Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 61
  1. #41
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,345
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The bible: not so original (part 1)

    @apok. You said "This is just all-around bad reasoning. Also, I noticed you were unable to actually respond to the post properly and address the core of it".

    We're going to pause the debate now to simply reflect on the fact that I had to practically twist your arm to get you to debate about Justin Martyr, but then you accused me of not responding to the core of your argument. I'll reply to your post in a bit. But first...

    ... what happened to you, man? You never used to do crap like this.

    Moving on...

    The first part of your reply was spam worded as trash talking about what you think that I think of my article. It's borderline ad hom trash and not worth replying to.

    You went on to discard the works of Justin Martyr... as though the early works of a church father writing just a few decades after Jesus life (somehow) can be ignored. They can't. Like it or not, he's an authority on Christianity and there's not an apologist on the planet who would disagree. So when he says that earlier religions so closely resembled Christianity it proves that Christianity isn't so original as you thought... especially when we discard his silly excuse about demons. If you continue to ignore this fact, I will simply assume that you are unwilling or unable to offer a proper rebuttal to the point.

    Your rebuttal to the similarities between Hermes and Jesus was to ignore the similarities in their mothers' names, ignore that shepherds feature in both stories, and harp on the idea that Jesus being born is heretical. How convenient. And you accuse me of not addressing issues?

    Look, it's clear that you don't want to take this debate seriously. I had to twist you arm to get you to address it, you're ignoring huge points and then accusing ME of doing that. I'm happy to reply to the whole thing, but I need to know if you're going to start taking this debate seriously. Otherwise, there's no point in replying to your "rebuttal".

  2. #42
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,747
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The bible: not so original (part 1)

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhavric View Post
    So when he says that earlier religions so closely resembled Christianity it proves that Christianity isn't so original as you thought... especially when we discard his silly excuse about demons.
    Where does Justin say this? I'm assuming that you are unwilling to actually address the obvious issue that rebutting a claim of similarity is not the same thing as endorsing it?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  3. #43
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,394
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The bible: not so original (part 1)

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhavric View Post
    @apok. You said "This is just all-around bad reasoning. Also, I noticed you were unable to actually respond to the post properly and address the core of it".

    We're going to pause the debate now to simply reflect on the fact that I had to practically twist your arm to get you to debate about Justin Martyr, but then you accused me of not responding to the core of your argument. I'll reply to your post in a bit. But first...

    ... what happened to you, man? You never used to do crap like this.

    Moving on...

    The first part of your reply was spam worded as trash talking about what you think that I think of my article. It's borderline ad hom trash and not worth replying to.
    Irrelevant to the argument.

    You went on to discard the works of Justin Martyr... as though the early works of a church father writing just a few decades after Jesus life (somehow) can be ignored.
    I never discarded any works by JM. Not once. You aren't reading what is actually said. You have violated your own rule:

    3. Know your opponent's stance.
    I see the worst violations whenever evolution comes up (though it's not limited to that). The anti-evolution crowd seems to wear their ignorance of evolution as a badge of honor. I can't tell you how profoundly trollish this is. If you can't debate without attacking a line of straw men, then you can't debate. Take the time to understand a stance before you attack it.

    My position wasn't "JM First Apology should be ignored" or "JM's First Apology" was wrong. How you could even think that was my position is beyond me. As explained in my last 2 posts...my position is "JM's First Apology doesn't say you claim it says."

    So...to refute that detailed and easily explained position, you need to actually address the points given that argue what he was actually arguing (which is contrary to what YOU say he was arguing).

    They can't. Like it or not, he's an authority on Christianity and there's not an apologist on the planet who would disagree. So when he says that earlier religions so closely resembled Christianity it proves that Christianity isn't so original as you thought... especially when we discard his silly excuse about demons.
    Strawman.

