reonhato: one has not emerged for the last several thousand years, what makes you think one would appear now?
I was going to quote the entire thing but this one comment is incredibly mean spirited. But my main reason for posting. It's called a shift key. FUCKING USE IT! Seriously it's like reading a 13 year olds text message. Please start capitalizing your words.
if religious people actually studied their religion they are either no longer going to be religious or they choose to be consciously ignorant. those who choose to ignore all the evil, contradictory and plain false claims of the bible choose to be ignorant, those who study the history of the bible, its origins and its blatant plagiarism and still choose to believe it are choosing to be ignorant. i think i have less respect for those people then i do for the crazy nuts who dont know any better.
And those who choose to blindly hate all religion and all religious people and blindly insult them are ignorant bigots.
but its not blind, all religious people choose to believe in something that is false. sure some are more on the crazy side and not all believe in something like an all powerful deity but they do believe in something that is unprovable, already proved wrong and so on.
No, you are being blind, you just said "all people" in a group. That's almost always wrong. Clearly you don't understand religion in general and you think your narrow understanding is universal, which it is not. Most religions don't require you to believe something that is provably false. Several have doctrines requiring you to invalidate anything proven false.
I'm not surprised that you don't see your own bigotry if you can make the silly statement earlier in this thread that no one can be religious and intelligent.
reonhato: one has not emerged for the last several thousand years, what makes you think one would appear now?
I was going to quote the entire thing but this one comment is incredibly mean spirited. But my main reason for posting. It's called a shift key. FUCKING USE IT! Seriously it's like reading a 13 year olds text message. Please start capitalizing your words.
It may not be his fault, the minimum age on these forums is 13 so its entirely possible he is 13 years old :)
Uhh the story about the ark. I get on with it because I know the bible was written by a lot of diffrrent people who were trying to make christianity in their idea not Gods.
Frozen Fox: Fairly straight forward, if you adhere to a religion has any part of it came off as utterly unbelievable? If so do you still follow you religion and why.
People do not believe in things they cannot believe. So the answer is universally: No.
To believe that one's faith in something should automatically associate them with any doctrine or history a third party impose on them, is utterly ridiculous. Unless you claim to know the true motivation of that religion's deity and believe prays empower him like voting for a political party.
Now unless you are going to tell me that the man by which almost all intelligence is compared to is in fact, unintelligent, I would request you retract your statement sir.
why do so many people think einstein was religious, he was not, he used the word god in a way most do not
"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." - Albert Einstein 1954
And those who choose to blindly hate all religion and all religious people and blindly insult them are ignorant bigots.
but its not blind, all religious people choose to believe in something that is false. sure some are more on the crazy side and not all believe in something like an all powerful deity but they do believe in something that is unprovable, already proved wrong and so on.
No, you are being blind, you just said "all people" in a group. That's almost always wrong. Clearly you don't understand religion in general and you think your narrow understanding is universal, which it is not. Most religions don't require you to believe something that is provably false. Several have doctrines requiring you to invalidate anything proven false.
I'm not surprised that you don't see your own bigotry if you can make the silly statement earlier in this thread that no one can be religious and intelligent.
religions by definition are false, if they were not they would not be called religion. anyone who believes in a religion is following something that is false
BOOM headshot65: First, we had a guest pastor speaking the sermon at my church one time. The normal pastor is pretty open-minded and I like him, but this guy...
Well, the sermon was over...I cant remember now, but I was one of the things he said that made me mad. He said that Gahandi didnt go to heaven because he was Hindu. It took ALL of my self control to keep from standing up and shouting "WHAT?!!!! You have the NERVE to say that a man who beat an empire by refusing to eat and sitting on his butt chanting isnt going to heaven BECAUSE HE WAS HINDU?!!!!!!?"
The other reason is because it says right there in the bible about how Jesus loves his children, so why would he condemn them to hell. Now, yes, there are some that I think arnt saved, but they are people that everyone wants gone. Murderers, rapist, genocideist, etc. Basically, anyone who is pure, objective evil isnt going. That is IT.
Sorry, but your guest pastor's views are far more in line with what the New Testament actually has to say, which is quite disconnected from your warm and fuzzy feel-good version. Why should Gandhi be saved? His good works?
