"THE PAGAN CHRIST"

[Diraker]

http://www.cbc.ca/doczone/paganchrist.html

There are 2.1 billion Christians on the planet – roughly one third of the entire human population. At the heart of their religion is the New Testament and the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. To Christianity, the written word is the glue that binds the faith of its followers.

So, what if it could be proven that Jesus never existed? What if there was evidence that every word of the New Testament – the cornerstone of Christianity – is based on myth and metaphor?

Based on Tom Harpur’s national bestseller, The Pagan Christ examines these very questions. During his research, Harpur discovered that the New Testament is wholly based on Egyptian mythology, that Jesus Christ never lived, and that – indeed – the text was always meant to be read allegorically. It was the founders of the Church who duped the world into taking a literal approach to the scriptures. And, according to Harpur, this was their fatal error – and the very reason Christianity is struggling today.

The mission of The Pagan Christ is not to accelerate Christianity’s slow demise, but to breath new life into its holy book and, in the process, bring the world a richer, more spiritual faith.

hmm I'll have to watch this tomorrow. Video links can be found here.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,2057,The-Pagan-Christ,CBC-TV

eta: note that this Harpur guy is a priest and this is from CBC. Mainstream stuff, nothing from some propaganda site or something. Don't let the title scare you...BOOO!

[Gnioss]

I thought it was pretty well established fact that Jesus of Nazareth existed.

[Mourne]

The name appears in Roman records I thought. One thing I remember, however, is that the city name Nazareth didn't even exist back then.

Anyhow, I thought that the story of "Christ" was already generally known to have existed thousands of years before Jesus was born. The first account I can think of is the Egyptian god Horus (which was probably based on even older stories from Sumerians.) He was born on Dec. 25th of a virgin, visited by three kings, began a ministry at age 30, crucified and resurrected 3 days later. He was known as "the light", "the lamb of god", and many other names identical to those used for Jesus.

This story seems to have more to do with astrological events than literal events of actual people. The "son" of god is the Sun. The eastern star is Sirius. The "three kings" are Orions belt that aligns, or "follows", the eastern star on Dec 24th when it is at it's brightest. The "three kings" of Orion's belt and the star Sirius all point to our horizon's sun rise (birth of the son/sun) on Dec. 25th... During the summer solstice the days are longer and get shorter as it moves towards the winter solstice. The suns path in the sky gets shorter. On Dec 22nd the sun looks like it's motionless or "dead" in the sky for...3 days before it...you got it..."rises" on Dec 25th. Another thing, when the sun is "dead" for those three days, it's directly aligned with the astrological constellation of the Southern Cross. The Son (sun?) died on the cross, was dead for three days and was resurrected. BAM! The cross symbol itself is/was a pagan astrological symbol long before Christians began using it.

The age of the old testament was the age of Aries, the ram, which is prevalent in the symbolism of the old testament. Jewish people have traditions dealing with a ram's horn, and they also deal mainly with the old testament (sorry, I don't know a lot about the Jewish faith, no offense to any Jews.) Christ's birth marked the beginning of the astrological age of Pisces, the fish. Now, think of all the symbolism for fish and fishermen that appears in the new testament...

I'm sure I'm missing some key facts here as I haven't watched or read up on this subject in a while. I really recommend watching this movie for more:

http://zeitgeistmovie.com/

[Dong]

The vast majority of historians and theologians have always believed in the reality of Jesus' life. I can understand disbelief in His works and actions (even in the Bible they are described as miracles). I see books like this more after making money than being accurate.

[Diraker]

I've only seen part one so far...RL is bsy over here with the kids and stuff. But to me it doesn't really matter if there really was an historical jesus (like say if jesus was a teacher, teaching things ahead of his time) or if jesus was a complete fabrication. Most people have trouble believing in miracles and claims of the divine anyway (that's why it's called faith). What I find interesting is that the jesus story isn't unique; that the jesus story is just like other myths, that jesus is a hero like other heroes of mythology. That virgin births, resurrections, healing the sick, etc are common themes of mythology. I like mythology an I think humans in general benefit from myth.

And I think Drek posted the Zeitgeist movie last year. Part 1 was interesting but part 2 (the 9/11 stuff) was terrible.

eta: Dong, I think if the purpose was to make money books like The Left Beind series and A Purpose Driven Life make vasts amounts of more money. The author would be better off writing a book like that. It's also woth noting that the author is some 81 year old priest.

[Dong]

I think it's wrong to call someone an idiot because they deal in silver instead of more valuable gold. Controversy sells.

Google reviews of the book and tell me if you're comfortable with his sources.

[Diraker]

I don't know what you mean. But preaching to the choir apparently sells better.

The idea of the jesus story being based on earlier mythologies is nothing new, it's pretty well established fact.

Anyway I got to watch the who CBC documentary I didn't really learn anything I didn't already know from taking basic philosophy classes in college. I was hoping for some new information. I'm glad though that this type of stuff is going mainstream. There's too many folk like that black woman (the one who is not Whoopie Goldberg) on the View, who think the earth might be flat and that jesus predates everything.

[Mourne]

Yeah, I think the 9/11 stuff was terrible too. Part 1 was excellent though.

I believe Jesus existed as a person. Despite claims I've read and watched, I also read and watched enough to know he was a person. I see the bible more as a code of moral conduct and practices. I take it more metaphorically rather than literally, and personally I believe that's how it was intended in the first place.

[Lozzt One]

The problem that exist -- many people try so hard to discredit the bible (Jesus in particular) but records show a man named Jesus existed. Now if you actually read the New Testament you will notice that when Jesus was born the shepherds were laying with their flocks which was customary during the spring and summer times to provide protection from thieves and carnivorous animals. This means that Christ wasn't born in December in the Middle East. The most common time for pregnancy was in the spring and summer times as well. Now if you actually examine history you will find that it wasn't until after Catholics (which is the most widely accepted view of Christianity history and is distorted to their points of view and faith) started "creating" traditions to honor the Christian faith did Christ birth get moved.

Honestly I hate people that want to disprove Christianity but then don't understand that as a faith it has been marred through history to fit the "tenor of the times." History itself does nothing but state that different religions existed during certain time frames.

An interesting note, if you take the Catholic hierarchy and place it next to the Judaism hierarchy you will find they mirror each other with a few exceptions. Denominations are all different and some incorporate many traditions from other religions.


And all religions and faiths mirror each other to some extent or share commonplace practices. All major religions for example, have a story containing the flooding of the world.

[Diraker]

Lozzt, aside from the Josephus reference (which might be a forgery) what "records" are you talking about? I am genuinely curious.

[Mutt]

Cool stuff Diraker, I never heard this side of things before. For that matter I never knew CBC had a "doc zone!" show for this kind of thing either. First time Ive heard a minister mention the gospels being contradictory too. When I read them, I thought at least they were misplaced in certain places but chalked that up to possible translation problems.

[Riley]

It is my belief that no one decides whether or not to believe in god, christ, allah, or FSM based on science.
I think belief in god or not comes first, and that influences how you interpret the world around you including science. I think that is why two rational, educated people can come to different conclusions even when they know the same facts.

I usually don't comment on all these threads that much because I don't believe there is any debate that ever actually goes on. However, most of them do make me research for quite a while and I've found that neither side ever really offers proof of anything they claim. Believers basically offer faith for their arguments, while atheists often quote one another a lot (just saying from I've looked up) and then treat it as fact. Scientists are willing to believe some crazy theories as long as it doesn't have to do with religion.