    If you continue to ignore this fact, I will simply assume that you are unwilling or unable to offer a proper rebuttal to the point.
    What you are doing here is ignoring my actual argument, insisting it is saying something that it isn't, then charging that as a result of what you are falsely saying my argument is that I am unwilling or unable to provide an actual rebuttal...again...even though you either misunderstood my argument or you have outright ignored it.

    This is borderline trolling Zhav. This is a friendly, unofficial warning that you are (like you always do btw), getting close to that line. Step away from that line and discuss the topic legitimately.

    Your rebuttal to the similarities between Hermes and Jesus was to ignore the similarities in their mothers' names
    Be specific...how are the names a relevant similarity?

    ignore that shepherds feature in both stories
    Be specific, how is this a relevant similarity?

    By your reasoning here...we may as well say that the story is a copy because in both stories the subjects had arms and legs. You need to provide relevant similarities...or if you believe they are...then you need to explain how or why they are.

    , and harp on the idea that Jesus being born is heretical. How convenient. And you accuse me of not addressing issues?
    I didn't harp on any such idea.

    Go back, read carefully, learn to understand the argument.

    Look, it's clear that you don't want to take this debate seriously. I had to twist you arm to get you to address it, you're ignoring huge points and then accusing ME of doing that. I'm happy to reply to the whole thing, but I need to know if you're going to start taking this debate seriously. Otherwise, there's no point in replying to your "rebuttal".
    This is an irrelevant and desperate response.

    You've been given 2 sound objections to your op. You have not addressed either of them. You have however violated your own "Top 10 List" on how to debate properly...and done so several times.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  4. #44
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    9,471
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The bible: not so original (part 1)

    Zhavric, I'm still waiting for you to cite the section of the Catechism of the Catholic Church which states that non-Christian religions were fabricated by the Devil to trick people, or to retract your claim that that is official Church doctrine.

    I will not let this one go.

  5. #45
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,345
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The bible: not so original (part 1)

    Quote Originally Posted by Apok
    Be specific, how is this a relevant similarity?
    I see you're unwilling to or incapable of taking this debate seriously or avoiding the pitfalls I advised of in the opening post. That's too bad.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin
    I'm still waiting for you to cite the section of the Catechism of the Catholic Church which states that non-Christian religions were fabricated by the Devil to trick people,
    I'm waiting for you to do a lot of things. In this case, it's to understand that Justin Martyr is an authority on Christianity. If he says that it resembled earlier religions, it means it's not as unique as you think. You can ignore that and move the goal posts all you want. But it doesn't change the facts.

  6. #46
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    9,471
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The bible: not so original (part 1)

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhavric View Post
    I'm waiting for you to do a lot of things. In this case, it's to understand that Justin Martyr is an authority on Christianity. If he says that it resembled earlier religions, it means it's not as unique as you think. You can ignore that and move the goal posts all you want. But it doesn't change the facts.
    You claimed that the Catholic Church currently holds an official doctrine that non-Christian religions were created by Satan to trick people. I am asking you to support your claim or retract it. It's that simple. If you don't reply, or your reply again fails to provide support for this claim, I will take it as a concession of the claim.

  7. #47
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    With my Angel in Aurora
    Posts
    5,722
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The bible: not so original (part 1)

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhavric View Post
    Thank you.

    But the fact that he makes this point is what Apok and the others can't seem to deal with. Look, if Christianity DIDN'T borrow from earlier religions, then Martyr becomes a raving lunatic when he writes this. He (Martyr) is using the same tired defense that modern day Christians use: "It's not a carbon copy so it couldn't have been taken from earlier writings".
    Here's the thing, Zhav. Justin Martyr is NOT saying "Christianity bears striking similarities from other, ancient, religions." If, as you claim, that's what Justin Martyr is saying, then he becomes a raving lunatic BECAUSE he's a CHristian whose defense of CHristianity becomes, "Hey look at what I believe, it looks just like a score of other religions!" That's. Insane. Period.