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast.
Ain't even Christian and I know this shit, read up on Paul.
reonhato: "Those who commit evil deeds must repent before Varuna and try to repair their evil deeds through ritual sacrifices."
sounds evil to me
It baffles me when meat-eaters sincerely complain about how horrible animal sacrifice is, it's truly a testament to how little we think about where our food comes from. I'm willing to bet that an animal a Hindu offers as a sacrifice has been treated far more humanely than any Big Mac you've ever eaten.
Unless you're Vegetarian, in which case I take all that back.
reonhato: but its not blind, all religious people choose to believe in something that is false. sure some are more on the crazy side and not all believe in something like an all powerful deity but they do believe in something that is unprovable, already proved wrong and so on.
This reminds me of the old English translations of the Qur'an, which came with prefaces stating how clearly false the savage Mohammedan faith really was and that any with half a brain would see the obvious truth of Christ.
Your attitude towards opposing worldviews is ancient, is what I'm getting at here.
reonhato: its origins and its blatant plagiarism and still choose to believe it are choosing to be ignorant.
How the hell is the bible Plagiarizing anything? Unless there was some other major book written around the same time that everyone forgot about, it isn't plagiarizing anything.
TheDarkEricDraven: I believe in a god that had sex with a girl in the form of a shower of gold, and my patron goddess' cleansing of sin is symbolized as her eating literal shit. That's the tip of the iceberg. I don't ask "what the fuck" because I've became desensitized to this kind of thing.
Something about your posts always lightens the mood.
Anyways, I don't really have much of a problem with my Religion other than that it has some pretty conservative social standards at times. I'm not going to throw a hissy fit over the fact that one of my ancestors possibly killed another man thousands of years ago and used "Because Christianity" as an excuse.
Now unless you are going to tell me that the man by which almost all intelligence is compared to is in fact, unintelligent, I would request you retract your statement sir.
why do so many people think einstein was religious, he was not, he used the word god in a way most do not
"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." - Albert Einstein 1954
Because like it says in the links I posted, he repeatedly said he was not an atheist. He had a belief in things that science had not proven and may never prove. He had theories on how it might all work. That's what all other religions do. They have theories on how they feel the world and universe work.
PS:
Einstein stated: "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."[1] According to Prince Hubertus, Einstein said, "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."[14]
Einstein stated: "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."[1] According to Prince Hubertus, Einstein said, "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."[14]
^^ taken from the second article i posted
How does that make him an Agnostic Theist? I'd call that an Agnostic Deist. He thinks that a personal god is a childlike idea for crying out loud, that should tell you that he doesn't qualify as a Theist quite easily.
reonhato: its origins and its blatant plagiarism and still choose to believe it are choosing to be ignorant.
How the hell is the bible Plagiarizing anything? Unless there was some other major book written around the same time that everyone forgot about, it isn't plagiarizing anything.
Polarity27: My religion makes me go "WTF" from poor choices (reconstructing things that move us backward, IMO) way more often than wtf from unbelievability. But okay, I've got one. I don't believe in house wights. No, it isn't logical that I believe in gods and I'm fine with the idea that nature spirits exist but house ones don't, shut up, I know that. If my house does have a wight, he's one miserable sumbitch.
Interesting. It's just that, if you already believe in the existence of nature spirits, why couldn't they "co-develop" with human society as humanity encroaches more and more on former nature sanctuaries? Adapt into house spirits, sort of? And, hey, maybe your house just doesn't have one, doesn't mean there can't be any in other homes! Where do the nature spirits go when a forest is cleared out to make room for new housing projects? Or do they die off when their environment is destroyed?
Ah, I was cagier with my words than you thought. :) I said that I'm fine with the idea of nature spirits existing, not that I believed nature spirits exist. Actually, my thoughts on that subject are... unsettled, for lack of a better term. I believe that the world is enspirited, in general, and I believe that the idea of egregore (thoughtform, for lack of a better word, if enough people pour enough energy into something for long enough, it exists) is onto something. If that shakes out into multiple discrete entities, that's something I'm not sure about. Since the Gods themselves are said to be basically exceptionally big/powerful wights, you'd think they'd kind of have to on some level.
