he was crucified, placed in a tomb and after 3 days was resurrected and ascended into Heaven.[S59]

First of all, the birth sequence is completely astrological. The star in the east is Sirius, the brightest star in the night sky, which, on December 24th, aligns with the 3 brightest stars in Orion's Belt. [S60] [M] These 3 bright stars are called today what they were called in ancient times: The Three Kings.[S61] [S62] The Three Kings and the brightest star, Sirius, all point to the place of the sunrise on December 25th.[S63] [M] This is why the Three Kings "follow" the star in the east, in order to locate the sunrise -- the birth of the sun.[S64] [M]

The Virgin Mary is the constellation Virgo, [S65] also known as Virgo the Virgin. Virgo in Latin means virgin. The ancient glyph for Virgo is the altered "m". This is why Mary along with other virgin mothers, such as Adonis's mother Myrrha [S66], or Buddha's mother Maya [S67] begin with an M.[S68] [M] Virgo is also referred to as the House of Bread [S69] [S70], and the representation of Virgo is a virgin holding a sheaf of wheat. This House of Bread and its symbol of wheat represents August and September, the time of harvest. [D] In turn, Bethlehem, in fact, literally translates to "house of bread". [M] [S71] Bethlehem is thus a reference to the constellation Virgo , a place in the sky, not on Earth.[M] [S72]

There is another very interesting phenomenon that occurs around December 25th, or the winter solstice. From the summer solstice to the winter solstice, the days become shorter and colder. From the perspective of the northern hemisphere, the sun appears to move south and get smaller and more scarce. The shortening of the days and the expiration of the crops when approaching the winter solstice symbolized the process of death to the ancients. It was the death of the Sun. [S73] By December 22nd, the Sun's demise was fully realized, for the Sun, having moved south continually for 6 months, makes it to it's lowest point in the sky. Here a curious thing occurs: the Sun stops moving south, at least perceivably, for 3 days.[S74] [M] During this 3 day pause, the Sun resides in the vicinity of the Southern Cross, or Crux, constellation.[S75] [S76] [M] And after this time on December 25th, the Sun moves 1 degree, this time north, foreshadowing longer days, warmth, and Spring.[S77] And thus it was said: the Sun died on the cross, [D] was dead for 3 days, only to be resurrected or born again.[S78] [S79]This is why Jesus and numerous other Sun Gods share the crucifixion, 3-day death, and resurrection concept. [S80] [M] It is the Sun's transition period before it shifts its direction back into the Northern Hemisphere, bringing Spring, and thus salvation.[S81] [S82] [M]

However, they did not celebrate the resurrection of the Sun until the spring equinox, or Easter. This is because at the spring equinox, the Sun officially overpowers the evil darkness, as daytime thereafter becomes longer in duration than night, and the revitalizing conditions of spring emerge.[M] [S83]

Now, probably the most obvious of all the astrological symbolism around Jesus regards the 12 disciples. They are simply the 12 constellations of the Zodiac, which Jesus, being the Sun, travels about with. [S84] [S85] [S86] [S87] [M]

In fact, the number 12 is replete throughout the Bible. [M] This text has more to do with astrology than anything else.

Coming back to the cross of the Zodiac, the figurative life of the Sun, this was not just an artistic expression or tool to track the Sun's movements. It was also a Pagan spiritual symbol, [S88] the shorthand of which looked like this. [S89] This is not a symbol of Christianity. [M] It is a Pagan adaptation of the cross of the Zodiac. [S90] [S91] This is why Jesus in early occult art is always shown with his head on the cross, for Jesus is the Sun, the Sun of God, the Light of the World, [S92] the Risen Savior, [S93] who will "come again,"[S94] as it does every morning, the Glory of God [S95] who defends against the works of darkness,[S96] as he is "born again" [S97] every morning, and can be seen "coming in the clouds,"[S98] "up in Heaven,"[S99]with his "Crown of Thorns,"[S100] or, sun rays.