I've had about 4 years of history/poli science and then another 3 full years of just science courses when I decided to get a B.S. when I changed careers. I had to learn all about evolution, cells, yadda yadda. I even believe in evolution as far as species changing over time, but I can't take the leap of faith to believe that single celled organisms came together by accident and then evolved further into the diverse and complex life of today. To me, an all poweful being creating the universe actually makes more sense....but my belief system came first and then science, so I would believe that way I guess. I think belief or not in god is such a large part of our identity that is determines how we interpret science and not the other way around.

disclaimer: I believe God exists, Jesus died for my sins, and lives today where he talks to me, so I must be pretty crazy to a lot of people anyway.




edited to make something more clear

[Mutt]

Dong/Lozzt/Riley did you watch the documentary? It isnt an attack on faith. For that Bill Maher followed in a linked video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51NzP64uyz0&feature=related

Its about the interactions between the christian mythos, and an egyptian mythos and examinations between the two because they both support the same core spirituality.

Infact I found that Harpurs particular view of things seems to be intended (and I would agree) to be reinforcement of that core spirtual message. The concluding thought presented was how this information made his faith stronger, be you name your god jesus, horus, etc.

If anything it promotes the good side of spirtualism and tries to shed the negative dogma that comes with it.

[Dong]

It is my belief that no one decides whether or not to believe in god, christ, allah, or FSM based on science.
I think belief in god or not comes first, and that influences how you interpret the world around you including science. I think that is why two rational, educated people can come to different conclusions even when they know the same facts.

I usually don't comment on all these threads that much because I don't believe there is any debate that ever actually goes on. However, most of them do make me research for quite a while and I've found that neither side ever really offers proof of anything they claim. Believers basically offer faith for their arguments, while atheists often quote one another a lot (just saying from I've looked up) and then treat it as fact. Scientists are willing to believe some crazy theories as long as it doesn't have to do with religion.

I've had about 4 years of history/poli science and then another 3 full years of just science courses when I decided to get a B.S. when I changed careers. I had to learn all about evolution, cells, yadda yadda. I even believe in evolution as far as species changing over time, but I can't take the leap of faith to believe that single celled organisms came together by accident and then evolved further into the diverse and complex life of today. To me, an all poweful being creating the universe actually makes more sense....but my belief system came first and then science, so I would believe that way I guess. I think belief or not in god is such a large part of our identity that is determines how we interpret science and not the other way around.

disclaimer: I believe God exists, Jesus died for my sins, and lives today where he talks to me, so I must be pretty crazy to a lot of people anyway.




edited to make something more clear

Awesome post, Riley.

[Dong]

Dong/Lozzt/Riley did you watch the documentary? It isnt an attack on faith. For that Bill Maher followed in a linked video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51NzP64uyz0&feature=related

Its about the interactions between the christian mythos, and an egyptian mythos and examinations between the two because they both support the same core spirituality.

Infact I found that Harpurs particular view of things seems to be intended (and I would agree) to be reinforcement of that core spirtual message. The concluding thought presented was how this information made his faith stronger, be you name your god jesus, horus, etc.

If anything it promotes the good side of spirtualism and tries to shed the negative dogma that comes with it.

No, Mutt. I read several reviews on the author and saw where he lacked sources, and some of the "expert" sources he did have were high school teachers. It seems very New Age to me.

None of his major points is news to me. Similarity of symbols does not mean equal, and Christianity has too many unique factors (many of which are major factors) that just isn't around elsewhere.

[Diraker]

Nice post Riley and I think it's good that you state that for you religion came first. My only objection is though you sort of impose theistic/religious thinking onto naturalists (those who don't believe in the supernatural) which isn't the case; for example the idea of common descent is not a faith based position at all. I think it basically all boils down to some people think in terms of top down (like god did it or that it takes a more complex thing to make a less complex thing) and others think in terms of bottom up (slow change over time from less complex to more complex).

Dong, if this priest guy isn't your taste maybe give Joesph Campell a shot. There's an old show from the 80's that was on PBS called, The Power of Myth. (When I referred to my college days in this thread, this documentary was pretty much the basis for one of my philosophy classes). I think Joseph Campell also has a book, The Hero With 1000 Faces. I think it might interest you.

[Dong]

I own The Hero With 1000 Faces.

[Satia]

http://richarddawkins.net/article,2057,The-Pagan-Christ,CBC-TV



Really interesting stuff, diraker. As I was watching it I thought that it sounded a lot like a book I was reading last night, turns out they interview the authors (Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy, authors of "Jesus and the Lost Goddess"). I'm definitely going to have to get this guy's book. It's interesting though that at the end he said that all of this information he's looked into has actually strengthened his faith. Not quite the attack people are expecting (OMG YOU SAID PAGAN). I've read some of this stuff before, but seeing this video gives me some things to look into.

Thanks for posting the links.

[Mutt]

No, Mutt. I read several reviews on the author and saw where he lacked sources, and some of the "expert" sources he did have were high school teachers. It seems very New Age to me.

None of his major points is news to me. Similarity of symbols does not mean equal, and Christianity has too many unique factors (many of which are major factors) that just isn't around elsewhere.Can you point me to a review that isnt done by someone vested in the church? Thats all I can seem to find. I know there was a review by Gasque and Harpur replied on that one. This info is new to me so I havent seen much on it.

I think its an interesting standpoint and one that is seen when considering other mythologies. Romans simply renamed Greek gods and took them as their own (Aries=Mars, etc), norse and germanic gods had their own set of similarities depending on the god in question. Im sure the same can be said for asian and african gods, although I have never really looked into them as much. Buddism is the largest of these with close to the same number of people that Christian or Islamic religions draw. The numbers are hard to get a direct amount due to the fact that the Chinese government does derive reports as to the religious habits of its populace.

But it is know that buddha evolved as that religion traveled up from its origins in India to be someone people prayed to even though that was not what he taught in his life. There is actually a great learning centre in Hong Kong on this, ironically enough up by the great buddha (40ft statue). The basic principles stayed the same, but the way people interacted with buddha varies. As did the associated imagery of him. Its an accepted trait with the majority of religions (dead and otherwise), so why couldnt the same be said of christianity?

[Forecast]

I really hate taking part in these threads because I end up sounding like an asshole sometimes but let me just say this...

I'm sick of people complaining about people demonstrating their religion, be it in public schools, court rooms, or backyards. MYOB. If you live in a town that's mostly Jewish and they have menorahs everywhere and there's no Christmas tree at school... WHO FUCKING CARES? Are you being opressed? Are you being treated differently? No. Other people are just being happy with religion. Deal with it, pussy. Zomg he has the 10 Commandments in his courtroom! God forbid (or should I say science forbid), him from being happy about his principles inspired from his religion.

Next, stop complaining about Christians and Muslims and whoever else being pushy about religion. The most "pushy" people I ever speak to about religion are people who don't believe in anything. They sit there and complain about people trying to be converters, yet they constantly "inform" us about their beliefs in nothing... atheists trying to convert you to believe like them, no wai!

Cut the shit...lol




PS I say Merry Christmas and I love it, if you don't believe, too bad. When people say Happy Channukah I tell them I'm Christian and thank them with a smile... I don't get "offended".
I burp loud in public places when I feel like it, and if people are "offended" too fucking bad. People are such pansies, today.
God Bless all of you, flame me if you want, this is just how I feel... and yes... Christ is my savior.

[Lozzt One]

Honestly its always going to be like this. Its as I said take any 3 religions and you can find similarities. My problem is books and documentaries like these insist on taking extremes (JESUS DIDN'T EXIST!) or taking a small issue (Jesus didn't die on the cross) and proposing information/ideas based on very thin sources. Although I'll agree you cannot accept the bible as a historic source because it is the basis of a religion. Various other accounts besides Josephus make reference to Jesus and his crucifiction. And I'm sorry I cannot give you the names now Diraker but ill get them for you.