Basically, my view on spiritual things is there's the level where I feel like I've had some personal experience and I believe in it, even if I'm agnostic as to its nature. Then there's the level where I just don't buy it, at all. And in between is a lot of nebulous possibility and theory. So yes, I think it's possible for a house to have spirits, I just don't think every house is issued one like you issue a key. And it gets into what you said, are house wights nature spirits, or are they essentially an egregore created by generations of people living in the same place with the same practices? I just seem to run into a lot of people who have tales that I can't hear without thinking "bullshit" in the back of my mind. I guess it's like pornography. I know what the difference between plausible and bullshit sounds like when I hear it, but I can't easily define it.
TheDarkEricDraven: my patron goddess' cleansing of sin is symbolized as her eating literal shit.
That is, actually, an incredibly deep concept, if you think about how often leadership in modern times uses an "eating shit" metaphor. (Not that I won't evangelize it at the drop of a hat anyway, but you really need to see The Wire with a patron goddess like that. I think you'd get a lot out of it.) You can also go into how those on the bottom have to deal with *literal* shit, caring for the dead, caring for the elderly, cleaning our homes, shoveling the shit that the rest of us don't touch.
BTW, the Romans had a similar goddess. Cloaca? Maybe?
TheDarkEricDraven: my patron goddess' cleansing of sin is symbolized as her eating literal shit.
That is, actually, an incredibly deep concept, if you think about how often leadership in modern times uses an "eating shit" metaphor. (Not that I won't evangelize it at the drop of a hat anyway, but you really need to see The Wire with a patron goddess like that. I think you'd get a lot out of it.) You can also go into how those on the bottom have to deal with *literal* shit, caring for the dead, caring for the elderly, cleaning our homes, shoveling the shit that the rest of us don't touch.
BTW, the Romans had a similar goddess. Cloaca? Maybe?
I just thing that's the name of one of their largest sewer systems to be honest...
Maybe he was good at math, but Einstein was a complete tool in pretty much every other aspect of life. I wouldn't hail him as the pinnacle of an intelligent religious person.
Not in the last place because like your links explain, he wasn't religious. And that in a time where professing not following a religion severely hurt your career, social life and left a good chance for you being persecuted, that's saying something.
Wasn't hailing him as the pinnacle, just the standard. And I would argue that while he may have been uncharismatic and maybe somewhat unwise, he was still very very intelligent.
Well, Isaac Newton may be the most intelligent human being that ever existed.Yet he believed in alchemy, astrology and creationism. Nobody is perfect.
but its not blind, all religious people choose to believe in something that is false. sure some are more on the crazy side and not all believe in something like an all powerful deity but they do believe in something that is unprovable, already proved wrong and so on.
No, you are being blind, you just said "all people" in a group. That's almost always wrong. Clearly you don't understand religion in general and you think your narrow understanding is universal, which it is not. Most religions don't require you to believe something that is provably false. Several have doctrines requiring you to invalidate anything proven false.
I'm not surprised that you don't see your own bigotry if you can make the silly statement earlier in this thread that no one can be religious and intelligent.
religions by definition are false, if they were not they would not be called religion. anyone who believes in a religion is following something that is false
All religions are not by definition false, except in your head.
reonhato: its origins and its blatant plagiarism and still choose to believe it are choosing to be ignorant.
How the hell is the bible Plagiarizing anything? Unless there was some other major book written around the same time that everyone forgot about, it isn't plagiarizing anything.
jesus = horus
genesis = enuma elis
adam and eve + noah = epic of gilgamesh
cain and abel = osiris and set
you need any more examples?
Those aren't exact plagiarizations (and Jesus seems more Hercules to me). However, the fact that there may be commonalities doesn't prove plagerism, it may help prove it to be a fact. If there is a truth behind the story then it is bound to be repeated.
Kendarik: Those aren't exact plagiarizations (and Jesus seems more Hercules to me). However, the fact that there may be commonalities doesn't prove plagerism, it may help prove it to be a fact. If there is a truth behind the story then it is bound to be repeated.