Now, of the many astrological-astronomical metaphors in the Bible, one of the most important has to do with the ages. Throughout the scripture there are numerous references to the "Age." In order to understand this, we need to be familiar with the phenomenon known as the precession of the equinoxes. The ancient Egyptians along with cultures long before them recognized that approximately every 2150 [D] years the sunrise on the morning of the spring equinox would occur at a different sign of the Zodiac. [M] This has to do with a slow angular wobble that the Earth maintains as it rotates on it's axis.It is called a precession because the constellations go backwards, rather than through the normal yearly cycle. [S101] The amount of time that it takes for the precession to go through all 12 signs is roughly 25,765 years. [S102] This is also called the "Great Year," [S103] and ancient societies were very aware of this. They referred to each 2150 year period as an "age." From 4300 b.c. to 2150 b.c., it was the Age of Taurus, the Bull. From 2150 b.c. to 1 a.d., it was the Age of Aries, the Ram, and from 1 a.d. to 2150 a.d. it is the Age of Pisces, the age we are still in to this day, and in and around 2150, we will enter the new age: the Age of Aquarius. [S104] [S105]

Now, the Bible reflects, broadly speaking, a symbolic movement through 3 ages, while foreshadowing a 4th. In the Old Testament when Moses comes down Mount Sinai with the 10 Commandments, he is very upset to see his people worshiping a golden bull calf.[S106] In fact, he shattered the stone tablets and instructed his people to kill each other in order to purify themselves. [S107] Most Biblical scholars would attribute this anger to the fact that the Israelites were worshiping a false idol, [S108] or something to that effect. The reality is that the golden bull is Taurus the Bull, and Moses represents the new Age of Aries the Ram. [S109] [M] This is why Jews even today still blow the Ram's horn. [S110] [M] Moses represents the new Age of Aries, [S111] and upon the new age, everyone must shed the old age. Other deities mark these transitions as well, a pre-Christian god who kills the bull, in the same symbology. [S112] [S113] [M]

Now Jesus is the figure who ushers in the age following Aries, the Age of Pisces the Two Fish.[S114] [S115] [M] Fish symbolism is very abundant in the New Testament. Jesus feeds 5000 people with bread and "2 fish." [S116] When he begins his ministry walking along Galilei, he befriends 2 fisherman, who follow him. [S117] [M] And I think we've all seen the Jesus-fish on the backs of people's cars. Little do they know what it actually means. It is a Pagan astrological symbolism for the Sun's Kingdom during the Age of Pisces.[S118] [M] Also, Jesus' assumed birth date is essentially the start of this age.

At Luke 22:10 when Jesus is asked by his disciples where the next passover will be, Jesus replied: "Behold, when ye are entered into the city, there shall a man meet you bearing a pitcher of water... follow him into the house where he entereth in." This scripture is by far one of the most revealing of all the astrological references. The man bearing a pitcher of water is Aquarius, the water-bearer, who is always pictured as a man pouring out a pitcher of water. [S119] He represents the age after Pisces, and when the Sun (God's Sun) leaves the Age of Pisces (Jesus), it will go into the House of Aquarius, as Aquarius follows Pisces in the precession of the equinoxes. Also Jesus is saying is that after the Age of Pisces will come the Age of Aquarius. [S120] [M]

Now, we have all heard about the end times and the end of the world. Apart from the cartoonish depictions in the Book of Revelation, the main source of this idea comes from Matthew 28:20, where Jesus says "I will be with you even to the end of the world." [S121] However, in King James Version, "world" is a mistranslation, among many mistranslations. The actual word being used is "aeon", which means "age." "I will be with you even to the end of the age." Which is true, as Jesus' Solar Piscean personification will end when the Sun enters the Age of Aquarius. [S122] The entire concept of end times and the end of the world is a misinterpreted astrological allegory.[S123] [S124] [S125] [S126] [S127] [M] Let's tell that to the approximately 100 million people in America who believe the end of the world is coming.

Furthermore, the character of Jesus, a literary and astrological hybrid, is most explicitly a plagiarization of the Egyptian Sun-god Horus.[S128] [S129] [S130] [S131]For example, inscribed about 3500 years, on the walls of the Temple of Luxor in Egypt are images of the enunciation, the immaculate conception, the birth, and the adoration of Horus. [S132] The images begin with Thaw announcing to the virgin Isis that she will conceive Horus, then Nef the holy ghost impregnating the virgin, and then the virgin birth and the adoration.[S133] [S134] [M] This is exactly the story of Jesus' miracle conception. In fact, the literary similarities between the Egyptian religion and the Christian religion are staggering. [M] [S135]

And the plagiarism is continuous. The story of Noah and Noah's Ark is taken directly from tradition. The concept of a Great Flood is ubiquitous throughout the ancient world, with over 200 different cited claims in different periods and times. [S136] [S137] [M] However, one need look no further for a pre-Christian source than the Epic of Gilgamesh,[S138] [S139] written in 2600 b.c. This story talks of a Great Flood commanded by God, an Ark with saved animals upon it, and even the release and return of a dove, all held in common with the biblical story, among many other similarities.[S140] [M]

