Religion anyone?
-
Carlin was a genious....I could listen to his stuff for hours.
-
Was he a genious or a genius?
Pete, regarding your earlier video, there are a few items that jump
out. One is the rearranging of the letters in the name Horus to
make hours or Horus has risen. Egyptians did not use the alphabet as we
know it. Furthermore, a study of the etymology of the word horizon
does not reveal an Egyptian source.A second curiosity is the use of the date December 25th. This
statement implies a uniformity of the calendar across all of the
cultures that I think is inaccurate.It sounds very intelligent, but I am skeptical of the information.
Christians do have to concede that the early church did occasionally
absorb many pagan rites and worship days when it reached a people group
unfamiliar with the Christian faith. These rites were sometimes
reinterpreted as Christian symbols to help the people to understand the
new religion. -
Thanks for your response Eric, and yes I agree the commentry is biased to make a point and there probably are many exagerations.
It is however fascinating how all the other religions have so many similar teachings and there is a logic in the origins of such beliefs. -
Also, in regards to the video, I don't recall reading anywhere that the Egyptian god Horus was crucified (I read a lot on ancient Egypt when a youngun - considered being an Egypologist); in fact, ancient Egyptians didn't even practice crucifiction. Horus was a "triumphant" war god, having beaten the god Set in battle, and becoming the god of the sky. Nor was he born from a virgin - his mother was the goddess Isis, his father her husband Osiris. I don't know much about the other gods mentioned in the film, but given the blatant "mistakes" on the first one, I can't put too much faith in what he says about the others.
-
There are two theories, one being that he was crucified between two thieves like jesus and the other bieng stung by a scorpion, however most writtings seem to support the crucifixion story.
-
Solo, where are you getting your information on Horus? No where in Egyptian mythology is Horus crucified - in fact, he doesn't even die.
-
Crucifixion was a specific method of romans…
See one of Isaiah prophetic verse (re. The Lord):
“But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised(on the cross) for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.”Cornel
-
Crucifixion was practiced by the Persians, Seleucids, Carthaginians, and Romans. Ancient Egyptians employed impalement, which some scholars luimp in with crucifixion.
-
God prefers atheists :
-
-
Kwistenbiebel,
God has no preference (for atheists):
“The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some count slackness; but is longsuffering to you-ward, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.”
(2 Peter 3:9)Cornel
-
@kwistenbiebel said:
@rickw said:
I'd have to say that, given the evidence, Christianity is less evil/dangerous than atheism.
Why do a lot of religious people categorise those who don't believe as 'atheists'?
As if you get an automatic subscription to the atheist club when you don't recognise a god.In history, a war never was started by a group called 'the atheists'.
You're joking, right? "a-" = no, none, without; "theos" = god; "-ist" = person professing a belief system. So, yes, by the definition of the word, one who believes there is no god is an atheist. The membership cards are in the mail.
And has already been mentioned, the Communists in Russia, who were staunchly atheistic, killed over 20 million people in the past century. In the US, they were frequently referred to as "the godless Communists", which is the same as using the word "atheistic". In history, wars have been started by groups consisting of atheists. The word "atheist" in the group's name is unnecessary. Their ideology included atheism, and that is what they killed to spread - similar to how Islam was originally spread (and still is, in some places). In contrast, Christianity was not originally spread by violence (nor was it intended to be), but in the face of it.
@unknownuser said:
...it still takes a brave man to look past the ancient hyperbolas and stand on the side of reality.
I guess I'm not there yet. I can't even get past the ancient parabolas...
@alan fraser said:
With respect, Rick. Much of that argument is specious.
Really? I don't remember mentioning species in my post...
(read on)@remus said:
Talk about dodgy numbers! Your assuming that their was a constant change in the age of the earth (the theorised ages, that is) which is wrong.
Apparently my LOL smiley & channel-surfer joke didn't do their job of injecting the intended humorous tone into my post.
The point was that science can only offer its best guess. In 10 years, that best guess may be different still. In which case, we still won't know for sure, so why be dogmatic about 4.6 billion years now? -
@rickw said:
In contrast, Christianity was not originally spread by violence (nor was it intended to be), but in the face of it.
No, not originally. But it got up to speed later on. That said, being a cause of violence is not a unique trait of christianity. Any old ideology is quite enough reason for some of us to get the clubs out. Sadly, we are a moronic and violent bunch, at times.
While an atheist, I feel the need to point out that the various religions we've come up with so far have given us some cool sh*t as well - Bach, anyone? Michelangelo? Religion, though I personally find it weird, isn't all bad.
The current entanglement of religion and politics worries me, though. That's an explosive combination right there. I'm fairly certain that's something both the atheists and (the largest part of) the God Squad can agree on. Furthermore, I believe that it is exactly this entanglement that's got atheists screaming bloody murder these days. Under more normal (or at least: desirable) circumstances most of us godless types would just go: "Worship away, old chap. Beer?"
-
clapping smilie
Well said, sentiment shared.
-
The greatest artists of the time were the one's who rebelled against the church, so in that regard I suppose you are right.