The story of Noah is almost a 1:1 copy of the older story of Ut Napistim, except in Ut's case, a raven brought the first branch back. Not only that, but we know it's older and the Babylonians had subjugated the Canaanites/Israelites in the same time period the story was copied over. The background of the myth of Moses is a copy of the background Sargon of Akkad had written down about himself. If one delves into older mythologies in more detail it becomes more a question of what the OT writers did not steal, than what they copied over. Not like the NT writers weren't fond of stealings other's idea (hell, heaven, trinity, judgement after death, etc) but it's pretty bad.
Then again, what would a few tribes of desert savages do to create an identity when surrounded by superior civilisations? Exactly; steal the works of their overlords and rename it.
Kendarik: All religions are not by definition false, except in your head.
Yes they are, since there's no evidence for their myths being true.
No, you are being blind, you just said "all people" in a group. That's almost always wrong. Clearly you don't understand religion in general and you think your narrow understanding is universal, which it is not. Most religions don't require you to believe something that is provably false. Several have doctrines requiring you to invalidate anything proven false.
I'm not surprised that you don't see your own bigotry if you can make the silly statement earlier in this thread that no one can be religious and intelligent.
religions by definition are false, if they were not they would not be called religion. anyone who believes in a religion is following something that is false
All religions are not by definition false, except in your head.
name 1 religion that is not false in some way. the closest you can get is the philosophical based religions, but even within those i bet you will find something that has been proven false or cannot be proven
No, you are being blind, you just said "all people" in a group. That's almost always wrong. Clearly you don't understand religion in general and you think your narrow understanding is universal, which it is not. Most religions don't require you to believe something that is provably false. Several have doctrines requiring you to invalidate anything proven false.
I'm not surprised that you don't see your own bigotry if you can make the silly statement earlier in this thread that no one can be religious and intelligent.
religions by definition are false, if they were not they would not be called religion. anyone who believes in a religion is following something that is false
All religions are not by definition false, except in your head.
False is probably not the right word, but by definition a religion is not true. Religion is a belief system that connects humanity with spirituality. Since the spiritual aspects can never be proven they can never be declared false, but they are not true either.
Since we know that the odds of spiritual stuff actually being true is about as close to 0% as you can get without actually being 0%, saying it is false is close enough.
reonhato: its origins and its blatant plagiarism and still choose to believe it are choosing to be ignorant.
How the hell is the bible Plagiarizing anything? Unless there was some other major book written around the same time that everyone forgot about, it isn't plagiarizing anything.
jesus = horus
genesis = enuma elis
adam and eve + noah = epic of gilgamesh
cain and abel = osiris and set
you need any more examples?
Oh that is total Bullcrap.
You can't just say "These Two Stories are Similar! THE BIBLE IS STEALING FROM OTHER STORIES!!!111!1!!!"
First, Jesus actually existed, that's a living being's personality and actions. How the hell is Jesus supposed to be a carbon copy of "The God of war and hunting" especially considering his pacifistic views. The Story of Osiris and Set involves Osiris being killed for... Whatever reason, then his wife gives birth to a God that attacks Set and Osiris somehow becomes God of the Underworld, that's completely different from the story of Cain and Abel.
The Jews had their own history and their own culture, you can't just take two stories that happen to have some similarities and start screaming that the whole entire book is plagiarizing other works. Are Europeans Plagiarizing the Chinese because some of Europe's mythology and folklore happens to have dragons in it? Oh, how about Tolkien, he'd have to be the biggest literary thief in the world, because his stories had elves and dwarves, those are from Norse mythology!
I have no doubt that some of their stories were influenced or perhaps even created from the stories of their Polytheistic neighbors and sometimes Conquerors, however it's just plain idiotic to say the whole Bible is plagiarizing other stories.
That is, actually, an incredibly deep concept, if you think about how often leadership in modern times uses an "eating shit" metaphor. (Not that I won't evangelize it at the drop of a hat anyway, but you really need to see The Wire with a patron goddess like that. I think you'd get a lot out of it.) You can also go into how those on the bottom have to deal with *literal* shit, caring for the dead, caring for the elderly, cleaning our homes, shoveling the shit that the rest of us don't touch.
It was also the name of the goddess of said sewer. She was the goddess of the river, but when the sewer was built over it the Romans made her goddess of sewers to appease her.