    What is ultimately more reasonable, and actually evidenced (as I demonstrated in my prior post and will continue to do so if needed), is that Justin Martyr is addressing a nonbeliever who's position is similar to yours in the sense of looking at Christianity and seeing an amalgam of ancient faiths. Justin Martyr is in turn arguing, "Those apparent similarities aren't actual similarities. They come from demons eavesdropping on ancient prophecies and, not understanding the prophecy, attempting to create a seeming fulfillment of them. But they got it wrong. Repeatedly."

    All you've done, thus far, is say, "This is what Justin Martyr said and this is what it means" and when I point to the more strongly evidenced alternative, you've just "Nah-uh"ed and continued your claim. Welcome back, btw.
    But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.
    1 Peter 3:15-16

  8. Likes Squatch347 liked this post
  9. #48
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,394
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The bible: not so original (part 1)

    Here's how this thread seems to be going thus far:

    1. Zhavric claims Christianity is influenced by other religions, and specifically claims that Scripture is influenced and resembles these other religions.
    2. Zhavric for support, claims that in the First Apology, by Justin Martyr, it is admitted by JM that Christianity is influenced by these other religions.
    3. I explain that JM is not admitting any such thing, but rather Zhavric misread or misunderstood and provide details, references, and explanations to support that position.
    4. Zhavric is questioned (and informally challenged) to support and respond by myself.
    5. Zhavric, because I disagree with him and challenged him (as well as asked for specifics and support for his claims), then alleges that the discussion is not being taken seriously.



    Obviously...this discussion is NOT being taken seriously...and unfortunately, it is the thread starter (Zhavric who apparently never intended for this discussion to be taken seriously) isn't taking it seriously

    ---------- Post added at 05:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:58 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhavric View Post
    I'm waiting for you to do a lot of things. In this case, it's to understand that Justin Martyr is an authority on Christianity. If he says that it resembled earlier religions, it means it's not as unique as you think. You can ignore that and move the goal posts all you want. But it doesn't change the facts.
    And everyone else in this thread is waiting for YOU to understand that JM didn't say what you claim he did. Plenty of evidence and explanation has been provided about this point. The only person in this thread ignoring anything...is you. Ignoring the fact that you've been responded to and your argument objected to (and IMO, thoroughly refuted) indicates either a lack of seriousness on your part or just extreme prejudice that disallows any objective analysis whatsoever (which of course, prevents sound argumentation to support your position).
    Last edited by Apokalupsis; July 16th, 2012 at 07:19 PM.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  10. #49
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    According to Christians, just south of heaven
    Posts
    1,723
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The bible: not so original (part 1)

    Holy Monkey butt,

    Zhav, You have a really good point but I cannot believe the ways that you have not developed this and think stopping at Justin Martyr is absurd. there were many sun gods that were crucified BEFORE Jesus. Antigonus, the "King of the Jews" and Cyrus, whom was more of a messianic figure. You could have talked about how Prometheus and Heracles wore mock crowns and in SOME versions of the Prometheus myth Prometheus is executed by crucifixion. If one knew about Babylonian culture you would find that prisoners were dressed as kings for five days, stripped, scourged, and crucified.

    Attis was a god-man that was virgin born and celebrated during the vernal equinox and hanged on a cut pine tree. he escaped the tree, descended into a cave, died, and later rose from the dead.

    Dionysius was a man-god. Killed, buried, went to hell, later rose from the dead to sit at his father's right hand. He has an "empty" tomb that for a long time was preserved in Delphi.

    Osiris, some 2 millenia earlier, was slain (not crucified) BUT rose again to rule.

    Simon the Cyrenian-sun god- carried pillars to his death which is comparable to Simon the Cyrene whom carried the cross for Jesus.

    Adonis rose form the dead.