Point of curiousity where did you find that Josepheus was forged? And where at/what time? Note that Josepheus was a Roman historian and not a christian.

And honestly I haven't read the article in the thread. They all say the same thing. Yes it will have a different perspective or some "newer evidence" but essentially they are designed to make believers cast doubt on their faith and religion.

I think its rediculous for intelligent people to create arguments and write articles over something they disagree with or do not understand. Because you do not follow something it does not give you the right to say hey what you believe is wrong and this is why. Case in point - Santa Claus the child eventually comes to his own understanding of Santa Claus. Honestly what does attempting to tear down a faith do? It causes turmoil and war. Look at Rome shortly after Christianity was brought into the world. Pageans and Christians went to war with each other (yeah Da Vinci Code got some of it right). Arguments like this are frivilous and moot because both sides cannot conclusively disprove the other and to do so would bring trouble.

Remember history was written by the winners

[Satia]

Point of curiousity where did you find that Josepheus was forged? And where at/what time? Note that Josepheus was a Roman historian and not a christian.

http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=9358353

(I used biography.com because if people see something they don't like on, say, a wikipedia entry, they tend to scream NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE)

Article about Josephus from Time.com
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,905859,00.html

Honestly its always going to be like this. Its as I said take any 3 religions and you can find similarities.

There's a difference between similarities and copying word for word. I asked my Grandfather once why there were myths from before the New Testament that were the same as the story of Jesus. He told me that Satan put those stories there to cast doubt on the Bible. Ooookay. One problem I have is that in one breath someone can say "well the Bible is just a guideline of how to live your life" (great, that's fine), but the moment you find evidence that maybe its not completely true (or, as I've seen many times, unique), people seriously blow a gasket and freak over the very idea that someone would dare to question its "literal Truth" (big T because that's a favorite spelling I see).

And honestly I haven't read the article in the thread. They all say the same thing. Yes it will have a different perspective or some "newer evidence" but essentially they are designed to make believers cast doubt on their faith and religion.

Since you didn't read the article or watch the video (I'm assuming), please tell me where it said that people who are Christian should doubt what they believe? Faith is one thing, wanting to dig up historical evidence is another. I've seen several tv shows and own a book that uses the Bible to explain historical events. Is that more acceptable because its trying to prove the Bible is historically accurate? And chances are if your faith is based on a book, then anything anyone else says shouldn't make you doubt that book. The gentleman who was at the beginning and the end of the video said that with everything that he learned, it didn't matter to him if the Bible was historical fact. What it did for him was give him a deeper personal understanding that only strengthened his faith in the Bible.

Does it matter if Jesus existed? I don't think so. Not to me. The stories in the Bible have influenced people to do really wonderful (and really horrible) things. If a person tries to live their life based on love and peace because of the Bible, I'm all for it. But if they try to murder innocent people as revenge for injustices they see in the Bible, I have a problem with that. What matters is what you take from the stories, and hopefully its the positive.

When it comes down to it, people throw a hissy fit if any sources are cited that go against the Bible (they have to be fake, the devil made them do it, they cite each other). But what sources are used to prove the story of Jesus to be true? They all go back to a set of books voted on by a bunch of religious leaders that may or may not have had an agenda of their own. Why are the Gnostic gospels not good sources? Because they didn't agree with the first four books? Probably. I can't say that they're wrong, nor can anyone really, simply because a bunch of bishops decided they didn't fit in.

Honestly what does attempting to tear down a faith do? It causes turmoil and war.

Happened plenty of times in history. And Christians have done their fair share of tearing down other religions.

I think its rediculous for intelligent people to create arguments and write articles over something they disagree with or do not understand.

You're right. I wonder how many arguments have been made against non-christians over the centuries by otherwise intelligent Christians over something they didn't understand or agree with?

Remember history was written by the winners

Yes, it was. And some of us are interested in what was left out by the winners.

[Mutt]

Point of curiousity where did you find that Josepheus was forged? And where at/what time? Note that Josepheus was a Roman historian and not a christian.The reasons behind possible forgeries was outlined in the documentary

Remember history was written by the winnersAlso touched on by the documentary. The gnostics lost and were forced underground.

[Forecast]

Happened plenty of times in history. And Christians have done their fair share of tearing down other religions.


You're right. I wonder how many arguments have been made against non-christians over the centuries by otherwise intelligent Christians over something they didn't understand or agree with?

You shouldn't really limit these analyses to just Christians. You sound like you're singling us out, here.

[Satia]

You shouldn't really limit these analyses to just Christians. You sound like you're singling us out, here.

And if you look at what I quoted for those two comments, I'd hope you'd understand that I was trying to show that one can accuse people of doing something when the same thing could be said about your group. The second comment was rewording what Lozzt said and switching who was doing what.

Edit: and I wasn't limiting those comments to Christians, but the reverse is apparently perfectly acceptable.

[Mutt]

It is my belief that no one decides whether or not to believe in god, christ, allah, or FSM based on science.
I think belief in god or not comes first, and that influences how you interpret the world around you including science. I think that is why two rational, educated people can come to different conclusions even when they know the same facts.

I usually don't comment on all these threads that much because I don't believe there is any debate that ever actually goes on. However, most of them do make me research for quite a while and I've found that neither side ever really offers proof of anything they claim. Believers basically offer faith for their arguments, while atheists often quote one another a lot (just saying from I've looked up) and then treat it as fact. Scientists are willing to believe some crazy theories as long as it doesn't have to do with religion.

I've had about 4 years of history/poli science and then another 3 full years of just science courses when I decided to get a B.S. when I changed careers. I had to learn all about evolution, cells, yadda yadda. I even believe in evolution as far as species changing over time, but I can't take the leap of faith to believe that single celled organisms came together by accident and then evolved further into the diverse and complex life of today. To me, an all poweful being creating the universe actually makes more sense....but my belief system came first and then science, so I would believe that way I guess. I think belief or not in god is such a large part of our identity that is determines how we interpret science and not the other way around.

disclaimer: I believe God exists, Jesus died for my sins, and lives today where he talks to me, so I must be pretty crazy to a lot of people anyway.




edited to make something more clearI think you have something there Riley, in how our minds work perhaps? Perhaps early social experience? I know that it would be very comforting to me if I could relax into the belief that I am privy to undying life. That when my time is up there is a heaven (or hopefully not a hell). But I cant. My mind wont let me accept that. It doesnt make one belief or non belief "better" than any other, just a different perspective on things. For the most part in our lives it doesnt make much of a difference what you believe as it doesnt affect our daily life. When it does start to impact daily life (such as stem cell research for example) that is when it starts to become a public concern.

Its hard to be happy with a religion if its hampering possibly valuable discoveries. With your science background, I think you can agree how putting up barriers to this kind of research does a disservice to all mankind. I am grateful for the fact that my government is allowing scientists here continue the work they started in that field. That is despite the fact for at least the past 25 years the prime minister has been either christian or catholic. And we welcome all the research teams that have migrated up here as a result.

Its why I try to find a reason to go simply beyond base spirituality beliefs, IE be good, dont kill, etc. Some of the time it takes the form of challenging people who believe in something to find out why.

[Mutt]

You shouldn't really limit these analyses to just Christians. You sound like you're singling us out, here.Thats true, it just happens to be that most of the people who take the time to discuss these kind of things are of that faith or are non believers.