How the hell is the bible Plagiarizing anything? Unless there was some other major book written around the same time that everyone forgot about, it isn't plagiarizing anything.
jesus = horus
genesis = enuma elis
adam and eve + noah = epic of gilgamesh
cain and abel = osiris and set
you need any more examples?
Oh that is total Bullcrap.
You can't just say "These Two Stories are Similar! THE BIBLE IS STEALING FROM OTHER STORIES!!!111!1!!!"
First, Jesus actually existed, that's a living being's personality and actions. How the hell is Jesus supposed to be a carbon copy of "The God of war and hunting" especially considering his pacifistic views. The Story of Osiris and Set involves Osiris being killed for... Whatever reason, then his wife gives birth to a God that attacks Set and Osiris somehow becomes God of the Underworld, that's completely different from the story of Cain and Abel.
The Jews had their own history and their own culture, you can't just take two stories that happen to have some similarities and start screaming that the whole entire book is plagiarizing other works. Are Europeans Plagiarizing the Chinese because some of Europe's mythology and folklore happens to have dragons in it? Oh, how about Tolkien, he'd have to be the biggest literary thief in the world, because his stories had elves and dwarves, those are from Norse mythology!
I have no doubt that some of their stories were influenced or perhaps even created from the stories of their Polytheistic neighbors and sometimes Conquerors, however it's just plain idiotic to say the whole Bible is plagiarizing other stories.
no jesus did not exist, at least not the jesus in the bible. im sure there were many people around names todays equivalent of jesus, none of them however was the son of god or performed miracles.
jesus was born in nazareth or bethlehem depending on what gospel you believe/church ignores. it really is a stupid argument since nazareth was nothing more then a few farms and ancient ruins at the time jesus was born, it would not become a village for another 400 years.
there is 0 evidence to suggest that jesus of the bible actually existed. dont you think it is weird that we have hard evidence that historic figures actually existed from well before jesus's time, yet absolutely nothing from a guy who was apparently the son of god.
btw i used horus to compare to jesus because he has the most similarities, there are actually several mythological figures whos stories match up well with jesus.
Reonhato you should not be quoting zeitgeist information because it is very false, horus was not born a virgin birth for one. he died but was not resurrected in three days and i think he actually became part of set.
how the fuck do adam and eve+ noah even equal the story of a gilgamesh. an epic about a demi-god who fights with people?
you mean osiris and seth not set, and even then you were wrong since osiris was resurrected after Nephthys sang around osiris(after she made a golden pahllus). osiris then became the lord of the dead and afterlife.
the enuma elis is a creation story yes, but its nothing like the one in genesis. or did i miss the part in genesis about there being two gods and one of the gods having several other gods whol live on the other one, and the god apsu wanting to kill the younger gods living on tiamat becuase they wont shut the fuck up.
if your gonna make comparisons at least research them before hand.
reonhato: jesus was born in nazareth or bethlehem depending on what gospel you believe/church ignores.
Everyone in the NT is in agreement that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. I'm not really surprised at your ignorance though, I'm guessing you haven't actually read the books in question.
it really is a stupid argument since nazareth was nothing more then a few farms and ancient ruins at the time jesus was born, it would not become a village for another 400 years.
Jesus wasn't born there, also [citation needed]
there is 0 evidence to suggest that jesus of the bible actually existed. dont you think it is weird that we have hard evidence that historic figures actually existed from well before jesus's time, yet absolutely nothing from a guy who was apparently the son of god.
Not really, unless you think Jesus in his time was in any way as prominent a figure as Julius Caesar or Alexander (hint: he wasn't).
btw i used horus to compare to jesus because he has the most similarities, there are actually several mythological figures whos stories match up well with jesus.
I'm guessing you watched Zeitgeist and skipped out on the five minutes of fact-checking it would take to realise most of that is bullshit.
no jesus did not exist, at least not the jesus in the bible. im sure there were many people around names todays equivalent of jesus, none of them however was the son of god or performed miracles.
jesus was born in nazareth or bethlehem depending on what gospel you believe/church ignores. it really is a stupid argument since nazareth was nothing more then a few farms and ancient ruins at the time jesus was born, it would not become a village for another 400 years.
there is 0 evidence to suggest that jesus of the bible actually existed. dont you think it is weird that we have hard evidence that historic figures actually existed from well before jesus's time, yet absolutely nothing from a guy who was apparently the son of god.
btw i used horus to compare to jesus because he has the most similarities, there are actually several mythological figures whos stories match up well with jesus.
And don't YOU find it odd that virtually every one of Jesus' apostles were willing to die (usually painful deaths by the cross or torture) if he didn't exist? All the Apostles claimed to meet Jesus, yet if he didn't exist, there would be no point claiming to have met him, founding a religion around him, then dying without even once denouncing what they saw.
Face it, if Jesus wasn't real, we wouldn't have modern day Christianity.
And do you want to know why we know about all these ancient historical figures from before Jesus' time? It's because most of them were, in their time at least, considered incredibly important people. They were emperors and kings, so tell me, can you find the story of "Dave the Spearman who served an uneventful career in the Roman Military"? Despite his teachings and relative popularity today, Jesus was the son of a Carpenter, he was a wandering Teacher, not anything like an Emperor or a Mighty General, not someone the world over would know.
Witty Name Here: And don't YOU find it odd that virtually every one of Jesus' apostles were willing to die (usually painful deaths by the cross or torture) if he didn't exist? All the Apostles claimed to meet Jesus, yet if he didn't exist, there would be no point claiming to have met him, founding a religion around him, then dying without even once denouncing what they saw.
I also think there's more than enough reason to believe Jesus existed (unless Paul completely made up his story about traveling to Jerusalem and meeting some of the Apostles), but this is getting pretty close to one of those really terrible arguments for Christianity that I get so tired of. The martyrdom of nearly every Apostle is based on Church Tradition, for one thing. Take a guess how reliable that information is.
keiskay: Reonhato you should not be quoting zeitgeist information because it is very false, horus was not born a virgin birth for one. he died but was not resurrected in three days and i think he actually became part of set.
how the fuck do adam and eve+ noah even equal the story of a gilgamesh. an epic about a demi-god who fights with people?
you mean osiris and seth not set, and even then you were wrong since osiris was resurrected after Nephthys sang around osiris(after she made a golden pahllus). osiris then became the lord of the dead and afterlife.
the enuma elis is a creation story yes, but its nothing like the one in genesis. or did i miss the part in genesis about there being two gods and one of the gods having several other gods whol live on the other one, and the god apsu wanting to kill the younger gods living on tiamat becuase they wont shut the fuck up.
if your gonna make comparisons at least research them before hand.
you need a history lesson. the problem with skimming a little info about horus is you do not get much. obviously what you looked at was just one story of horus's birth. the problem with this is that eqyptian mythology spanned a long time and underwent many changes. for a long time isis was considered a virgin goddess and was considered a virgin at the time of birth.
lets look at some more similarities
mother = osis-meri / miriam or mary
father (other than god)= seb or jo-seph / joseph
fathers ancestry = royal descent / royal descent
snnunciation = by an angel to isis / by an angel to mary
birth heralded by = sirius (the morning star) / star in the east
birth date celebrated = winter solstice / 25th dec
birth announcement = angels / angels
birth witnesses = shepherds / shepherds
death threat during infancy = herut tried to have horus murdered / herod tried to have jesus murdered
age at the right of passage ritual = 12 / 12
break in record = no data between ages of 12 and 30 / no data between ages of 12 and 30
baptism location = eridanus river / jordan river
age at baptism: 30 / 30
death of the baptiser: beheaded / beheaded
the funny thing is there are even more. 1 or 2 similarities is a coincidence, more then a dozen is plagiarism
as for the epic of gilgamesh, the story of adam and eve comes from the story of enkidu and shamhat, unless you dont think a story where a man is created from the earth in the image of a god, lives in a forest type setting with animals as friends before a woman is introduced, they clothe themselves and are unable to return to their original state is in anyway similar to adam and eve.
as for the flood maybe you should read up a bit more about it. again here is some similarities with utnapishtim being the noah equivalent
extent of flood = global / global cause = mans wickedness / mans sins intended for = all mankind / one city and all mankind sent by = god / gods both told by god in a dream both ordered to build a boat both complained about it compartments inside = many / many doors = 1 / 1 coated in = pitch / pitch shape = rectangular / square passengers = family members and all species of animal / family, a few others and all species of animal cause of flood = ground water and heavy rain / heavy rain to find land = release birds (raven and 3 doves / release of birds (raven, dove and swallow landing spot for boat = mt ararat / mt nisir
and again there is more and again i will remind you that a couple similarities is a coincidence, more then a dozen is plagiarism
i might get to the other ones later, but atm it is 7am and i have not been to bed yet so gnite
no jesus did not exist, at least not the jesus in the bible. im sure there were many people around names todays equivalent of jesus, none of them however was the son of god or performed miracles.
jesus was born in nazareth or bethlehem depending on what gospel you believe/church ignores. it really is a stupid argument since nazareth was nothing more then a few farms and ancient ruins at the time jesus was born, it would not become a village for another 400 years.
there is 0 evidence to suggest that jesus of the bible actually existed. dont you think it is weird that we have hard evidence that historic figures actually existed from well before jesus's time, yet absolutely nothing from a guy who was apparently the son of god.
btw i used horus to compare to jesus because he has the most similarities, there are actually several mythological figures whos stories match up well with jesus.
And don't YOU find it odd that virtually every one of Jesus' apostles were willing to die (usually painful deaths by the cross or torture) if he didn't exist? All the Apostles claimed to meet Jesus, yet if he didn't exist, there would be no point claiming to have met him, founding a religion around him, then dying without even once denouncing what they saw.
Hate to break this to you, but sometimes people might die for many things; if you push the right psychological buttons.
Not saying anything against that a historical Jesus didn't exist, just that that argument can easily backfire on you.
and again you are wrong my good sir, isis had physical sex with horus father, she is not considered a virgin by any one other then the poor people who believe the zeitgeist film.
keiskay: and again you are wrong my good sir, isis had physical sex with horus father, she is not considered a virgin by any one other then the poor people who believe the zeitgeist film.
also would like to let you know reo that i cant quote you since i put you on ignore since you dont seem to want to engage in a genuine debate ever.
and again you are ignoring that there are multiple stories for horus, just because the most known today does not include a virgin birth does not mean that was always the case. of course i have already said this, but seeing as you dont actually want to debate because you couldnt possible be wrong you ignored
i keep forgetting to point out that i have never seen zeitgeist or even heard of it until this thread. apparently it does not take a film to point out the bleeding obvious.
You guys can argue over the details all you want, but the fact is there is considerable overlap between the Bible and previous mythology. There are many striking similarities in Greek mythology in creation for example. As it has already been mentioned, the story of Noah is a retelling of Babylonian flood myth.
To deny that the stories of Christianity were not in any way influenced by previous mythology is just putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "LA LA LA LA LA I CANT HEAR YOU".
pyrate: You guys can argue over the details all you want, but the fact is there is considerable overlap between the Bible and previous mythology. There are many striking similarities in Greek mythology in creation for example. As it has already been mentioned, the story of Noah is a retelling of Babylonian flood myth.
To deny that the stories of Christianity were not in any way influenced by previous mythology is just putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "LA LA LA LA LA I CANT HEAR YOU".
yes well considering there are over 118 known ancient flood stories its not hard to draw that comparison.
@reonhato well i am going by the egyptian book of the dead and many modern egyptian pagan revival standards.
keiskay: and again you are wrong my good sir, isis had physical sex with horus father, she is not considered a virgin by any one other then the poor people who believe the zeitgeist film.
also would like to let you know reo that i cant quote you since i put you on ignore since you dont seem to want to engage in a genuine debate ever.
and again you are ignoring that there are multiple stories for horus, just because the most known today does not include a virgin birth does not mean that was always the case. of course i have already said this, but seeing as you dont actually want to debate because you couldnt possible be wrong you ignored
Give sources to back up your claims or STFU and admit most of your 'facts' are completely made up (since when was Horus baptised? Was that even a thing in Ancient Egypt?)
I was going to quote the entire thing but this one comment is incredibly mean spirited. But my main reason for posting. It's called a shift key. FUCKING USE IT! Seriously it's like reading a 13 year olds text message. Please start capitalizing your words.