    Mithra is a virgin born Persian God. Born on December 25th (yeah I know we all know Jesus wasn't born on Dec 25th....but you could have talked about how legends converge and split) The Christians took over this holiday in the 4th century. Lots of stories about the origins of Mithra but ONE of them is that his mother is a mortal virgin. Another claims he had no mother, but was born of a rock due to his father's phallic lightning. From here you could have talked about how the idea of Christ has changed WITHIN the religion. The early forms of what would eventually become Christianity had HUGE issues with what Jesus even was. Was he a God? Was a man? Was he both? Could he even really sin because of his godly genetics? But I digress....Mithra had the whole shepards and MAgi bit brought gifts to his sacred birth-cave. Mithra did all the same miracle as Jesus. Oh and let us not forget his spring equinox celebration. Mithra had a last supper with 12 disciples. worshippers took a sacramental meal of bread marked with a cross. There were 7 Mithraic sacraments....7 in Chrisitanity. Virtous people would be saved, sinners go to hell. The whole Christian notion of salvation was almost wholly a product of Persian eschtology, adopted by Semitic eremites and sun-cultists like the Essenes and Roman military. Sunday was preferred to the Jewish Sabbath. Mithrists practiced baptism and you can't make it to the highest heaven if you aren't baptized you'd be dragged down into the darkness instead at death.

    Mary is a common name given to mothers of other gods. It's not that Mary has to be an exact replica....it's the point that her name is oddly enough common as a name for a mother of a god. the Syrians had Myrrha, the Greek had Maia, the Hindu have Maya....all derived from "ma" for mother.

    Having said all of that....I have to agree with Zhav's stab at the Justin Martyr bit. I think he is merely saying that the Christian mythology is cut from the same fabric as pagan mythologies and basically admits it. I would only add to this the possible "lost in translation" explanation to this bit. The phrases "Word of God" and "Lamb of God" are probably connected, due to a misunderstanding of words that are similar in different languages. "Logos" in Greek means "word" and was originally used by the gnostics and is translated as "imerah" in Hebrew. The word "immera" (slightly different than the Hebrew) in Aramaic means "lamb". Given the cross-section of cultures living in a given area it's not hard to see how this could have been confused.

    In Heaven there is no beer. That's why we drink it here.

    Rogue Cardinal, Member of the God-Awful Atheist Syndicate


  11. #50
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,747
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The bible: not so original (part 1)

    Quote Originally Posted by Rogue Cardinal View Post
    Having said all of that....I have to agree with Zhav's stab at the Justin Martyr bit. I think he is merely saying that the Christian mythology is cut from the same fabric as pagan mythologies and basically admits it.
    So let me ask you the same question that Zhav has ignored. If I were to make the comparison between Obamacare and the Protocol of the Elders of Zion. Would you refutation of the similarities be an implication that you recognize them as similar?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  12. #51
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    According to Christians, just south of heaven
    Posts
    1,723
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The bible: not so original (part 1)

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    So let me ask you the same question that Zhav has ignored. If I were to make the comparison between Obamacare and the Protocol of the Elders of Zion. Would you refutation of the similarities be an implication that you recognize them as similar?
    I know where you are trying to go with this but let me first say this, the only reason Zhav brings this up is because it is a historical fact that religions have borrowed from one another throughout the ages. The mere spreading of religion acts like a super collider. For example, look at architecture in the middle east and you can clearly see how some greek ideas got mixed with muslim ideas and so on. With religion, in this case Christianity and the religions surrounding it, we get the same thing. It's exactly how you get a December 25th birthday for Jesus when we all know there is no such way to get ANY date as when Jesus was born from the bible. But you take over an area that has some folks that worship Mithras....and you tell them, "Hey we're in charge now so I tell ya what, you can keep your holidays but instead of saying it's Mithras birthday it's now 6 pound 9 ounce baby Jesus day." It helps keep the peace. Blended cultures are nothing new.

    But at any rate I fail to see how you think that Obamacare (dealing with peoples healthcare) and the Protocol of the Elders of Zion (anti-semtic garbage) have anything to do with each other? To me Zhav is making the point (correctly I think) of blended religions....and at the moment I fail to see how your query works out. Seems like apples and oranges so I guess I need you to be a bit more specific and clear things up for me. Thanks.

    In Heaven there is no beer. That's why we drink it here.