[Forecast]

and I wasn't limiting those comments to Christians, but the reverse is apparently perfectly acceptable.

all I have to say is

/sarcasm on
yarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
/sarcasm off

lol... I was just trying to say that generalizations are usually better unless you're giving a hypothetical. There are people of all kinds, ya know. Perhaps I should have said this originally... hope I'm being a little more clear >_<

[Satia]

all I have to say is

/sarcasm on
yarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
/sarcasm off

lol... I was just trying to say that generalizations are usually better unless you're giving a hypothetical. There are people of all kinds, ya know. Perhaps I should have said this originally... hope I'm being a little more clear >_<

I realize that there are people of all kinds. Contrary to popular belief (within this thread) I'm not a complete idiot. I was simply trying to point out in the part that you originally quoted that its silly to say that only one group is guilty of certain behavior when pretty much everyone has been guilty of it at some time or another.

Well, I look forward to hearing your questions to clear up any misconceptions next time. And seeing myself quoted more than just the bits to make me look bad. :)

[Forecast]

you idiot













=D I kid I kid!!

[Forecast]

So I was with Anom's mom the other night...


SEGWAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

[Satia]

you idiot













=D I kid I kid!!

Somehow I doubt it :P

[Diraker]

Forecast, it's not abut limiting people's religious expression it's about restricting the government from endorsing one religion over the next or religion over non-religion. Students in school can talk about god or pray all they want (obviously unless they are disrupting class). People can put up "happy birthday jesus" signs on their yard, but that same sign can't be placed on town hall. Churches can post the 10 commandments all they want, the courts however can't. etc. The bill of rights limits what the government in favor of allowing people to do it. You don't have to agree, or like it, it's just the law. There are many laws I don't like or agree with, and sure, I'll rant about it oo...for example hate crime laws or mandatory sentencing for marijuana possession, etc. There's also this notion that christian sentiments (like the soul enters a zygote) that hamper scientific research or prevent women from getting abortions. So it's ok the believe these things it's just not ok the have the government force these opinions on people who do not feel the same way. In as much as you'd think it would be wrong to, for example, the government pimping for atheism, it's wrong for the government to pimp for religion. It's just not the government's business to do these things. People, however, can freely express these things without the government from preventing us. Thanks to the first amendment. It works both ways, to protect government from religion and to protect religion from government.

Satia, nice links. I will check them out later today.

(sloppy post, I know, but I'm busy over here yarrr...the kids are off for winter break)

[Forecast]

but D...

When I was back in high school some years ago... even back then I was not allowed to organize an open prayer group. I read an email about a child chosen as valedictorian for her high school, and how she was limited from thanking God, and saying a simple God bless you any where in her speech. It would be offensive and against school policy, and since she was so resentful of doing so they threatened her with finding someone else. These are experiences, not hypotheticals... these are ridiculous. As for your opinion on the government, and people representing their religion (regardless of a title), I respectfully disagree with limitations. I interpret the law differently and would adjudicate it so.

PS The girl informed her school about the administrations actions and demands and incorporated an over-exaggerated fake sneeze at the end of her speech... the audience responded in a loud unison: "GOD BLESS YOU"

[Forecast]

and it seems that in the process of limiting religious people from representing their religions that atheism is pushed in everyone's face.

[Gnioss]

YAY ITS THIS THREAD AGAIN!

[Mourne]

YAY ITS THIS THREAD AGAIN!

This keeps me entertained at work. :)

[Dong]

More Travian IMO.

Gnioss, you need to play.

[Mutt]

YAY ITS THIS THREAD AGAIN!lol you know you know you make a tally on your wall every 3 weeks.

[Diraker]

I can't speak your experience about wanting to start a prayer group. What do you mean by "open"? But the valedictorian girl that was giving her speech is well known. I think you could do a bit more research than just reading one of those chain emails. Fact is that the school provided her with a forum to speak and her speech has to be pre-approved. The school said she can talk about god but that she can't proselytize. She deviated from her approved speech and starting preaching to the audience. Not everyone is a christian and most people don't enjoy being preached at. Can't folk just go to a graduation without being preached at? Well the supreme court yes they can. Remember the public school is for everyone, graduation ceremony is for everyone. Would it have been ok for the valedictorian to be preaching about how terrible religion is or about how religious folk are wrong or immoral? No. Or go off on political tangents about how we should impeach Bush or how should bomb Iran to glass? No. Would the school have prevented her from speaking such things? Yes. Would the school have prevented say a muslim student talking about allah and mohammend, how great they are, how we all love them so much, quoting the koran etc? Yes. Isn't it possible to take comments too far at a public school ceremony?

Maybe the school made a bad decision to cut her mic but the girl made a bad decision to give her non-approved speech anyway. The school told her before hand that if she deviated from the approved speech and started preaching they would cut her mic. And well that's what happened.

Bottom line is that christians don't get special privileges and frankly I'm sick of christians crying "persecution" when they can't use the machinery of the state (in this case a public school graduation ceremony) to push their views.

I'd be interesting in seeing that email you you refer to because I know that I can tear it to shreds.

[Diraker]

lol you know you know you make a tally on your wall every 3 weeks.

Well my thread was a link to a new documentary about how the jesus story is just like other myths. And I don't think forecast has been around to see our previous threads.

And gnioss, don't like the content of the thread? Good for you! Other people like talking about this stuff, if you don't why bother those who do? IMO go away if you don't like this thread. Or maybe go spam the forums with yip yip yip again, that was useful...
:smile_ok:

[Dong]

Bottom line is that christians don't get special privileges and frankly I'm sick of christians crying "persecution" when they can't use the machinery of the state (in this case a public school graduation ceremony) to push their views.

Coming from Mr. Persecution himself.

[Diraker]

What are you talking about Dong? Or are you just projecting?

[Dong]

That's the hilarious part. You don't get it.

[Diraker]

Wasn't it you, Dong, who posted about that jesus ("obey these laws") portrait hung in the court? Didn't you think it was all just honky-dory? That anyone who would dare object to be a cry baby? It's you who doesn't get it. Again, I am sick of religionists who seem to think it's ok for people to use the machinery of the state to pimp for their religion.

[Lozzt One]

http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=9358353

Article about Josephus from Time.com
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,905859,00.html


Since you didn't read the article or watch the video (I'm assuming), please tell me where it said that people who are Christian should doubt what they believe?

Does it matter if Jesus existed?

When it comes down to it, people throw a hissy fit if any sources are cited that go against the Bible (they have to be fake, the devil made them do it, they cite each other). But what sources are used to prove the story of Jesus to be true? They all go back to a set of books voted on by a bunch of religious leaders that may or may not have had an agenda of their own. Why are the Gnostic gospels not good sources?

i edited some of your wall of text out to keep this short

Alrighty... I don't like participating in threads like these discussions in the actual world. That time article states that the later copy that was found still mentions Jesus which (i haven't read that translation/copy of the text) if it was in first century context means Jesus the christian savior existed.

But since we are doubting christians and their history; I'm gonna doubt this jewish fellow that found the doc in Arabic... Because come on Jews are still waiting on the Messiah and Jesus claimed to be so, so there is going to be some hard feelings there... /sarcasm

The video and books like them don't tell people to doubt Christianity or their religion. But look at what it is doing. It is presenting facts to the contrary. When you do that in Law or in a court room you are trying to cast doubt on the witness or the defendant to win your case. It is the same shit here. All sides do it even Christians do it to muslims and jews. But to say it isn't designed to cast doubt on Christianity when it is saying that Jesus might never have lived is fucking bull shit.

It matters he existed. Why? Because the foundation of a whole belief system is based off the life of one man. Christians are saved through by faith through the blood of Christ which redeems their sins. If Christ didn't exist then they aren't saved and their beliefs system is destroyed.