And then there is the plagiarized story of Moses. Upon Moses' birth, it is said that he was placed in a reed basket and set adrift in a river in order to avoid infanticide. He was later rescued by a daughter of royalty and raised by her as a Prince.[S141] This baby in a basket story was lifted directly from the myth of Sargon of Akkad of around 2250 b.c. Sargon was born, placed in a reed basket in order to avoid infanticide, and set adrift in a river. He was in turn rescued and raised by Akki, a royal mid-wife.[S142] [S143] [M]

Furthermore, Moses is known as the Law Giver, the giver of the Ten Commandments,[S144] the Mosaic Law. However, the idea of a Law being passed from God to a prophet on a mountain is also a very old motif. Moses is just a law giver in a long line of law givers in mythological history. [S145] In India, Manou was the great law giver. [S146] In Crete, Minos ascended Mount Dicta, where Zeus gave him the sacred laws. [S147] While in Egypt there was Mises, [S148] who carried stone tablets and upon them the laws of god were written.

And as far as the Ten Commandments, they are taken outright from Spell 125 of the Egyptian Book of the Dead. [S149] What the Book of the Dead phrased "I have not stolen" became "Thou shall not steal," "I have not killed" became "Thou shall not kill," "I have not told lies" became "Thou shall not bear false witness" and so forth. [S150] In fact, the Egyptian religion is likely the primary foundational basis for the Judeo-Christian theology. [M] Baptism, [S151] afterlife,[S152] final judgment, [S153] virgin birth [S154] and resurrection, [S155] crucifixion, [S156] the ark of the covenant, [S157]circumcision, [S158] [S159] saviors,[S160] holy communion, [S161] the great flood, [S162] Easter, [S163] Christmas [S164] [S165] , Passover, [S166] and many many more, are all attributes of Egyptian ideas, long predating Christianity and Judaism.

Justin Martyr, one of the first Christian historians and defenders, wrote: "When we say that he, Jesus Christ, our teacher, was produced without sexual union, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into Heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those who you esteem Sons of Jupiter." [S167] In a different writing, Justin Martyr said "He was born of a virgin, accept this in common with what you believe of Perseus." [S168] It's obvious that Justin and other early Christians knew how similar Christianity was to the Pagan religions. However, Justin had a solution. As far as he was concerned, the Devil did it. The Devil had the foresight to come before Christ, and create these characteristics in the Pagan world. [S169]

The Bible is nothing more than an astro-theological literary fold hybrid, just like nearly all religious myths before it. [S170] [S171] [S172] [S173] [S174]In fact, the aspect of transference, of one character's attributes to a new character, can be found within the book itself. In the Old Testament there's the story of Joseph. Joseph was a prototype for Jesus. Joseph was born of a miracle birth, [S175] Jesus was born of a miracle birth. [S176] Joseph was of 12 brothers, [S177] Jesus had 12 disciples. [S178] Joseph was sold for 20 pieces of silver, [S179]Jesus was sold for 30 pieces of silver. [S180] Brother "Judah" suggests the sale of Joseph, [S181] disciple "Judas" suggests the sale of Jesus. [S182] Joseph began his work at the age of 30, [S183]Jesus began his work at the age of 30. [S184] The parallels go on and on.

Furthermore, is there any non-Biblical historical evidence of any person, living with the name Jesus, the Son of Mary, who traveled about with 12 followers, healing people and the like? There are numerous historians who lived in and around the Mediterranean either during or soon after the assumed life of Jesus.[S185] How many of these historians document this figure? Not one. [S186] However, to be fair, that doesn't mean defenders of the Historical Jesus haven't claimed the contrary. Four historians are typically referenced to justify Jesus's existence. Pliny the younger, Suetonius, Tacitus and the first three. [M] [S187] Each one of their entries consists of only a few sentences at best and only refer to the Christus or the Christ, which in fact is not name but a title. It means the "Anointed one" [S188] The fourth source is Josephus and this source has been proven to be a forgery for hundreds of years.[S189] Sadly, it is still cited as truth.