    Rogue Cardinal, Member of the God-Awful Atheist Syndicate


  13. #52
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,394
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The bible: not so original (part 1)

    Both you and Zhav seem like you may be getting your information from that horribly flawed Zeitgeist movie that has been debunked repeatedly over. It makes similar claims that are just not factual.

    For example:

    Quote Originally Posted by Rogue Cardinal View Post
    Attis was a god-man that was virgin born and celebrated during the vernal equinox and hanged on a cut pine tree. he escaped the tree, descended into a cave, died, and later rose from the dead.
    That's not true.

    1) Attis was not necessarily born of a virgin. His mother was Nana. And her virginity isn't mentioned in the story.
    2) Nana ate an almond that fell from a tree, the almond turned into Attis in Nana's belly. This almond tree had grown from the blood of the demon Agdistis (who was castrated by the gods and his member was thrown to the ground). So fruit from a tree which was created by a bloody wang is the cause of Attis' creation.
    3) Attis was the god of vegetation. He was responsible for death and rebirth of plant life.
    4) Attis introduced the "religion" of Agdistis to the kingdom of Lydia. This ticked off Zeus and sent him into a jealous frenzy.
    5) Zeus destroyed the Lydian crops by sending a boar (must have been a big one!). This boar killed several Lydians, but also Attis himself!
    6) Being the "plant god" he was reborn in the Spring and each winter he died. Every spring he was celebrated.

    Your telling of the story is simply not true Rod. The others are no different.

    Surely there is some pre-Christian document or tablet that these stories are recorded on if they were true. But, there simply is not and what we are left with is both religions and non-Christians using the stories found in the OT and NT as an influence and attribution to OTHER religions. It's backwards reasoning.

    Regardless...that other religions have similarities to the Christian account is still problematic to those who claim there's a problem. This is explained in posts #30 and #35. See the image I created for Zhavric. It essentially boils down to this:

    1) Religion X predates Christianity.
    2) It has no relevant similarity to Christianity.
    3) It may or may not have adopted elements from OT prophecies.
    4) Christianity comes into existence.
    5) To counter the influence of Christianity, Religion X adopts the stories found in Christianity.
    6) Because Religion X predates Christianity, some skeptics think this means Christianity adopted the stories found in Religion X.
    7) The problem is, Religion X didn't originally have those stories that are said to be adopted. Religion X evolved using Christianity's stories. In reality, it is Religion X.2.
    8) The claim that Christianity (or Judaism) is adopted or its stories are influenced by pre-existing religions is false and there are no historical documents in existence that support otherwise.
    Last edited by Apokalupsis; July 18th, 2012 at 03:35 PM.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  14. #53
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    According to Christians, just south of heaven
    Posts
    1,723
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The bible: not so original (part 1)

    I'm going to jump out of turn here and talk specifically about one idea that is clearly not unique to Christianity. The idea of Hell. If we read our OT....there is no mention of Hell. There is sheol, but that is clearly not the same thing as modern Christian notions of hell. Sheol starts out as a place where everyone goes when they die. There is no punishment. You are just dead and that is where a "shade" of yourself exists forever. Later, around the Second temple period, the idea shifts a bit and sheol becomes a place where all the dead go but there are seperate places for the "good" dead vs. the "bad" dead. Why the shift? Simple people look around and see bad people doing bad things and they don't want to spend eternity with those people. So the idea is created to have a separate place within the same place so the good and the bad can be separated. The Greek and the Romans later start translating the bible and low and behold, they do not have a word for sheol. So what do they do? The use their form of afterlife based off of their religious beliefs and we get Hel (<---not a typo). The notion that we must separate the good from the bad has really taken hold now. So by the time that JEsus comes along we get a much different picture of hell. Those bad apples get to SUFFER....forever....in a lake of fire. This is a big shift in thinking within your own religion. Not only that but the good folks now get a reward of being at home with GOD, in Heaven no less.