The Gnostic gospels were things written after the fact. This actually gets into whether or not you have enough faith in God that he provided you with all the information needed to make it to heaven. Honestly I can't say whether they should be in there or not. Some of those books though were written 100 to 200 years after his death. And during that time war and destruction were causing chaos and there were major religious paradigm shifts (especially from polytheism to monotheism which is why Christianity grew so fast). There are books that are included in some versions of the bible like the Macebean books (i think thats the spelling) but essentially when you look at them they explain the wars that happened in the 400 years between the old and new testament.

[Lozzt One]

diraker dont fucking forget its through these religionist that you can say that shit...

[Dong]

As we both know, I made the thread about the painting (which still hangs today, so it's still honky-dory).

I get your stance on Christianity. You make every effort to slam it when possible. It's not just when Constitutional topics come up - almost every off-gaming topic thread you post on turns into a Christian slam fest.

Maybe you're projecting the doubt in your own beliefs about God.

[Diraker]

Then why do you fail to mention that the portrait hangs now as part of a larger display? That, yes, context matters. That the folk who hung the picture capitulated. That I was right, that you were wrong. That most folk in that thread agreed that the jesus picture, hanging there alone, ought not to be.

So Dong, pointing out a documentary that talks about ancient myths and their similarities to christianity is slamming it?

[Mutt]

diraker dont fucking forget its through these religionist that you can say that shit...? Im not following lozzt, can you explain?

[Mutt]

So Dong, pointing out a documentary that talks about ancient myths and their similarities to christianity is slamming it?If you are a christian, then it would be considered an afront to the basis of the religion

[Roxie]

yip yip yip

http://remiq.net/static/img/remiq.net_2645.jpg

[Mutt]

The Gnostic gospels were things written after the fact. Wasnt the bible written after the fact?

[Mutt]

yip yip yip

http://remiq.net/static/img/remiq.net_2645.jpghttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4VNMERVsC4

[Diraker]

It matters he existed. Why? Because the foundation of a whole belief system is based off the life of one man. Christians are saved through by faith through the blood of Christ which redeems their sins. If Christ didn't exist then they aren't saved and their beliefs system is destroyed.

Which is precisely why some people get all bent out of shape when "discussing" this.

[Roxie]

INGREDIENTS
1 1/2 cups heavy cream
1/4 cup white sugar

2 (8 ounce) packages cream cheese, softened
2 teaspoons lemon juice
1 1/2 teaspoons vanilla extract
1/2 cup white sugar

1 (10.75 ounce) package prepared pound cake
2 (10 ounce) packages frozen raspberries, thawed
2 tablespoons unsweetened cocoa powder, for dusting

DIRECTIONS
In a medium bowl, beat cream with 1/4 cup sugar until stiff peaks form. In another bowl, cream together cream cheese, lemon juice, vanilla and 1/2 cup sugar. Fold 2 cups of whipped cream into cream cheese mixture. Reserve remaining whipped cream.
Slice pound cake into 18 - 1/2 inch slices. Drain raspberries, reserving juice. Line the bottom of a 3 quart glass bowl or trifle bowl with one-third of the cake slices. Drizzle with some raspberry juice. Spread one-fourth of the cream cheese mixture over cake. Sift one-fourth of the cocoa over that. Sprinkle with one-third of the raspberries. Repeat layers twice. Top with remaining cream cheese mixture, whipped cream and sifted cocoa. Cover and refrigerate 4 hours before serving.

[Dong]

Then why do you fail to mention that the portrait hangs now as part of a larger display? That, yes, context matters. That the folk who hung the picture capitulated. That I was right, that you were wrong. That most folk in that thread agreed that the jesus picture, hanging there alone, ought not to be.

So Dong, pointing out a documentary that talks about ancient myths and their similarities to christianity is slamming it?

You can say you're right all you want, but it still hangs there. I bet that just makes your blood boil, doesn't it?

It's not your pointing out a documentary that slams it, but everything else you say in this thread that does.

[Diraker]

If you are a christian, then it would be considered an afront to the basis of the religion

When I was a christian it didn't matter that I considered these things to be just stories or metaphors. But knowledge of these facts certainly played a big part in me stop being a christian. The more I learned about history, science, and comparative religion and myth, the less and less I had faith. Eventually I became a deist (creator god, but without religion), then an agnostic (when I was still clinging to the idea of god), then finally an atheist (that there are no gods). Some people know all the same things I do and yet still have faith in god and religion.

[Diraker]

I bet that just makes your blood boil, doesn't it?

Not in the slightest. I am glad that the courthouse folk agreed to change the display to incorporate other "lawgivers". I think artistic displays in courthouses is nice provided one religion (or religion in generally) isn't being endorsed at the exclusion of others. There are such displays in the supreme court...i think they are pretty cool.

[Forecast]

D, I'm sorry to say but I really feel some deep hostility whether you admit it or not. /shrug

But hey, to each his own. Hope everyone has fun around the "special" days. I won't call them Holidays b/c it might offend someone.

Check out the warcraft movies Tales from the past... I made a thread about it, good stuff.

[Diraker]

I don't think pointing out facts is hostility. Although I can see how pointing out facts that are in direct conflict to what one believes can be interpreted as hostile.

(And if there were folk interested in psychology and neurology, we could make a whole thread on that topic alone; how challenging one's beliefs is akin to a fight for survival; why beliefs are so resilient, etc)

Why don't you want to discuss the facts surrounding the valedictorian speech? You brought it up.

eta: and forecast wasn't it you who was being "hostile"?

I'm sick of people complaining about people demonstrating their religion, be it in public schools, court rooms, or backyards. MYOB. If you live in a town that's mostly Jewish and they have menorahs everywhere and there's no Christmas tree at school... WHO FUCKING CARES? Are you being opressed? Are you being treated differently? No. Other people are just being happy with religion. Deal with it, pussy. Zomg he has the 10 Commandments in his courtroom! God forbid (or should I say science forbid), him from being happy about his principles inspired from his religion.

Why are these sort of comments perfectly acceptable but my (much tamer) comments not. Other people always start with the cussing and pointing fingers and when I play defense (resist against a push), it's "bad diraker" "how dare you" etc. Dong? Gnioss?

[Mourne]

hehehe I guess we all should have known this thread would eventually get this heated.

My two cents is that Christians as a whole get too offended by people who express their own beliefs. And yes, believing their are no gods as Diraker does is still his belief. At the present there are more people looking outside of Christianity for their truth and answers than any other time in this countries history, let's not forget that. Point being, that people that don't believe in the dogmatic Christian ways of thought have been persecuted (and much worse the further back in history you go) much more than Christians. You guys (Christian's here) seem upset with Diraker for pointing out his facts and snippets of history and accuse him of being hostile etc. when imo any hostility he demonstrates seems to be defensive in nature. He's being "ganged up on" as Christians in general (in my personal experience) are quite fond of doing. I'm not accusing anyone here of anything, but speaking generally and in historical context.

What I'm saying is that I find it silly quite frankly that Christians have the audacity to get all bent out of shape for things that they themselves have been doing to others for centuries and to a far greater extent.

In the end, I think we shouldn't really get offended by anything someone else thinks or says about our personal beliefs. That goes for everyone, agnostics, atheists and any other religion under the sun. We'll all know the truth soon enough and there's no sense in harboring malcontent during our short stay here.

For the record, I'm not a Christian and I'm also not an atheist. I'm a spiritual person, however, but don't categorize my beliefs into any one set religion. I heard a great analogy a while back from Jordan Maxwell a researcher I admire. Let's say there's an elephant inside of a cave. The elephant represents the Truth or God. There are 3 blind villagers outside of the cave and one by one they each enter. Each of the villagers touches a different part of the elephant. One touches it's trunk, the other a tusk, the other the elephant's tail. When the villagers come out of the cave, they each describe a completely different part of the elephant. Each one is correct, and yet, you can see how they might resort to arguing amongst themselves about what was inside the cave. Their different viewpoints represent differing religions. They each knew a part of the truth, but none of them knew the encompassing total truth. That's the way I see it too. Everyone has discovered a small piece of what's "real".

[Diraker]

Great post I just have two quibbles.

1) atheism is merely lacking the positive belief in the existence of gods. A=without, theism=belief in gods. A-theist. Without theism. Saying atheism is a belief is like saying not collecting stamps is a hobby.

2) I don't think theologians/spiritualists (blind men in your analogy) touch anything. I think they are guessing to what is in the cave. Now when they can start provinding me with evidence of something, then I can take their claims seriously. So where the religionists and spiritualists are groping around in the dark, scientists are lighting a candle. Reminds me of Carl Sagan's book, A Demon-Haunted World, Science as a Candle in the Dark. (highly recommended btw...anything by Sagan is pretty great).

[Dong]

Facts don't bother me. Turning every thread into Christian bashing, purposeful disrespect (for example, refusing to capitalize Jesus when capitalizing every other proper noun), and arrogance - these are what rub people the wrong way. I know the guy feels wronged by Christianity, and I guess this is his way of getting back at it, but it gets out of hand sometimes.

[Arnie]

This whole thread makes me lol.


There is a reason politics and religion aren't general conversation points.

[Diraker]

Facts don't bother me. Turning every thread into Christian bashing, purposeful disrespect (for example, refusing to capitalize Jesus when capitalizing every other proper noun), and arrogance - these are what rub people the wrong way. I know the guy feels wronged by Christianity, and I guess this is his way of getting back at it, but it gets out of hand sometimes.

Now that is truly hilarious. What's next being offended because I didn't capitalize the "h" in Him, when referring to jesus?

Note that Riley didn't capitalize jesus. Note that I also didn't capitalize allah or mahammed or muslim. Note I didn't capitalize the first amendment or constitution or supreme court either. Wow.

[Mourne]

I understand what Atheism means, but I still consider it a belief. You believe that there is no god. You cannot prove that there is no supreme being any more than anyone else can prove there is one. No proof of existence is not equal to proof of no existence. That's why this "debate" has been, and will be, around indefinitely and as Arnie pointed out, generally the reason people steer away from these sorts of conversations. Granted saying you believe there to be no gods is just semantics. However, the definition of belief includes your Atheistic opinions. Belief by definition just means conviction in something that hasn't total proof.

As far as your second point, I can see where you're coming from. However, it seems you're rooted more in 3D physical reality than I. Not saying anything is wrong with that. But from my perspective someone's feelings and emotions are just as real, if not more so. You can't see an emotion but we all know them to be real, because of our experiences with them all our lives. In my analogy the people in the cave experienced something that not everyone has or will. If you never experienced an emotion, it would be pretty hard to prove them to exist. This is akin to belief in extra terrestrials and other forms of crypto-news. To the people who experienced that sort of phenomena, it's quite real. To people who haven't, it's very hard to believe without having any experienced themselves to relate to. To reply to your saying that the people that went into the cave were merely guessing what was in the cave, I would say that they experienced what was in the cave spiritually and emotionally. Something, in my opinion of course, that holds just as much if not more weight than things experienced solely by physical means. I could lead this conversation into the theory that our beliefs form reality, making anything a possibility, but that's a whole other can of worms. :)

However, there are all sorts of "people" that go "into the cave". And yes, some of them do exactly as you stated. They're simply guessing. Some of them claim to "know" what's "right" and condemn those who's ideals don't mesh. Many of which I detest, such as large organizations that use people's curiosities and beliefs as a means to control the masses for power and money (one in the same I suppose). I won't get into specifics, but unfortunately I fear there are far more people in caves doing this than actually trying to love and enlighten their fellow man.

[Dong]

Now that is truly hilarious. What's next being offended because I didn't capitalize the "h" in Him, when referring to jesus?

Note that Riley didn't capitalize jesus. Note that I also didn't capitalize allah or mahammed or muslim. Note I didn't capitalize the first amendment or constitution or supreme court either. Wow.

You do it intentionally. That's my point. You're selective in what you capitalize. There have been exceptions, but 95% of the time you neglect to do it. I've noticed it for years.

[Diraker]

Well maybe Atheism with a capital "A" might mean something to some people but atheism with a small "a" is just lacking in a belief. And I don't have to disprove the existence of god to not believe in it. There are a million things that we both don't believe in without requiring disproof. For example (and yes, other's might have heard this before, don't let it bother you...eeesh), we both don't believe in an invisible dragon that lives in my garage without having to disprove it. We both don't believe in a celestial teapot that orbits alpha centauri, and we both don't believe in the flying spaghetti monster. All without disproof.

And one can be spiritual and an atheist. Many buddists consider themselves atheists because their religion doesn't necessarily have a god. Animal worship, ancestor worship, also can be atheistic. Spiritual is one of those words that begs defining but based on your post you seem to at least imply a supernatural component. I don't believe in the supernatural. In this regards I am a naturalist. And naturalism says a lot more about me than does atheism.

RL calls.

[Diraker]

You do it intentionally. That's my point. You're selective in what you capitalize. There have been exceptions, but 95% of the time you neglect to do it. I've noticed it for years.

I think your memory is selective. :smile_ok:

[Elora]

Wow... ignore a thread for half a second, and looky what happens!

Diraker... I really do try to give you the benefit of the doubt... again and again. And then you blow it. You still have this whole Prove It Or You're Dumb thing going on. (please note, this is a generalization of the vibe I get from your ramblings. At no point have I ever actually seen you post those exact, precise words)

The concept of belief and faith is pretty grounded in there not being solid proof you can hold up to a light and say, "See? Here it is!" So, saying that you need proof of someone's spiritual belief is goofy. I'm not a religious person, but I respect those who are. I like to think that I am a spiritual person. I believe there is something greater than myself behind the scenes.

I can not define what or who that is... but I don't need to.

I can not prove the existence of Dong's God (meaning the one he believes in, not the one he has tied up in his closet)... but I don't need to. I respect that he has all the proof <u>he</u> needs.

Just once, I would love to see you involved in a thread where you do not seek to bash someone because they have a different view of the world. Enough with the pseudo-intelligent high horse rhetoric. It's boring.

[Diraker]

Did you enjoy the linked documentary?

[Gnioss]

It's boring.
http://www.all-creatures.org/recipes/images/u-pot-glass.jpg









http://www.germes-online.com/direct/dbimage/50351255/Electric_Kettle.jpg














http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/j/msnbc/Sections/Newsweek/Components/Photos/Mag/060904/060825_JackBlack_hsmall.widec.jpg

[Diraker]

How is it that a thread about a soft core religious documentary turns out to be a thread about me and my posting style? It's incredible. Look I'm sorry I can't convey tone over the internet.

Anyway 3 points.

1) I can respect the person without having to respect all of their beliefs.
2) None of us automatically respect people's beliefs. We evaluate their reasons. This applies to everything except religion. Why do you (and some others) impose this double standard?
3) I would love it, just once, if we could have a psuedo intellectual debate where you don't seek to bash me for it.

[Roxie]

http://www.all-creatures.org/recipes/images/u-pot-glass.jpg









http://www.germes-online.com/direct/dbimage/50351255/Electric_Kettle.jpg














http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/j/msnbc/Sections/Newsweek/Components/Photos/Mag/060904/060825_JackBlack_hsmall.widec.jpg


hey buddy

we're moving next month

u gonna come visit?

we don't have room now, 2 many boxes

[Gnioss]

dang moving huh where to

[Vikael]

What I'm most interested in is if there's some data or study somewhere that links the perpetuation of religion to the belief set of the parents. I personally believe that religion is definitely a product of humanity and not the other way around, and the fact that religion practically has strong familial ties in almost every instance I know is probably the reason people get so defensive over it.

My parents never "preached" anything and as a rational human being I find it preposterous to foster faith in something that is so obviously touched by humans seeking power, let alone it's archaic source. That's like saying if I still thought women should be viewed as sub-human, like my ancient ancestors, that you should have to respect that.

[Roxie]

dang moving huh where to

lol dunno...buying a house. gotta make decision on one asap sadly. was hoping more would come on market after christmas. we're kind of looking at one off of igou gap rd near u.

[Mourne]

Good points Vikael. I don't know many people who would disagree. There are, of course, incidents where people become Christian who had atheist upbringing, but they would be few and far between.

Diraker, I see what you mean. But keep in mind that some people place more value in spiritual experiences that cannot be proven than physical things that can be. Because they make this decision doesn't in and of itself reflect on their intelligence in every case (there are of course exceptions). There are smart spiritualist and stupid ones. Smart Christian's and stupid ones. Smart Atheists and stupid ones. I think the problem starts when one or the other begins to try and force others to believe the same way. We should all just respect each others believes considering that none of us "know" anything for certain.

[Mutt]

Good points Vikael. I don't know many people who would disagree. There are, of course, incidents where people become Christian who had atheist upbringing, but they would be few and far between.

Diraker, I see what you mean. But keep in mind that some people place more value in spiritual experiences that cannot be proven than physical things that can be. Because they make this decision doesn't in and of itself reflect on their intelligence in every case (there are of course exceptions). There are smart spiritualist and stupid ones. Smart Christian's and stupid ones. Smart Atheists and stupid ones. I think the problem starts when one or the other begins to try and force others to believe the same way. We should all just respect each others believes considering that none of us "know" anything for certain.True enough, but if you consider both a theistic theory and a scientific theory of our beginnings (such as the big bang) it is possible to postulate and test that theory.

[Arnie]

That's like saying if I still thought women should be viewed as sub-human, like my ancient ancestors, that you should have to respect that.

I do. And you should.

[Drekor]

...considering that none of us "know" anything for certain.

Ahh, now that is quite a statement and creates a nice paradox as well. We should be striving to learn more and more but in many cases when we ask questions to gain such knowledge you are meant with arguments backed by no facts and that statement.

I'm a person that doesn't particularly care what you believe so long as you keep it to yourself, discussing it with people is also healthy as discussing things, especially with facts presents allows us to constantly rethink old ideas and make sure we have not developed into some seriously screwed up logic. With religion you have that screwed up logic, that doesn't mean all religion is false simply that the human explanations of it do not make any sense and really until they do you cannot expect people to think of the idea as being a reasonable belief.

If it's not a reasonable belief why should it be applied to people other than yourself? Like Vikael said something akin to women being sub-human is not a reasonable belief and it's not socially acceptable but it's no different than a religious belief in form. Personally I think at this point religion has become something that people participate in because others are doing it and do not even understand it themselves else they would be able to explain their actions better.

If a religious person can question their own beliefs and come out of it with an actual answer I'd be more than happy to listen. Although I have to admit Diraker has provided a lot of different arguments(or at least links to arguments), observations and facts surrounding religion and really none of the points made have been countered.

[Gnioss]

I propose that we create a religion thread and any comment for or against religious points of view, religious issues, or religion in general be stuck in it pls. We just have the same discussions over any over

[Mutt]

Imagine what treaty talks between Israel and Palestine seems like

[Mourne]

Drekor, my take on why people are in religions has more to do with their peace of mind and being able to ignore major philosophical questions that might lead to inner turmoil. It's easy to put everything "in God's hands" etc. But what you said is true also, about just going along with what others are doing. I'm sure there are a multitude of reasons people have for being in religions, both consciously and subconsciously to them. Fear is what I believe to be the major factor that plays into people dedicating their lives to things in such a manner. Fear of the unknown (death).

A couple of books that I enjoyed that have influenced my take on things is Science of the Mind by Ernest Holmes and also Conversations with God by Neale Donald Walsch. The second book is not a Christian book, I assure you, regardless of how the title sounds. If anyone is interested in my views (not saying you should be or anything) I recommend them. Feel free to recommend to me some books too. I love to read.

[Diraker]

Good points Vikael. I don't know many people who would disagree. There are, of course, incidents where people become Christian who had atheist upbringing, but they would be few and far between.

Diraker, I see what you mean. But keep in mind that some people place more value in spiritual experiences that cannot be proven than physical things that can be. Because they make this decision doesn't in and of itself reflect on their intelligence in every case (there are of course exceptions). There are smart spiritualist and stupid ones. Smart Christian's and stupid ones. Smart Atheists and stupid ones. I think the problem starts when one or the other begins to try and force others to believe the same way. We should all just respect each others believes considering that none of us "know" anything for certain.

Vik, there are two authors you might be interested in. One is an anthropologist, Pascal Boyer and the other is a philosopher Daniel Dennett. Both have very interesting things to say regarding the origins of religion and why religion sticks in people's heads. I posted some links below. These are to wiki but wiki has more links to follow if you are interested.

Mourne, I agree but I never say that people are stupid for believing something or valuing a different set of priorities. My point regarding this is that people are in general pretty logical and rational thinkers when it comes to say history, current events, science and such but when it comes to religion (or spiritualism (and these are big broad words, so I am speaking very generally) that the same people don't apply the same logic and rationality that they do regarding other topics. It's like all the rules go go the window. For example, that I can't disprove god doesn't mean I should believe. Or that if someone finds an idea comforting doesn't make it true. In normal conversation these things don't pass muster, but talk about religion and all of a sudden they do.

Also the die hard atheist author Sam Harris talks a lot about spiritualism (he's done the meditation, eastern style philosophy stuff. He has fasted, gone into isolation for a few months, etc). He suggests that religion has a monopoly of sorts regarding how we speak about spiritualism and he really wants science to investigate lots of claims made by spiritualists. The Dali Lamma, from the other end, is also suggesting that spiritualists think hard about and critique superstitions and also learn more about science. You might be interested in Sam Harris's article, Killing the Buddha, where he talks about losing the more "out there" claims while embracing and studying some of the more down to earth claims. He uses the term "contemplative science".

some links to the stuff I mentioned:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_Explained (Pascal Boyer)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breaking_the_Spell:_Religion_as_a_Natural_Phenomen on (Dan Dennett)
http://www.shambhalasun.com/index.php?Itemid=244&id=2903&option=com_content&task=view (Sam Harris)

[Mutt]

Ive never heard of Sam Harris Diraker. The article linked really makes some good points and echoes what I saw of buddhism in SE china and hong kong.

[Mourne]

Hyper-dimensional physics ftw

[Whisper]

We're getting to a point where:

A) We prop up a separate forum for this type of discussion to prevent off-game topic threads from devolving into religious debate.

or

B) We start smacking threads that are precieved as intentionally antagonistic to the beliefs of guildmates with a big ass fucking admin stick.


Most other forums have a no religion, no politics policy for good reasons. It would be sad as shit if something along those lines was found to be neccessary here as well.