-
Nothing wrong with my spelling. Specious is what I wrote; specious is what I meant.
In any case, I think there's way too much polarisation in this thread. While, on logical and scientific grounds, I totally agree with the atheists here, it's perfectly possible to be a (reasonably) regular church-goer and still think anyone who believes the Earth to be only 6012 years old...in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary to be more than a little misguided.
Everyone is entitled to their own view and anyone's religion is their own affair, but Creationists changed the rules when they decided to push for their belief to be classed a science and taught in schools as such.If I still had a child at school and found that they were being offered Creationism as an 'antidote' to genuine science, I wouldn't have a moment's hesitation in withdrawing that child and pressing for that teacher's dismissal.
Creationism and Science should not be used in the same sentence...accepting the fact that you can't say that without using them in the same sentence.
The separation of church and state is essential. The separation of faith and science is equally essential. Any faith that regards itself as the true faith should not be afraid of skeletons in the cupboard...should not be afraid that scientific progress will unmask it as a fraud. Because if it is, genuinely, the true faith such a debunking will prove impossible.
What is possible is that science will unmask some of the baggage that such a faith has accumulated over the years as just myth and fantasy, but that is something quite different. Any faith that is afraid of what science might discover next has something to hide....or is being misinterpreted.You can argue that many scientists and artists throughout history were inspired to produce either great works of art or crucial scientific breakthroughs, but when that faith actually starts to get in the way of science, you're on a completely different track. It's a track that led the Islamic world from world dominance in science and medicine to its present position in which, without oil, it would be a complete irrelevance to the modern world. It's not impossible that the USA could head down precisely the same anti-intellectual, dogma-bound path already trodden by the more fundamentalist states.
The world is littered with the remains of once-great civilizations. I'm absolutely sure that every single one of them...when at the height of their power...would have found the idea that one day they would lose that dominance and be reduced to some cultural backwater, utterly inconceivable.
BTW. The same people that bought you the idea of creation occuring in roughly 4000 BC....Bede, Newton, Ussher etc....also equally firmly believed that it would end 6000 years later, quoting, just like Cornel, the Bible verse that equates a single day with a thousand years in God's sight. They believed that 6000 years equated to the six days of creation.
According to Ussher (4004 BC, early hours of Oct 23rd) the world should have ended in 1996. The idea was quietly dropped in 1997.
-
hear, hear! phantastic post, Alan.
you really summed up the essence of this whole discussion very well. your separation of religion and science and (hopefully) politics is in my opinion the right point of view.
it was a joy to read!
-
@rickw said:
"a-" = no, none, without; "theos" = god; "-ist" = person professing a belief system. So, yes, by the definition of the word, one who believes there is no god is an atheist. The membership cards are in the mail.
You're right.
But you got some things mixed up.
Being without a God doesn't necesarily means hating the ones with a God.
That is the point.
As I said earlier: people that don't have a car aren't car haters per definition.There is a difference between 'Atheism' , 'Agnosticism','Ignosticism', 'apatheism'...etc.
While I for instance don't believe in God, I don't have bad feelings towards religious people.
Actually I prefer not being categorised at all.
It's not because I do not join a certain club, I would automatically become member of the opposite club.So, that membership card that is in the mail? Return to sender
-
@unknownuser said:
Gee ..that's pretty smart Rick. You got us on the spellin there. You might wanna review the grammer. I don't seem to need it to communicate either. Keep me posted will ya.
Easy there, friend. I wasn't trying to attack anyone's spelling, I was just having fun with our crazy language (I enjoy puns, what can I say?). As I said before, just trying to inject some humor amidst the seriousness.
@paris said:
The greatest artists of the time were the one's who rebelled against the church, so in that regard I suppose you are right.
Not necessarily, if you count musicians as artists - Bach didn't rebel, nor did Handel, and they are two of the greatest composers. Nor did Haydn. Others were unconventional, true, and may have bucked tradition, but were deeply spiritual and devout in their faith.
@alan fraser said:
The separation of faith and science is equally essential.
I must disagree, at least in part. As mentioned earlier, it was faith that informed men of science and spurred them to explore creation. They had no problems with their faith driving their science - and it is their science that we build on today. Similarly, about 10-15 years ago, atheistic scientists were hyping "junk DNA" as evidence of evolution - leftover stuff from a previous form. Theistic scientists didn't buy it (obviously), and researched the "junk" strands. Their research, spurred by their faith, led to a greater scientific understanding of DNA and how some chains previously considered "junk" actually do have a purpose.
I also disagree with the separation of faith and politics, but it's too late tonight (this morning?) to go there... [please note I did NOT say I disagreed with the separation of church and state, so no comments about that]
@kwistenbiebel said:
You're right.
But you got 2 things mixed up.
Being without a God doesn't necesarily means hating the ones with a God. That is the point.I never claimed it did. I said I have personally witnessed some atheists who were extremely hateful. I did not claim that all were hateful.
What was the second thing?
-
@paris said:
The greatest artists of the time were the one's who rebelled against the church, so in that regard I suppose you are right.
Examples?
Great post, Alan. I concurr with everything you wrote.
Advertisement