    Another place this influence may have sprung from is the great neighbor of the Jews....the Egyptians. They also had a strong sense of divine punishment in their religion. Geographically speaking it wouldn't be unthought of to have one influence the other as is most likely the case. The Sumerians also had a notion of this and at least a notion of an UNDERworld or Netherworld as we find in "Baal and the Underworld".

    AT any rate the use of the word Hades from the Greek lines up a lot more with the notion of Sheol than it does Modern Christian Hell which owes more of its trapping to the works of Dante than anything. Both the good and the bad end up there.

    II Peter 2:4 uses the word "Tartaro" angels are thrown in there but one cannot say anything about human souls going there. Perhaps Tartaro is a hell for angels concept lost to time?

    Cultures all over the world have an afterlife mythology that can be very similiar to what other religions have. The fact that you can look at how a religion changes its concepts over time is amazing incite to me on the evolution of religion. Hell used to be a cold place. Images of people in Hell portrayed them as blue. Why? They are cut off from the light of God and thus are cold. Over time we as man want to punish bad people that we can't punish here and Hell becomes a lake of fire. More time goes by and the lake of fire isn't enough. We need demons and evil spirits to torture you also.

    Hell is nothing unique to Christianity. It is borrowed from other religions. A misnomer planted a seed that allowed an evolution of a concept that is completely different than the original. You can simply read a bible and study modern thoughts on Christianity and quite easily deduce the evolution of Hell. I think someone should right a book on this subject as it is but one of the many tools that helps us see how religions borrow and evolve ideas to create a religion they like more than previous ones.

    You could do the exact same thing with the idea of sacrifice, a notion that we still see the vestiges of in Islamic traditions at Ramadan and in Catholic faith when they observe Lent.

    In Heaven there is no beer. That's why we drink it here.

    Rogue Cardinal, Member of the God-Awful Atheist Syndicate


  15. #54
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,394
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The bible: not so original (part 1)

    The idea of the separation of the righteous and unrighteous is nothing new. There are various philosophies and ideas about the general concept, always have been. That this broad general idea exists in many cultures and philosophies is not a damning challenging to any particular philosophy or religion. In other words, it's a non-issue and begs the question "...so what?" In other words...no one claimed that such a separation was unique to any philosophy or religion. I don't know if you were attempting to present a challenge to Christianity (in which case, you didn't really) or if you were just giving a general piece of information (which I would agree...is all it is) and nothing more.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  16. #55
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    According to Christians, just south of heaven
    Posts
    1,723
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The bible: not so original (part 1)

    Tower of Babil predates and is found in the OT. It's ancient sumerian. Nimrod, same thing. Eye for an eye is Code of Hammurabi and predates Matthews use of it by a long shot. The notion of giants and other mythological being we find in Genesis comes from other religions. According to the Jews God could be angry and mean and at least ponder bad decisions (ie killing the righteous with the wicked) Once the Roman influence took hold in the region we get a different sense of God from the Stoic tradition of what a perfect notion of a God should be. Thus we see God as all loving and perfect an incapable of screwing anything up.

    BTW I hate that Zeitgeist movie and think of it as drivel.

    ---------- Post added at 05:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:39 PM ----------

    I'm stating the facts and nothing more. All I'm saying in the case of Hell is, isn't it interesting how such an important concept has changed within a religion? The evolution of a such an idea comes off of what? Revelation from God himself? Not at all. It comes out of the hands of man. It is common place in the OT and the NT to retell stories later and add details. Most of this is done for a reason but it often speaks loudly to atheists and skeptics and the shoddy carpentry that is the bible. I think you are missing the idea or at least ignoring it, that geographically speaking it is a fact that the influence of cultures shows up in many religions and yours is of no exception. I used the concept of Hell as a vehicle to demonstrate such an obvious evolution that borrowed from other lines of thought that had nothing to do with Christianity and have molded over time modern concepts into things that were not originally so.

    In Heaven there is no beer. That's why we drink it here.