[Diraker]

IMO a forum where the semi-pirate folk have access to would work. Like the TF and WoW pirates. I was posting stuff down in crew but everyone else seemed to just post up here, so I do too. Btw, this thread has several people who are conversing just fine. Don't just focus on the negative. And note many other people post similar topics, and I do not intentionally do anything to be antagonistic to fellow pirates. Did you watch the video in the OP? It's tame, non-offensive, and about a priest's book.

[Whisper]

This isn't a debate. I'll focus on what I catch the most PMs about, thanks. The posts down in crew weren't catching a lot of play, I imagine, because very few people give as much of a fuck about these things as you do. This is not a political or religious sciences forum, please bear that in mind. When discussion of a movie vomits up a wall of text with religious reaction as the focus, it fucks the peace and serenity I get from being a part of this community right up. Others feel the same.

It might just be easier to do away with the topics. If people are so hot and heavy to converse on them, there are other vehicles available for such things.

People not taking passive aggressive shots or playing to the crowd to boost their own egos should have no problems with that at all.

I'll talk it over with a few folks and make a decision.

[Drekor]

This isn't a debate. I'll focus on what I catch the most PMs about, thanks. The posts down in crew weren't catching a lot of play, I imagine, because very few people give as much of a fuck about these things as you do. This is not a political or religious sciences forum, please bear that in mind. When discussion of a movie vomits up a wall of text with religious reaction as the focus, it fucks the peace and serenity I get from being a part of this community right up. Others feel the same.

It might just be easier to do away with the topics. If people are so hot and heavy to converse on them, there are other vehicles available for such things.

People not taking passive aggressive shots or playing to the crowd to boost their own egos should have no problems with that at all.

I'll talk it over with a few folks and make a decision.
To be honest posts exactly like yours right there is what I find fucking shit up more than anything else. If you can't have a discussion about religion and/or politics than don't post or read the threads?

The new forum thing will probably work well in that regard but a thread titled "THE PAGAN CHRIST" should tip you off to the topic.

[Whisper]

Then we agree to disagree. When you catch PM one about stupid shit like this, I'll give more of a fuck about disturbing your personal calm with my irate ranting.

[Roxie]

lol

[Arnie]

!!!!!

[Diraker]

Topics down in crew were getting "play". I was just following where others (because I am certainly not the only one who starts topics relating to religion and politics) were posting. And I too get PM's. PM's of folk telling me that they like my posts and/or they wish they could respond without feeling as if others are gonna jump all over them.

[Roxie]

Topics down in crew were getting "play". I was just following where others (because I am certainly not the only one who starts topics relating to religion and politics) were posting. And I too get PM's. PM's of folk telling me that they like my posts and/or they wish they could respond without feeling as if others are gonna jump all over them.

People are always saying "OH PEOPLE PM ME" blah blah. Not that I don't believe Whisper or you, but I am curious what makes people feel the need to a.) complain to Whisper about specific posts b.) feel like they must congratulate Diraker on what they feel is a well-written post privately because they fear some kind of retribution. I mean it is obvious that Dong and Lozzt and Spiker, etc. are bad guys, but they're by no means the Christian Mafia waiting to take people out on a whim.

[Mutt]

lol the Christian Mafia. Would make a great robot chicken sketch imo.

[Aradorn]

the ultimate problem with these kind of debates (or talks) is that

1 - the extremes for both sides are the only ones that ever talk.
2 - you typically only get 1 side of the christian story from people who are probably not the most creditable.
3 - most people just dont get IT...

the sad reality is that majority of the religious people in this world believe 1000% of the person that gets up on sunday (or saturday, or whatever day you worship on) and never investigate and read for themselves.

Paul writes in 2 Timothy chapter 2 verse 15 - that we most study to show thy selves approved[...] RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF TRUTH.

i believe in evolution and science, but i also have my faith and have no problems in my life because i have accepted that God has put things into motion that I may or may not understand. I cannot prove that the universe is infinitely expanding because I do not have the level of education needed to understand those proofs, but I believe that there are people on this earth that can and do understand them. This does not disprove the existence of God for me.

Also for the proof that Jesus existed, Israelites were commanded by God to record their heritage (coincidence?) of all the Males of the family (patriarchs as they were called). This is how they proved what tribe they were from (Tribe of Lee, Benjamin, etc...) which was used for marriage purposes, tithing, and a slew of other things. This record keeping is the reason why we can prove a large majority of things that happened before the time of christ.

But the one thing that you have to remember is that Christians believe that the bible is the inspired word of God written by man but spoke to them by the holy spirit. If you believe this then you also believe that God plays a part in keeping it intact for the future believers. Furthermore, there are verses in the new testament that are quotes from books left out (book of Thomas is quoted by Paul I believe). It was written in one of the most perfect languages ever created (Greek - well most of it atleast). And contains only the bare essentials for the salvation of its believers.


gah anyways this is all im posting.

[Mutt]

the sad reality is that majority of the religious people in this world believe 1000% of the person that gets up on sunday (or saturday, or whatever day you worship on) and never investigate and read for themselves.
I agree. As well there are those who just give the faith lip service. For example, my gf works with a guy who married a jehovahs witness. He doesnt believe in that at all, but he loves her so he abides by all the things they do. No christmas, no birthdays, etc. But he went through all the hoops to be considered a jehovahs witness. I think the same can be said for those who convert to judiasm, etc.

i believe in evolution and science, but i also have my faith and have no problems in my life because i have accepted that God has put things into motion that I may or may not understand. I cannot prove that the universe is infinitely expanding because I do not have the level of education needed to understand those proofs, but I believe that there are people on this earth that can and do understand them. This does not disprove the existence of God for me.That does kind of seem to be the end game because no one knows exactly how the universe started. Either you believe it was some kind of natural phenomenon, or it was a the works of some astral god. Frankly, one is pretty much just as valid as the other as they are beliefs. That said you can empiracelly test and examine the scientific theory, just as we have tested and proven evolution is a fact (although not all the way down the line of course that is still a theory). The other problem is that if you do believe in a diety then at least 70% of the rest of the world is going to think you are wrong.

But as Sam Harris noted in that Killing Buddha article if you take spirituality down to the base level, and forget all the doctrine, traditions, and other beliefs built up by man, then there is very little that anyone can find fault with. As well we could learn much about the human condition and what it means to be who we are.

[Diraker]

The one thing I will comment on is that if you invoke god as the creator of the universe then, to me, you really haven't explained anything. You can't just explain something complex by invoking something even more complex. Anyway when one invokes god as the creator of the universe then I ask, "who created god?". (I asked this question as a child, I imagine most children ask this question...it has never been answered sufficiently for me.) Well now if god was always there, then why can't the universe just always be there? To me, invoking god (even the simple notion of a deistic creator god), just doesn't satisfy me. But to each their own.

[Silver]

Did you know that God spelled backwards is dog, and dog is man's best friend.

Think about it.

[Drekor]

Did you know that God spelled backwards is dog, and dog is man's best friend.

Think about it.
God is just it's name in English, oddly enough English wasn't the first language that had the idea of God in it. I may be mistaken as I'm to lazy to research languages that use a different alphabet but I don't think Allah or some other language's God backwards translate into dog. :smile_ok:

The one thing I will comment on is that if you invoke god as the creator of the universe then, to me, you really haven't explained anything. You can't just explain something complex by invoking something even more complex. Anyway when one invokes god as the creator of the universe then I ask, "who created god?". (I asked this question as a child, I imagine most children ask this question...it has never been answered sufficiently for me.) Well now if god was always there, then why can't the universe just always be there? To me, invoking god (even the simple notion of a deistic creator god), just doesn't satisfy me. But to each their own.
I think trying to ask such a complex question in the first place is rather meaningless right now. It's like asking a little kid that just learned addition to calculate the trajectory of missiles through a hurricane.