You would think that a guy who rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven for all eyes to see and performed the wealth of miracles acclaimed to him would have made it into the historical record. It didn't because once the evidence is weighed, there are very high odds that the figure known as Jesus, did not even exist.[S190] [S191] [S192] [S193]

The reality is, Jesus was the Solar Deity of the Gnostic Christian sect, [S194] [S195] [S196] and like all other Pagan gods, he was a mythical figure. It was the political establishment that sought to historize the Jesus figure for social control. By 325 a.d. in Rome, emperor Constantine convened the Council of Nicea. [S197] It was during this meeting that the politically motivated Christian Doctrines were established and thus began a long history of Christian bloodshed and spiritual fraud. And for the next 1600 years, the Vatican maintained a political stranglehold on all of Europe, leading to such joyous periods as the Dark Ages, along with enlightening events such as the Crusades, and the Inquisition.

Christianity, along with all other theistic belief systems, is the fraud of the age. It serves to detach the species from the natural world, and likewise, each other. It supports blind submission to authority. It reduces human responsibility to the effect that "God" controls everything, and in turn awful crimes can be justified in the name of Divine Pursuit. And most importantly, it empowers those who know the truth but use the myth to manipulate and control societies. The religious myth is the most powerful device ever created, and serves as the psychological soil upon which other myths can flourish.

[Barnaby]

So, with that for all to read, what is more believable of a tale? The story of Christianity, at face value? Or a fanciful story we made up to try and explain the workings of our universe...

I have to go with the simplest explanation, as it makes the most sense. We are a very creative, imaginative species. We have thought up many things. But there comes a time we need to grow out of our infancy, and stop believing in imaginary friends. We have to grow up as a species, and start taking care of the responsibility given to us.

[judgeposer]

So, with that for all to read, what is more believable of a tale? The story of Christianity, at face value? Or a fanciful story we made up to try and explain the workings of our universe...

I have to go with the simplest explanation, as it makes the most sense. We are a very creative, imaginative species. We have thought up many things. But there comes a time we need to grow out of our infancy, and stop believing in imaginary friends. We have to grow up as a species, and start taking care of the responsibility given to us.

Wow. . .avoidance much. Now that you've dispatched with the Christian God, that still leaves. . .wait, just plain God.

[Barnaby]

What am I avoiding? Without religion, how can there be a God? God is our concept for that which cannot be yet explained. Without religions to back up that concept, how can we even come to that conclusion that there MUST be a God? Why can't we just admit to not knowing anything. I'd go as far to say it's our own arrogance that helps come up with the idea of God, instead of just being able to say, I don't know.

[judgeposer]

What am I avoiding? Without religion, how can there be a God? God is our concept for that which cannot be yet explained. Without religions to back up that concept, how can we even come to that conclusion that there MUST be a God? Why can't we just admit to not knowing anything. I'd go as far to say it's our own arrogance that helps come up with the idea of God, instead of just being able to say, I don't know.

Without religion, there cannot be God - which is a restatement of your question, Without religion, how can there be a God? - doesn't make any sense. Not all theists are religious, and not all religious folk are theists - the two are not necessarily linked. God is NOT "our concept for that which cannot be yet explained," as I have argued in post #57 - scientists have theorized much about quantum mechanics and string theory, but they have yet to provide testable, falsifiable data on the topic - according to your definition of "God," God = super string theory. In using the word "yet," do you mean to suggest, as the word does, that one day we will be able to explain God - that belief in God will one day be vindicated?

I don't suggest, nor has any theist or atheist raising the evidentialist argument against belief in God, that "we just admit to not knowing anything," again, something I responded to in post #57. It has nothing to do with arrogance, at least not philosophically. To that extent you have employed an ad hominem fallacy.

My comment about your avoidance referred to your lengthy post from that documentary (which, incidentally, I saw last with Eric, and thought it quite provoking and informative) and how it attempts to dispatch with the Christian God, but even if it does so successfully - and let us assume it has - the Christian conception of God is but one among many. In other words, even if the documentary offered accurate evidence (something we have so far simply assumed and not verified, at least I haven't, have you?), the evidence refutes the Christian religion, not God. It merely attempts to show that Christians have utilized narratives of other, previous cultures and religions, and to a great extent co-opted them for its own use. It has not argued that there is no God. It has said that, if anything, that Christianity is baseless, not that God does not exist.

[judgeposer]

For those interested in continuing along the lines we have most recently, I will continue on this thread: The oldest debate Gets Older - Hopefully, this will free-up this thread for its original purpose.

Peace, Jay