    Rogue Cardinal, Member of the God-Awful Atheist Syndicate


  17. #56
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    9,471
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The bible: not so original (part 1)

    Zhav has not supported his claim that the Catholic Church currently teaches that non-Christian religions were made up by Satan to trick people. And there's no point giving him more time because, of course, it's absolutely false. Here's the relevant part from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:


    "The Church and non-Christians

    839 "Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways."325

    The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People,326 "the first to hear the Word of God."327 The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God's revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews "belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ",328 "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable."329

    840 And when one considers the future, God's People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus.

    841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."330

    842 The Church's bond with non-Christian religions is in the first place the common origin and end of the human race:

    All nations form but one community. This is so because all stem from the one stock which God created to people the entire earth, and also because all share a common destiny, namely God. His providence, evident goodness, and saving designs extend to all against the day when the elect are gathered together in the holy city. . .331

    843 The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life."332

    844 In their religious behavior, however, men also display the limits and errors that disfigure the image of God in them:

    Very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and served the creature rather than the Creator. Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair.333

    845 To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son's Church. The Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. The Church is "the world reconciled." She is that bark which "in the full sail of the Lord's cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world." According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah's ark, which alone saves from the flood.334"


    - CCC, 2nd Ed., Pt. 1, Sec. 2, Ch. 3, Art. 9 http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm [Emphasis Mine]

  18. #57
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    According to Christians, just south of heaven
    Posts
    1,723
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The bible: not so original (part 1)

    Quote Originally Posted by KevinBrowning View Post

    Very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and served the creature rather than the Creator. Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair.333
    ]
    Doesn't that seem to support what Zhav is saying? Where did men get these other ideas? According to what you just quoted the Evil One....whom I would have to assume is (in church lady voice) "SAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAtan"

    It's not that the Catholic faith doesn't recognize the "truth" as being revealed in different ways but the "nontruth" stuff that Zhav is talking about....which would be ANY other religious teaching that is different from Catholics is influenced by evil in areas where it is not "truth".

    For what it's worth this writing you speak wasn't even conceived until 1985 and doesn't represent the entire history of Catholic actions against ANY other religion. Crusades anyone?

    In Heaven there is no beer. That's why we drink it here.

    Rogue Cardinal, Member of the God-Awful Atheist Syndicate


  19. #58
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,394
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The bible: not so original (part 1)

    Quote Originally Posted by Rogue Cardinal View Post
    Tower of Babil predates and is found in the OT.
    What do you think the dates of both texts are? There's a difference between 2 religions taking a known or witnessed event and making it their own...and that of one religion getting their understanding of it from the other (copying). These two concepts are not the same at all.

    Eye for an eye is Code of Hammurabi and predates Matthews use of it by a long shot.
    Matthew mentions this code, which is understandable since it was popularly known. But Matthew doesn't advocate it...he's saing "You've heard of this, but I tell you something different."

    The notion of giants and other mythological being we find in Genesis comes from other religions.
    Like what?

    According to the Jews God could be angry and mean and at least ponder bad decisions (ie killing the righteous with the wicked) Once the Roman influence took hold in the region we get a different sense of God from the Stoic tradition of what a perfect notion of a God should be. Thus we see God as all loving and perfect an incapable of screwing anything up.
    I don't see this at all. God has been unchanged throughout both the OT and NT.


    BTW I hate that Zeitgeist movie and think of it as drivel.
    My apologies for assuming that was your source.

    I'm stating the facts and nothing more. All I'm saying in the case of Hell is, isn't it interesting how such an important concept has changed within a religion? The evolution of a such an idea comes off of what? Revelation from God himself? Not at all. It comes out of the hands of man.
    I think it is similar to other understandings that man has of certain concepts. We can take a history of philosophy for example, and see that a particular concept is evolved throughout the years. The nature of God, reality, ethics, etc....all start out as something rather simple and as man's understanding and awareness changes (progresses), so do these concepts. I think the idea of the separation of the righteous and unrighteous is similar. I see this as a better understanding of a concept or idea...and as such, I do not see how it poses a threat to any belief system in the least. A growing understanding of something should be embraced. The fact that we become more aware is nothing to shy away from and it certainly doesn't necessarily mean there's a problem with a belief system unless it becomes contradictory (either with itself or another required belief).
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  20. #59
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    9,471
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The bible: not so original (part 1)

    Quote Originally Posted by Rogue Cardinal View Post
    Doesn't that seem to support what Zhav is saying?
    No, it doesn't. Par. 844, which I bolded, explains that the Evil One, Satan, has deceived people in their "religious behavior." This includes Christians and non-Christians, and does not refer specifically to any non-Christian religion. This paragraph is taken from Lumen Gentium:


    "16. Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God.(18*) In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh.(125) On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues.(126) But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohammedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.(128) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.(20*) She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator.(129) Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, "Preach the Gospel to every creature",(130) the Church fosters the missions with care and attention."


    - LG (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church), Ch. 2, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_c...entium_en.html [Emphasis Mine]

    This is itself taken from the biblical Book of Romans:


    "20Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse;

    21for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened.

    22While claiming to be wise, they became fools

    23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes.

    24Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts 15 for the mutual degradation of their bodies.

    25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen."


    - Rom. 1:20-25 (NAB), http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PYP.HTM [Emphasis Mine]

    This passage speaks of how the Devil tricked people to worship man-made idols of people or animals. It's referring to idol-worship, not to entire non-Christian religions, and particularly not Judaism or Islam, which the Catechism recognizes as having bonds with Christianity immediately before in the text.

    For what it's worth this writing you speak wasn't even conceived until 1985 and doesn't represent the entire history of Catholic actions against ANY other religion. Crusades anyone?
    The decision was made to publish a Catechism by the Synod of Bishops under Pope John Paul II in 1985. The first English edition was published in 1994. However, the Catechism refers continuously to earlier Church documents and to Scripture. Lumen Gentium is from 1964, and the Book of Romans was written c. 55 AD.

    This is all irrelevant, though, because Zhavric made a claim about the current official teaching of the Catholic Church, which I have thoroughly refuted.

  21. #60
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,747
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The bible: not so original (part 1)

    Quote Originally Posted by Rogue Cardinal View Post
    But at any rate I fail to see how you think that Obamacare (dealing with peoples healthcare) and the Protocol of the Elders of Zion (anti-semtic garbage) have anything to do with each other? To me Zhav is making the point (correctly I think) of blended religions....and at the moment I fail to see how your query works out. Seems like apples and oranges so I guess I need you to be a bit more specific and clear things up for me. Thanks.
    Zhav is completely misreading the text he is quoting, which was my point. His argument is that because a church elder took time to refute an argument, he must have recognized its validity. This is, of course, nonsense. When pointing out the purpose of the document, Zhav argues that context is irrelevant, assuming that random snippets of the text are more valid.

    Let me rephrase the question a bit and see if it is clearer. Lets say I posit an argument here that "The Protocol of the Elders of Zion" is the same work as the Israeli declaration of independence. You (or anyone) replied to my post with a defense saying, that while they both discuss Israel, one is "anti-semetic garbage" and the other is "the political declaration of a state." Does you reply acknowledge that these two works are in essence the same?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


 

 
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Original Advocacy Topics?
    By Comtesse in forum Shootin' the Breeze / Off-Topic
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: July 18th, 2011, 08:02 PM
  2. Christianity: Original Sin
    By bobloblaw in forum Religion
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: June 8th, 2009, 11:22 PM
  3. What would the original expectation of life be?
    By Xanadu Moo in forum ODN Polls
    Replies: 93
    Last Post: October 29th, 2007, 05:09 PM
  4. Original Van Halen reunion--almost.
    By KevinBrowning in forum Entertainment
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: August 8th, 2007, 11:52 AM
  5. Snoop's original songs
    By Snoop in forum Entertainment
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: December 24th, 2005, 08:36 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •