Ever the Expert

[Aron-Ra]

Mithras does appear to have influenced the Bible, and you can see evidence of that influence in several passages. Mithras was a sun-god, and Psalms 104:2 reflects Mithraic belief.

Mithra was not in existence prior to the Old Testament. It would be unlikely that it influenced the Psalms when they preceded the belief itself.

The date Gluadys gave for Psalms is more recent than the Avestas, and both are more recent than the Vedic origins of that god. Mitra is first mentioned in the Rg Veda, which is even older than the book of Job. So no, Mithra is definitely older than any part of the Old Testament, and even the Persian version of that is older than Psalms. Even in the movie, the Bible: Solomon, there are characters talking about Ahura Mazda, and that movie claims to be researched for accuracy.

So there are also many claiming authority in the field who believe that Solomon's contemporaries already worshipped some variant of the Zoroastrian god, centuries before Zarathustra.

Remember that Mithras wore a cloak in which all the stars of the Heavens were sewn. And that it was he who brought on the night by draping his cloak over the crystal dome that was the firmament over the flat Earth.

"he that sitteth upon the compass of the earth, ...that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in."
--Isaiah 40:22

This supports the fact that Mithra beliefs were influenced by Judaism rather than vice versa as Isaiah pre-dated Mithra.

Not possible due to the fact that even the archaeological origins of Roman Mithraism predates the oldest known copy of Isaiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls:

"a revealing inscription dating much earlier [than the Roman Mithraeum you're referring to] to c. 358 B.C.E. from the region of Caria, in southern Asia Minor, suggests that there was a syncretic movement between Hellenistic and Persian/Medean divinities in the region. In this particular Aramaic inscription, the epithet ksathrapati is identified with Apollo, which for Iranians would correspond to Mithra."10
--Mithraism.org

The written accounts of Mithra in the Avestas also predate Isaiah.

"Mithra is is the subject of Yashts (hymns) in the Zoroastrian Avesta, a text compiled during the Sassanian period (224-640 CE) to preserve a much older oral tradition."
University of Evansville, Indiana
http://eawc.evansville.edu/

So if we go only by what we can support with archaeology, then Isaiah was written within a couple hundred years of Jesus' birth. Mithra's influence on Rome would still have begun at least a couple centuries earlier than the Hebrew's Isaiah, and some four centuries before the Christian edition of it. But if we go with what we can tell from historical context, then Isaiah moves back to around 600 BCE, (contemporary with Zarathustra). But the Persian's Mithra moves back also, and still much further, so that Mithra and Mazda still predate Isaiah no matter what angle you want to take. And of course the Vedic origin of that god predates Judaism entirely, since the Rig Veda is estimated to be at least as old as even the oral tradition of Job, or even as much as 300 years older.

Not only that, but as a Biblical literalist, do you really want to defend the idea that the Earth is really covered by the giant crystal dome, or that night is brought about by some god's clothes being draped over it? Well, I guess as a Biblical literalist, you would have to.

There are a few other passages like this that illustrate the same concept. For this and several other reasons, I think Judaism didn't take its current form until after the influence of Zoroastrianism in about 600 BCE, since there is no mention of anything like Heaven or Hell in any religion until that time, and Mithras is prominent in Zoroastrian mythology.

But your thinking that it didn't take its current form until that time is only conjecture on your part.

Not quite. Zoroastrianism is often credited with being the first "revealed" religion, or the first monotheistic religion, although Amenhotep's worship of Aten really came first, and both beliefs are technically henotheistic. Regardless, among specialists in this area, it is the professional opinion of many theologians, and even the majority of historians, and of course archaeologists as well, -that Zoroastrianism has been a profound influence over western monotheism, more so than any other formal belief system we know of, except of course for the Mesopotamian lore on which Judaism is based.

Zoroastrian beliefs were post Judaism.

That appears to be impossible. All the references I've seen indicate they were contemporary, (even according to the Persian/Zoroastrian tradition) or that Mithra is older. In either case, the point remains that the first mentions of Hell come from Semitic ancestry, from Nergal, a character closely-related to Mithraism/Zoroastrianism, and specifically Ahriman. The Egyptians had only a Heaven for all of their dead except the really evil ones, who's souls would be devoured by a great beast, so that they couldn't continue to annoy anyone in the afterworld. But there was no eternal alternative for good vs evil souls until Zarathustra's explanation of the Kingdom of Justice and Truth under Ahura-Mazda, and the Kingdom of the Lie under Ahriman, HaShai'tan, "the opposer" of faith. This was doubtless the origin of the Hebrew's classic concept of "the devil" ruling in Hell, where the typical [current] Christian belief has changed, so that Jesus rules over Hell, and Satan now walks the Earth.

But I didn't imply that Mithras came prior to, or was a parallel of Jewish belief. He's a parallel for Jesus.

But the Jewish belief is foundation for Christianity and Christ.

No it isn't. Ask any Jew. They'll tell you so, and they'll probably be able to defend that pretty well too.

The Mormons and the Muslims both say the New Testament was a foundation for their beliefs, and you would probably deny both of their claims with the same motivation that prompts the Jews to contest your claim.

There are many OT verses that refer to Jesus and that was before Mithra.

Nope. Mithras, Mithra, Mitra, Meitros, Mihr, Mehr, and Meher all predate any mention of Jesus, in all cases, by hundreds of years. And there is not one passage from the OT that implicates Jesus specifically, or else the Jews would be Christian too, and so would the Muslims. There is a passage in Isaiah that names the expected Messiah, but his name was supposed to be Immanuel, a name which doesn't even have a similar meaning to Y'shua, and so can't be said to implicate Jesus.

He was the physical representative of the sun-god, Ahura-Mazda, Lord of the Kingdom of Justice and Truth, in much the same way as Jesus was Abba's representative on Earth as well. Both performed some of the same miracles, both traveled with twelve companions, both were conceived without intercourse, both were the "judge of souls", and both contested Ahriman "the Opposer" who's name is Shai'tan [Satan] in Hebrew. There are other similarities as well. But no matter which version of the Mithraic religion you're looking at, Mithraism still predates Christianity, and most of the Mithraic traditions even predate the Bible.

These terms that you are citing are post-Christian in most cases.

But no matter which version of the Mithraic religion you're looking at, Mithraism still predates Christianity, and most of the Mithraic traditions even predate the Bible. It began with the Rig Veda in about the 15th Century BCE, was then adopted and modernized in the Persian Avestas in the 7th Century BCE, and then adapted for Romans by at least the 1st Century BCE, all prior to Jesus, all PRE-Christian.

Mithraism prior to Christianity was very elusive. The caves that have the evidence of its belief system are within this time frame(Christian time frame). The early beliefs were unknown and kept very secret.

That's true. But they are not entirely unknown. For one thing, we know that Mithras, like Dionysus, Buddha, and so many others, was born miraculously, not through intercourse. He was also closely-associated with astrological symbols, and with Sol, (Helios) who toted the sun across the sky in a golden chariot just as Apollo did, which is also reminiscent of Genesis 32. This is according to stone reliefs and painted scenes inside many Mithraeum. But all of the earliest depictions of your god were the same, showing Jesus in a golden carriage, carting the sun across the Zodiac just like all the other sun-gods had done before.


(click to enlarge)

We also know that Mithras was worshipped by various denominations in many different lands, and that he was created to be equal in worship to the supreme god as part of a trinity, a triunal god, just as Krsna was as well. In that sense also, your christ was still not an original idea.

You're asking for very specific references from Greek, Persian, Indian, Egyptian, Canaanite, and Mesopotamian religions all at once, as if you never knew anything about any of them.

Honestly, there are so many people who just go to a anti-Christian site and puppet the stuff from there that it is hard to determine who has actually studied from those who do this. The original sources are very important in determining the evidence.

Agreed. My first reference for this was Kersey Grave's "The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviours". But I found that Graves was mistaken in many of his claims. There never was a 'Crite of Chaldea' for example. And sadly, a lot of people do base their conclusions on his (or similar) claims, however faulty, or unverifiable. I do not. I originally quoted this list of parallels on Talk.Origins, seeking to verify their accuracy. I have since had to discover on my own which ones were correct, and which were unreliable. On my own, I have also found a number of parallels in the old pantheons that no one had ever noted before, like the link between Enki and "the fall", or the history of Amen-Ra implying him to be a likely foundation of much of the evolution of the concept of YVWH. And I'm pretty sure none of these other people ever noticed the parallel in the Mahabharata with Jacob's wresting match against the sun-god in Genesis 32. In short, I have found it to my advantage to do as much of my own research as I possibly can, or at least verify other's conclusions.

Apparently, you want the specific passages, and that takes time to come up with.

Yes, but I assume that you would want me to do the same on something that you feel is questionable?

Certainly. My position is that I don't want to simply 'believe' anything, especially not on the value of someone else's word on it alone. I want to know. Or at least, I want to know how to know.

That's especially hard in Mithras' case since that religion isn't known only from the Avestas but from Roman and even Vedic documents too. I don't know if I can assemble all the specific references for you without having to read a whole lot more than I have time to. But I will do what I can.

I understand, I can wait. Take your time.

Thank you. I appreciate your patience in letting me take so long to get back to you. With everything that's been going on with me lately, I simply haven't had much time left for these discussions. But I got an A on my biology exam today, so the break was advantageous. Thank you.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Lord Krsna is a pre-Christian Christ of sorts. ...Krsna, Mithras, Jesus, and Amenhotep all promoted themselves as the sole, immediate prophet of their versions of the "one true" god. The biggest difference I see between them is that Jesus never said he was God, but Krsna did. Krsna claimed to be a physical manifestation of God, the supreme personality of the god-head, just as many Christians believe Jesus was also. And where Jesus claimed to have present to witness the creation of the world by God, Krsna claimed to have created the whole of the vast universe himself as Brahma.

Jesus did claim to be God.

No he didn't. Not once. Jesus did the same thing Akenaten did, promoting himself as the sole prophet of the sun-god. He even said that no one could get to God but through him, just like Akenaten did. Once it is even suggested in Revelations that Jesus, (like Krsna) was "the alpha and omega" because of that. But even in this passage, Jesus is called "prince of kings", not "king of kings". It is meant to be "his father", "the Lord" talking, not Jesus.

Jesus' own 'actual' words aren't recorded in Revelations, but in the gospels, where he consistently and repeatedly denied that he and God were ever supposed to be the same person. All through the gospels, Jesus says that he is not the father, that he doesn't know what the father knows, and that the father isn't even where he is but somewhere else. Jesus said he sits at the right-hand of the father, even though the god of the Old Testament says there is no one beside him, and there is only him alone. Jesus also said he could only put in a good word with the father where Krsna's position was that the buck stopped with him. There was no one else to pray to but him, because he a physical extension, component, and even source of all the gods, that he himself was the god-head, he himself alone was the trinity; Brahma, Shiva, Vishnu; all Krsna. "All are one, all are Krsna." Jesus said that he and the father were "one" only in their purpose. And even then, he maintained that any of us may be "one" with the father in the same way he was. Jesus was "a" god, by the strictest definition of the word; (an anthropomorphic being with magic powers which enable it to survive the death of its own physical form). But Jesus never said he was God himself, Abba, "the Father". And due to the fact that he still had to pray to god himself, he obviously never believed he was God either. Krsna did believe he was God, and many times proclaimed himself to be the supreme personality of the God-head, the physical avatar of all the gods' collective consciousness, a description Jesus never even implied himself, but which his followers attributed to him posthumously and erroneously.

I am going to look at your sources again about this.

You could read the whole of the Mahabharata. But everything I'm referring to here can be found just within the Bhagavad-Gita.



"Behold my extraordinary and unparalleled majestic opulence; My omniscient self is the maintainer of all living entities and the protector of all living entities but never influenced by them or by the material nature."
"Understand just as the mighty wind blowing everywhere is always situated within space, similarly all created beings are situated in Me. O Arjuna, all created beings enter into My nature at the end of a four billion, 320 million year cycle; and after another four billion, 320 million year cycle, I regenerate them all again."
"Fools deride Me in My divine human form, unable to comprehend My supreme nature as the Ultimate Controller of all living entities. These bewildered fools of futile desires, futile endeavours, futile knowledge and futile understanding certainly assume the nature of the atheistic and demoniac. But the great souls having taken refuge of the divine nature, O Arjuna, render devotional service unto Me with undeviated mind knowing Me as the Imperishable origin of all creation."
"I am the father of this universe, the mother, the grandfather, the projenitor, the essence to be known, the purifying transcendental sound vibration of Om; also the Rg Veda, the Sama Veda, and the Yajur Veda. I am the goal, the sustainer, the master, the witness, the refuge, the guardian, the well-wisher, the creation, the dissolution, the preservation, the reservoir and the imperishable cause."
"Those who desire My eternal association precluding all else meditate on Me with exclusive devotion; those persons, I insure the uniting of their individual consciousness with the Ultimate Consciousness perpetually."
--Confidential Knowledge of the Ultimate Truth; 5-7, 11-13, 17-18, 22

"Neither the demigods nor the great sages understand My transcendental appearance because I am the original source of the demigods and of the great sages in every respect. One who knows Me as birthless, beginningless, and the supreme controller of all the worlds, he being undeluded among mortals is delivered from all sins. Spiritual intelligence, knowledge, freedom from false perception, compassion, truthfullness, control of the senses, control of the mind, happiness, unhappiness, birth, death, fear and fearlessness, nonviolence, equanimity, contentment, austerity, charity, fame, infamy, all the varieagated diverse qualities of all living entities originate from Me alone".
"I am the Ultimate Consciousness situated within the heart of all living entities and I am the beginning, the middle, and the end as well [the Alpha and Omega] of all living entities."
(Elsewhere Krsna/Brahma is/are declared to have no beginning, middle, or end.)
"Certainly wherever and whatever is majestic, beautiful or magnificent; you must certainly know that all these manifestations arise from but a fraction of My glory."
--The Infinite Glories of the Ultimate Truth; 2-5, 20, 41

"If the effulgence of a thousand suns simultaneously were to blaze forth in the firmament; then that might be comparable with the effulgence of the Ultimate Personalities universal form. Then and there Arjuna son of Pandu could see the complete universe, variously divided, situated in one place within the universal form of Lord Krsna the Lord of all Lords."
--The Vision of the Universal Form; 11:12-13

Now, can you find anything Jesus ever said along these lines? Because when I read the Bible, it seems very clear that Jesus is only claiming to be a middle-man, or perhaps an ambassador for God, and even very closely-associated with God, but definitely not God himself. God himself is an admittedly vain and selfish being, and brags very much as Krsna does.

"That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there are none beside me. I the LORD, and none else! I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these."
--Isaiah 45:6-7

Here God denies any other gods, including his own son, and Satan too, claiming credit for everything in creation himself. In fact, every god who ever created everything brags like this.

"Zarathushtra asked Ahura Mazda: 'O Ahura Mazda, most beneficent Spirit, Maker of the material world, thou Holy One! 'What is the only word in which is contained the glorification of all good things, of all the things that are the offspring of the good principle?'
Ahura Mazda answered: 'It is the praise of Holiness, O Spitama Zarathushtra! 'He who recites the praise of Holiness, in the fullness of faith and with a devoted heart, praises me, Ahura Mazda; he praises the waters, he praises the earth, he praises the cattle, he praises the plants, he praises all good things made by Mazda, all the things that are the offspring of the good principle. 'For the reciting of that word of truth, O Zarathushtra! the pronouncing of that formula, the Ahuna Vairya, increases strength and victory in one's soul and piety."
--Zend Avesta: Hadhokht Nask

See? Gods tend to be quite vain and full of themselves. But Jesus isn't like they are. Jesus isn't even like his own god is. And he certainly never claimed to be him.

 

[Aron-Ra]

I can accept that, just as I can accept that James' ossuary and the "sacred" shroud of Turin might also both be forgeries or frauds. My evidence is not based on anything so flimsy as a single trinket. Whether this item was carved prior to Jesus' time or not, we still know that Dionysus/Bacchus/Orpheus/Tammuz was believed to have turned water into wine and that he was resurrected from the dead to live again, and that both of these beliefs pre-date Christianity by centuries.

Again you are using Christian terms that are not present in the actual myths that you are using as an example. It is in the terminology that this is presented as borrowing.

"He of the miraculous birth" still applies to, and was used to describe, Dionysus. But it works just as well for Buddha too, even if both of their mothers weren't quite virgins. Prometheus and Alcestis were both definitely crucified, centuries before Jesus, and the reasons for that are very similar to the Jesus story. Alcestis willingly sacrificed her own life, on a cross, to save that of her man. She was brought back from the dead, resurrected, after three days. In a parallel of another myth, Hercules went to Hades to retrieve Alcestis, just as Dionysus went to Hades to bring back his mother, Semele. Prometheus is especially relevant here because he was crucified to atone for man's acquisition of "forbidden knowledge", pre-Christian terminology with a particular Judeao-Christian parallel. In the stories of Zeus, there is an epic flood very like Ziusudra's. And there is a tale of Pandora's box, which is reminiscent of the Christian fable of a woman bringing sin into the world. Both of these could have been influenced by the Hebrew mythos, sure. And as far as I'm concerned, they probably were.

"Certainly, a great deal of fusion among religion systems occurred in Asia Minor, where the ancient traditions of Mesopotamia and Greece met and embraced in some of the most interesting ways."
--Mithraism in History and Archaeology

But the story of Prometheus could not have been based on the New Testament. So would you concede that the New Testament could have been influenced by the much earlier crucifixion of Prometheus to atone for man's forbidden knowledge?

We also know that Prometheus and Alcestis were both crucified as I described, to atone for the sins of others, for their salvation, in documents that are known to have been written in the 5th Century BCE. Now, how do you intend to counter / explain that?

The OT pre-dates that.

Yes it does. But the New testament doesn't, and that's where the most profound parallels are to be found. In the Greek mythos, there is also the story of the creation of the first man and woman. In this one, the god, Prometheus gave them knowledge of fire, knowledge that was forbidden to them by Zeus. This is another variant of the story of original sin. And Prometheus was condemned to be crucified to atone for man's sin in what is an obvious prequel to the story of Jesus' crucifixion for a similar sin, again one of forbidden knowledge. Like Alcestis' story, this is very much "Christian terminology" that can be verified to have been used more than 400 years prior to Jesus.

Its one thing to simply make a claim. But quite another to see it withstand critical analysis in peer review.

I respect that and feel the same way. I wouldn't be taking all this time if I didn't feel that you are honorable.

Thank you. In your first post to this thread, you've already shown more accountability than I think Mark Kennedy ever will. As for the references to Alcestis, Prometheus, Nergal, Ahriman, and Krsna, mentioned so far in this post, I have read each of these for myself, from English translations of the original fables or scriptures, not someone else's interpretation of them. So I can verify these similarities directly. Everything I have ever read regarding history, archaeology, theology, mythology, or even sociology, -indicates that all these neighboring religions are interrelated, and are all based on each other, and that the Hebrew tradition is no different. But that the Bible is a relatively recent compilation that can't possibly be the original belief for many reasons. Yahweh wasn't the first god worshipped according to any source I can find. He simply came to eventually replace the elder gods as the supposed creator of the universe.

"Go thou and worship; fold thy hands in prayer, and be the dog that licks the foot of power! Nothing care I for Zeus; yea, less than naught! Let him do what he will, and sway the world his little hour; he has not long to lord it."
--Prometheus, 430 BCE

Prophetic, huh?

 

[Aron-Ra]

It was my understanding that Isaiah was the only complete Biblical text to be found in the Dead Sea Scrolls; that there were some fragments of other books, Exodus, Genesis, etc., but that even then some of the works weren't verbatim with the newer versions, or that there were paraphrased passages "based on" other books of that compilation. And as I look into it now, that still seems to be the case.

Your link did not attest to this. There are fragments representing all the books except Ester and those that are there are nearly word for word with our present text. Since your link didn't state this maybe you have another that does?

It wouldn't matter. As I said, I expected the whole of the OT to exist by the time of the Dead Sea scrolls. But the fact remains that Akenaten's monotheism still precedes the projected time of Moses, as do the legends of Hammurabi's receipt of the Law code, given to him on a mountain by the sun-god, Shamash. This is another parallel that definitely precedes the legends of Moses, again by several centuries, and still written by the same culture, by the ancestors of the Biblical authors. So Moses' version cannot be the original. The same goes for the story of the Pharaoh Seneferu ordering the red sea to be parted, again hundreds of years before the mythic exodus. That fact, along with the triviality of the reason why the sea was parted, is another reason that it couldn't have been based on the story of the Exodus, and must be the other way around. This is evidently true of much of the OT, if not all of it.

Regardless, the Old Testament was supposed to be older than Jesus, a lot older in fact. But what we have here is a scenario where the god of the Jews isn't mentioned in any document anywhere prior to the 1st or perhaps 3rd century BCE at the very earliest. Only a single silver trinket exists prior to that, one bearing part of the benediction of Aaron:

The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:
The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:
The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.
--And even this vague reference is contemporary with the Avestas and may be an adaptation taken from an earlier version of the Hebrew god, or another god entirely.

Yet all these other gods of neighboring cultures and even those of Semitic ancestry are fairly well-known from a plethora of archaeological finds. It is as if the god of the Hebrews didn't yet exist, and was fashioned on other gods whom the Jews were familiar with.

The OT is foundation to Jesus and the NT.

Christianity is founded upon Judaism, as Islam and Baha'i are also. But Judaism is a distinctly separate belief system from any of the offshoots based on it, just as Zoroastrianism is distinctly different from Vedic belief even though they both employ some of the same terms, concepts, or even gods. And since Judaism is itself evidently based on the ancient pagan religions of the Bronze-age Near East, so Christianity, Islam and Baha'i must be as well.

I don't know about you. But I have a hard time accepting that God, the supreme original author of the universe, would make his son/avatar out to be a mere sequel to a popular human idea that had already been done to death in all the pagan religions. And it occurs to me that since Dionysus definitely did it first, that either he really could turn water into wine, or Jesus couldn't really do it either.

I don't have time to address this but I want to so I'll return when I can.

I should note that in the Bacchae, Dionysus didn't just make wine flow instead of water, but also white milk as well, both at the same time. He had the land saturated with it, so that both flowed from natural springs. At the same time he also had ivy vines dripping with honey. Now where else have we heard of this land of milk and honey? And when again would we hear of someone conjuring wine in this way?
http://www.dhushara.com/book/diochris/dio2.htm
The former concept could have could from the Old Testament, of course. But the latter one now found in the New Testament was not an original concept as it had already been attributed to a different resurrected god more than 400 years earlier.

"Dear God, don't know if you noticed, but your name is on a lot of quotes in this book.
And us crazy humans wrote it. You should take a look.
And all the people that you made in your image still believing that junk is true.
Well, I know it ain't and so do you, dear God."
--XTC / Sarah McLachlan

 

[Aron-Ra]

Actually, Hindus do not have the same type experience as that of Christians and Jews.

Yes they do. I've read a lot of their personal testimonies along this line, and I believe I have already shown some of them to you. What is it that you think is different?

"I agree that it often *sounds* like fundamentalist Christianity. Back in my misguided, mayavadi days, I probably would have said something similar. But you must understand that anyone who is sincerely religious is going to sound fundamentalist in a forum like alt.Hindu where previously the most outspoken members demonstrate a consistent inability to stand up for any basic, religious morality like compassion for other creatures, etc. Furthermore, many here claim to believe in God, [Krsna] but then they steadfastly refuse to accept His words. [the Gita] In the face of such permissive attitudes and faithlessness, naturally we are going to sound like fundamentalists. But who should be blamed? Our great crime is that we don't compromise on our principles. If the Lord says that we should refrain from illicit sex, meat-eating, gambling, and intoxication, then we follow this instruction, regardless of how long ago it was given. Furthermore, when we say that we accept a particular [Vedic] scripture as God's instruction, we mean it; we do not simply accept 50% and reject whatever we don't like. This is foolishness."
--H. Krishna Susarla

Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

Hinduism is more about reaching Makita or Nirvana. Hinduism is a journey of the self. If you asked hundreds of millions of Hindus about their "experience" with God more than likely they could not relate to that type of concept.

You're ignoring the fact that you could probably say the same things about hundreds of millions of Christians too. You're also ignoring the quotes from George Harrison where he says the very opposite. Everything I've heard from the proponents of Krsna consciousness and their experience with their god sounds exactly like what Christians claim about their own god. I subscribe to daily emails of Hindu wisdom. I've read Probhubada, and some of their Hindu holy scriptures, visited many of their websites, watched their videos, and read many of their personal testimonies. And from this, it is evident that many many millions of Hindus do relate to that type of concept, and they proclaim it loudly, just like Christians do.

A woman at my work emigrated from Calcutta, and converted from Hindu to Christian. She has since discarded Christianity too, saying she was dissatisfied with it, and noting that Christianity and Hinduism are too similar, something I noticed myself when studying the two. She is now a Buddhist, and says she has never been happier.

I have also read the testimony of a Thai girl expressing the overwhelming, dizzying euphoria she felt the moment she accepted Buddha into her life, and that all her burdens and worries simply vanished at that instant. How many times have I heard Christians say the same about their "rebirth" when they "accept" Jesus the same way?

I've also known many Wiccans and other pagans. One of whom, a dear old friend, expressed the same sort of spiritual enlightenment as what many Christians tell me they felt once the holy spirit came to them. My friend is no less adamant, or excited, or elated than any Christian I know about finally "meeting" his personal god. Except that in his case, he was visited by the visible and audible manifestation of Bast.

So as far as I can see, all these personal gods are all alike.

"If there's a God, I want to see Him. It's pointless to believe in something without proof, and Krishna Consciousness and meditation are methods where you can actually obtain GOD perception. You can actually see God, and Hear Him, play with Him. It might sound crazy, but He is actually there, actually with you."
--George Harrison

I agree, it would be pointless if we could not "see" God. Spirituality you real whether it is God or whether it is another form of the Spirit world. You can call that Satan or evil or whatever but it is as real as God. I practiced meditation and followed Eastern religion prior to accepting Christ and God's revelation so I can understand the difference at least in my life.

So, are you a henotheist then? For myself, when three different people each tell me they "know" their god personally, and each of their gods created the world without the other two, and each of them say both of the other two witnesses are "deceived", then I make what I think is a logical assumption that all of they're all probably deceived, and that none of them really knows his imaginary friend the way he says he does.

Now logically, if Wiccans, and Shaman, Buddhists, and Shinto, etc. -all claim to experience their gods the way Christians do, then none of them can really claim the proof that they all do. I mean surely not all of these gods really exist, right?

Right. You have hit on the profound in this statement. It is not that there are so many people that claim the experience that is the heart of the argument but who actually God claims Himself to be.

That's the problem. Assuming there really is a god, and that there is only one god, then he doesn't claim anything. Instead, he just leaves all that to all the people writing all these various interconflicting, and supposedly holy books, -based on what they all want to believe he claims. But none of these authors has any more validity than any other, or else we would be able to test for these claims, and eliminate the false ones.

On the surface there may be similarity but when each is focused on singularly it becomes less so.

I've gone as deep as I can, and I haven't found any significant difference.

If you are referring to the Holy Spirit as magic then of course you don't understand the concept.

Maybe it is you who does not understand. Get a dictionary. Look up 'miracle'. Now look up 'magic'. What's the difference? Both are defined as phenomenon which cannot be explained by any scientific means. Now explain the holy spirit using quantifiable, qualifiable evidence and testable [scientific] explanations. If you can't do that, then we're talking about magic. If you don't believe me, look it up. I think every dictionary you look at defines your holy ghost this way.

As far as being dependant on that experience that again is stepping into the profound. Many religions do indeed depend upon altered consciousness to reach a certain step or phase in their religion. It is misunderstood to include Christianity into this as well.

Sorry. Snake dancing, stigmata, holy visions, faith healing, exorcisms, and speaking in tongues are all the same in that they are all dependant upon an altered consciousness. The same applies to listening for those little voices in your head that so many Christians try so hard to hear, until they finally, (inevitably) do.

IN reality, Christ consciousness or what some call Christ consciousness is only Christ living within us in the form of the Holy Spirit. So it is not the "self" that acquires any state of consciousness in their own right as is the case in other religions.

Read Harrison's quote again, or the testimonies of any other Krsna concious devotees. You might also want to read some of the comments from other Christian creationists like yourself who contradict you so strongly even right here on this board. Jal for example told me that you're not really Christian if you don't hear an audible voice in your head telling you to do things. You should check out HuManiTeE's and michabo's insane commentary too. I know buckets of Christians you should probably compare notes with before telling me what 'the' Christian experience is.

It was the realization of what I was doing, causing my subjects to experience things on the power of my suggestion, and how I was making that happen, that made me question the auto-deceptive nature of faith.

Your subjects? Was this some type of experiment or something within your occultism?

Whomever I was trying to initiate, seduce, impress, whatever.

Of course people can be affected by suggestion, if not hypnosis wouldn't work. Suggestion can be powerful but it generally has to be "initiated" by someone else. This really isn't relative to Christianity in my opinion.

You're mistaken then. The power of suggestion is critical to everyone listening for that little voice in their head, just as is critical for the snake dancers, and all those loonies flopping around in faux seizures on the floor at the revival meetings. Christians are just as susceptible as anyone else when it comes to that. And in many cases, they're much more so, because their superstitions are often well-known. Once you find out which Christian perspective the subject is, you might really be able to bend their mind around, especially if they're really adamant believers. And besides, without that power of suggestion, a good number of alleged rebirths would never have happened. The suggestion is part of the psychic priming I mentioned before, which is so crucial in rituals like that one.

No. I'm not going to argue the crucified orpheus because I don't need it. My evidence is much stronger than you realize, as you're about to see as this discussion continues.

Why would you argue something that has been proven false?

By your own admission, the crucified Orpheus was not proven false, and in fact could still be quite ancient and authentic. But since there is no way to conclusively date it, there is no need nor use in arguing for it being around prior to Jesus.

However, the only way anyone decided that it should be more recent than Jesus was when Justin Martyr made an assertion, (based only on his own ignorance and personal bias) that there weren't any pagan gods crucified before Jesus. But now that I have proven him wrong about that, (twice so far) then I suppose I should ask you the same question. Will you continue to argue for Martyr's position, now that it has been proven false?

 

[Aron-Ra]

It was Christians that began to let God speak rather than speaking for themselves.

This is wrong on so many levels, I scarcely know where to begin.

1. Either God speaks, and tells everyone something different than what he told the last guy, or God doesn't speak for himself.
2. Priests and clergy of every Christian denomination still evangelize and preach their unveriable assertions about what it is that God is, wants, says, hates, or will do. But the messages from all these ministers contradict the claims of the other clerics, and also often directly contradict all the facts as well. So men, Christian men, continue to speak for their god. No one let's him speak for himself because if they did, there would be no more churches.
3. Every book in the Bible is attributed to a human author, all of them, without exception.
4. If it is the scriptures you refer to, "God's word" as so many of you call it, I must remind you that Vedic scriptures were already letting their god speak before yours ever dictated his first memo.

"What Krishna has said 5,000 years ago in the Bhagavad-gita has stood the test of time. You can read it today and it is still perfectly valid. Your scientific theories will come and go but the Absolute Truth will not change".
--Madhudvisah dasa Swami; Talk.Origins, 07/14/95

"All Vedic Knowledge is infallible, and Hindus accept Vedic knowledge to be complete and infallible. ...Vedic knowledge is complete because it is above all doubts and mistakes, and Bhagavad-gita is the essence of all Vedic knowledge."
--A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada

The fact that some believe that Genesis couldn't be literal is only due to this fact. It comes from what someone is led to believe for what ever purpose God has in their lives.

Then he has allied all of his best people against any literal interpretation of the Bible. Why? Why is it that the position of evolution from common ancestry, (which counters the literal Genesis) is universally accepted by all the most celebrated minds of the modern era, including all the collective genius of the vast majority of scientific experts in any field, and every last one of the Nobel laureates as well as the majority of Christian theologians in any given denomination?

"Augustine was the type of pastor and theologian who knew scientists. He read them. He read the Latin translations of the best Greek philosophers and astronomers and he knew all this stuff. And after reading Genesis and thinking about it he came up with the conclusion that the story in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 was not a simple historical sequence of events. It just couldn't be. It's not what the words meant. It just wasn't.

Augustine had his place in history and his purpose. He was led to his interpretation and gave greatly.

If God led him to this interpretation, then either it was the right one, or God is a liar. Which is it?

He wrote three whole books on it and Augustine is, nearly all church historians will tell you, the single most influential guy in forming basic Christian doctrines for every denomination. Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, you name it.

Basic Christian doctrines are from the Bible. Augustine gave forth his opinions on them.

I don't know exactly what Bakker is referring to here, and wouldn't venture a guess.

And you've got Jewish writers in the Middle Ages who wrote books on Genesis and they didn't read Augustine but they came away with the same conclusion : that the six days of Creation could not be six literal days. No way. That's not what the Hebrew says. And that they weren't six things in a row either but that they were six revelations of what happened in order of importance.

All I do in my life is ask God and God has led me in the path that I am in. I find that a literal reading of the passage of Creation fits does not conflict with the reality of the known elements of our universe.

Then God has led you to the opposite conclusion to the one he lead most of his ministers to. How is that possible?

So there are two thousand years of thoughtful guys reading The Old Testament carefully and treating it with respect and coming away with the conclusion that is was not simple, secular, history."
--Reverend Robert T. Bakker Ph.D.
Bones, Bibles and Creation (Genesis & Evolution)

So you are saying that I am less thoughtful? I treat it less respectfully?

I never said anything of the kind. That was Reverend Bakker's words. However, I do think there is an awful lot you must be willfully ignoring in order to believe in a literal translation of Genesis because it absolutely cannot be true and is demonstrably inaccurate on several key points.

Have I claimed that evolutionary processes not a reality? Have I claimed that evolution as a part of Science is not credible? Because I am a literalist doesn't mean that I don't understand and accept reality.

I'm afraid it does. That has been a requirement of every Biblical literalist I've ever encountered so far. I doubt it would be possible to be otherwise in this day and age.

"The evidence of taxonomic relationships is overwhelming when you look at the comparisons between the genomic (DNA) sequences of both closely-related and even distantly-related species. The DNA of yeast and humans shares over 30% homology with regard to gene sequences. Comparison of the human and mouse genome shows that only 1% of the genes in either genome fails to have an orthologue ithe other genome. Comparison of non-gene sequences, on the other hand, shows a huge amount of divergence. This type of homology can be explained only from descent from a common ancestor. The probability of these things being a coincidence, which I guess would be the argument of creationism and intelligent design, is statistically so small as to be negligible.

This shows a great misunderstanding of creationism and intelligent design as I understand it. Which is all I really purport or argue.

No one understands Intelligent Design including its loudest proponents. No evidence + no verifiable data + no predictions + no possible experimentation + no means of potential falsification = no Theory.

But this is a very interesting comment for you to make. The quote above came from my cellular biology professor. She is a professional geneticist who is cited in the most prestigious of the peer-reviewed scientific journals for her work on the international human genome project. So its safe to say that she knows what she's talking about here. And when she says "This type of homology can be explained only from descent from a common ancestor", you respond only with some vague quip about her not understanding creationism. Yet she is herself a Christian, and has been teaching evolutionary sciences in the Bible belt for many years. So I would venture to guess that she probably understands creationism pretty well. Now let's talk about you. Since your understanding of ID and creationism obviously exceeds either mine or my professors, then why don't you explain how Biblical creationism actually accounts for this specific genetic homology? Then I can rely that to my professor so we won't be so ignorant anymore.

"By the way, I am Christian and I CAN accept that Noah's Ark was a folk tale told by mouth until it was written down around Moses' time - it is not a first-hand account! Only literal Bible readers get bogged down trying to prove that the Creation story, Adam and Eve, and Noah's Ark are absolute fact (which is, in the end, futile)."
--Jill Buettner
Professor of Genetics, Richland College, Dallas, TX

Literal readers as he says can take many forms. It then becomes what those people say about their interpretations of such.

No it doesn't. We're dealing with concepts that are supposed to have real world applications. That means there is an accurate interpretation, (say Bakker's, Augustine's, and my professor's for example) and any that don't agree with that are inaccurate, flawed, wrong. If God leads someone to any interpretation that doesn't coincide with the one he led others too, then God is deliberately deceiving someone, or it ain't really God leading anyone anywhere. If God creates fossilation, atomic half-lives, and every other factor necessary to divine the truth, but you refuse to look away from your man-made mythology, then can you really say that he lead you anywhere, even if he were real and really wanted you to follow that lead?

But then there are also the polls, which is really the only source either of us could turn to for a tentative answer to this question. The most recent poll of this kind (that I am aware of) was a few years ago, in 1998 and 2001. At that time, (as now?) the vast majority of Europeans claimed to be Christian, but only 7% to 14% of them were of the church-going sort, so we can extrapolate that similar figures would apply to the creationists vs the evolutionists in those populations. The United States had far and away the highest percentage of creationists to evolutionists of any developed nation. And even here, it was roughly half-and-half. Most of the rest of the "Christian world" considers Biblical creationism to be an almost exclusively American phenomenon with no significant presence anywhere else. Yet even here, where better than 80% of Americans consider themselves Christians and only about 5% or less are atheist, there are still more evolutionists than creationists.

It is still opinion which was the point in the first place.

Measurable data is not opinion.

But you are basing your agruments on faulty premises because you seem to put me in this box and you don't seem to see that I just don't fit. I am a literalist but I am not anti-evolution per se either.

Then I am curious how you would describe the world as you imagine it to have been say 50 million years ago.

"Most recently, in Gallup’s February 19-21 poll, 45% of respondents chose "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so," the statement that most closely describes biblical creationism. A slightly larger percentage, almost half, chose one of the two evolution-oriented statements: 37% selected "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process" and 12% chose "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process."
The public has not notably changed its opinion on this question since Gallup started asking it in 1982."

You are agruing a point that I did not make. I simply said that it was opinion which is what you are proving here. You must have lost focus of what the argument was, (I do that too) you need to note that I said that it was opinion whether it was yours or other Christians . So you went to all that work for nothing.

You said that a statement to the effect that "the majority of the Christian world accepts that Genesis is not literal history" was merely an opinion. I have proved that it is not because that majority is still a verifiable figure. I felt sure the point of what the majority opinion was would become relevant soon. So may as well clarify it now.

 

[awstar]

You said that a statement to the effect that "the majority of the Christian world accepts that Genesis is not literal history" was merely an opinion. I have proved that it is not because that majority is still a verifiable figure. I felt sure the point of what the majority opinion was would become relevant soon. So may as well clarify it now.

I would think that Gallup's poll only "measured" Christian opinion in the United States where Genesis is "outlawed" in the schools. What is the majority opinion in the free world?

 

[Event Horizon]

I would think that Gallup's poll only "measured" Christian opinion in the United States where Genesis is "outlawed" in the schools. What is the majority opinion in the free world?

You mean public schools and you would still be wrong. I was in Bible history twice in a row in middle school, in which, both times I had to study Genesis.

 

[Aron-Ra]

I would think that Gallup's poll only "measured" Christian opinion in the United States where Genesis is "outlawed" in the schools.

Creationism isn't outlawed in any US schools. But Biblical literalist creationism is a strictly religious position, one which has no verifiable data to teach, and which would only violate religious freedoms if we were to try and teach it anyway.

What is the majority opinion in the free world?

I covered that earlier in this thread. The summation is that most of the Christian world is Catholic, and that with papal authority calling for the study of evolution, creationism isn't much of an issue any more. Biblical literalist creationism has almost no presence in any developed Christian nation except for roughly half of the United States and 5% of Australia. There are a few in England too, some with money and influence who now own a couple of schools which they use for the purpose of scientific censorship and religious indoctrination. But with just these exceptions, there are no other European countries who's educational systems treat Protestant Christian Biblical creationism like a serious possibility. That really only ever happens in America, where you thought it was outlawed.

 

[awstar]

Creationism isn't outlawed in any US schools.

I disagree. Do a google search on "creationis schools outlawed" and you find sites like these:

"In another Supreme Court decision in 1987, _Edwards v.
Aguillard_, creation was labeled a religious idea.
Therefore its teaching represents a state advocacy of that
religion, which violates the establishment clause in the
First Amendment (Scott 10).

...
States have passed laws pertaining to the
teaching of creation, but these laws have ended up being
ruled illegal by the federal courts." Source: http://www.studyworld.com/newsite/ReportEssay/Science/Social\Creationism-321754.htm

But Biblical literalist creationism is a strictly religious position, one which has no verifiable data to teach,

It teaches the "why" we are here. Isn't that of any importance to the priests of science?

and which would only violate religious freedoms if we were to try and teach it anyway.

I think we're both smart enough to see whose religious freedoms are really being violated by outlawing the teachings our parents and grandparents were raised on.

 

[Tomk80]

It teaches the "why" we are here. Isn't that of any importance to the priests of science?

It might be important to the 'priests' of science, but they will not be able to answer it in science class. For that you'll have to go to philosophy or theology. Science only answers the 'how'.

I think we're both smart enough to see whose religious freedoms are really being violated by outlawing the teachings our parents and grandparents were raised on.

They are only outlawed to teach creationism as if it is science, because it isn't science. Schools are free to teach it in religion classes.

 

[Aron-Ra]

I disagree. Do a google search on "creationis schools outlawed" and you find sites like these:

"In another Supreme Court decision in 1987, _Edwards v.
Aguillard_, creation was labeled a religious idea.
Therefore its teaching represents a state advocacy of that
religion, which violates the establishment clause in the
First Amendment (Scott 10).

...
States have passed laws pertaining to the
teaching of creation, but these laws have ended up being
ruled illegal by the federal courts." Source: http://www.studyworld.com/newsite/ReportEssay/Science/Social%5CCreationism-321754.htm

Yes, I believe I already explained that. But if you didn't get it then, I'll try again.

What you're talking about isn't any matter of measurable, verifiable data. With verifiable data, it is possible to grade the accuracy of your knowledge. With religious beliefs that aren't backed by anything quantifiable or qualifiable, you can't really do that. So teaching creationism is just as squishy and subjective as teaching philosophy.

You see, with matters of faith, you have an interesting paradox in polar opposition to science. In science, you say "theory" when you're referring to known certainties. But in theology, you assert "absolute truth" when you're really just talking about blind, baseless speculation devoid of any supportive evidence or data. In science, you invite critical analysis, and you expect that every claim must withstand the most intense scrutiny knowledgible experts can devise. But with religion, you just spout anything you want to make up, and try to sound convinced of it yourself while you plead with the ignorant laity to believe you for no reason at all, often with the threat of a fate worse than death for anyone who believes differently. But again, its still an empty threat because your notion has no explanative power, can't make any predictions, can't even be potentially falsified by any means imaginable under any circumstances, (because you're talking about magic) and there is no reason at all to believe you.

So in an integrated classroom such as any of mine here in Dallas, you have Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Shaman, etc., and you're going to tell them about Jesus and original sin -with no evidentiary reason whatever to answer the question of how you know what you claim, or why they should believe you. Its completely unrealistic, and a violation of their rights to freedom of religion.

Now, if someone in that class is part of some religion which requires a belief in a flat Earth for example, when we can prove that the Earth is not flat, then that's too bad, and I feel sorry for them. We can only accomidate your right to believe those things that might be true. But we cannot protect your belief in anything that is known for certain not to be true. And this applies to Biblical literalism.

It teaches the "why" we are here. Isn't that of any importance to the priests of science?

It might be. I don't know. The only "priest of science" I know of is Rev. Robert Bakker PhD., Pentacostal preacher and world-renowned paleontologist. Most of the evolutionists I know are Christians, so they use Jesus to answer that question. But they admit that is only a subjective opinion, and as such, can't really be 'taught' the way evolution can be. Now if you could demonstrate any way to know that any part of your beliefs are true.... But even if the Genesis fables were true, they still don't explain anything. It doesn't explain why we're here at all. And it certainly doesn't explain how any of it happened. Evolution does. And for some, it answers both questions nicely.

I think we're both smart enough to see whose religious freedoms are really being violated by outlawing the teachings our parents and grandparents were raised on.

But what you have with Biblical creationism is a situation where even these known falsehoods still haven't been outlawed, and are in fact given much too much credit in the classroom. As a consequence of all this nonsense, Christianity itself has become encumbered with this many times disproved superstitious dogmatism, and it is crippling the religion as a whole. Evangelism is doing more damage to Christianity than any atheist ever could. If you want to preserve your ancestral religion, it would be wise to drop the parts that are known to be false, like the global flood, the tower of Babel, and mud-golem myth of Adam. There was a time when our ancestors were taught geocentrism and about the giant crystal dome called the firmament. That was a tradition their ancestors were raised on. But the time for such fables has passed.

 

[awstar]

So in an integrated classroom such as any of mine here in Dallas, you have Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Shaman, etc., and you're going to tell them about Jesus and original sin -with no evidentiary reason whatever to answer the question of how you know what you claim, or why they should believe you. Its completely unrealistic, and a violation of their rights to freedom of religion.

Are you saying that teaching the "fables" like the story of Abraham in Genesis violate the rights of freedom of religion to Jews and Muslims?

And Jesus is not mentioned in Genesis -- He's only pointed to. As in the seed of Eve who crushes the serpents head; the son who was to be sacrificed on Mount Moriah by the father, and the brother who saves His brothers anyway, after their rejection of Him.

It's a shame these great kids have such an ignorant teacher. And I mean that in the literal sense. i.e. one who ignores the truth.

Now, if someone in that class is part of some religion which requires a belief in a flat Earth for example, when we can prove that the Earth is not flat, then that's too bad, and I feel sorry for them. We can only accomidate your right to believe those things that might be true. But we cannot protect your belief in anything that is known for certain not to be true. And this applies to Biblical literalism.

May I kiss your ring, your highness? By the way. That last pontifical statement about Biblical literalism is itself a claim of truth, and not proven true. You're sinning against your own religion.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Aron-ra

Now you will need to be patient with me as well. I have worked full time this week (in the post office) and believe me it is the Christmas season. I have to catch up on studying, cleaning and putting up the Christmas decorations so I am going to be rushed.

I want to say well done on your exam...well done

 

[Aron-Ra]

So in an integrated classroom such as any of mine here in Dallas, you have Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Shaman, etc., and you're going to tell them about Jesus and original sin -with no evidentiary reason whatever to answer the question of how you know what you claim, or why they should believe you. Its completely unrealistic, and a violation of their rights to freedom of religion.

Are you saying that teaching the "fables" like the story of Abraham in Genesis violate the rights of freedom of religion to Jews and Muslims?

No. But that would be a violation of the freedom of religion where the Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist, Shaman, and neo-pagan kids are concerned. It is also both insulting and unfair to all these children as well as atheist kids and even science-oriented Christian, Jewish, Baha'i, and Muslim kids to be "taught" anything posing as science that is not implied by anything in the way of measurable evidence, and for which no information can be verified to any degree of accuracy by any means, and so can only be believed on faith, which can be adequately defined as a baseless assertion, especially when these beliefs lie counter to everything the evidence really does imply. If your position fits that description, or if it can't withstand critical analysis in peer-review because it has no supportive evidence, makes no predictions that can be tested for, nor allows any experiments that could possibly lead to any potentially falsifiable conclusions, then it is not science. It is then only a matter of faith, and as such, cannot be taught in a science class. Save those discussions for religion class, humanities, or philosophy.

Plus the Abraham story has no relevance in any science, so it would never be brought up. But it is a bit alarming in terms of current events, especially here in Texas where so many mothers have killed their own children in the last few years claiming that God moved them to do it or told them to.

And Jesus is not mentioned in Genesis -- He's only pointed to. As in the seed of Eve who crushes the serpents head; the son who was to be sacrificed on Mount Moriah by the father, and the brother who saves His brothers anyway, after their rejection of Him.

See? That's what I'm talking about. Jesus is neither mentioned nor indicated in Genesis, and Jewish students would happily point that out to you. So would the Buddhist kids, as well as those of each of the non-Biblical religions, and of course those with no religion.

It's a shame these great kids have such an ignorant teacher. And I mean that in the literal sense. i.e. one who ignores the truth.

I have two professors teaching me evolutionary biology right now. Four really if you include my lab instructors. I know that at least the main professors are both Christians, and they may all be. But I don't think either of them are ignoring any truth, at least none relevant to our studies. However it is immediately evident that you are ignoring a number of truths that are all relevant to those same studies.

Now, if someone in that class is part of some religion which requires a belief in a flat Earth for example, when we can prove that the Earth is not flat, then that's too bad, and I feel sorry for them. We can only accommodate your right to believe those things that might be true. But we cannot protect your belief in anything that is known for certain not to be true. And this applies to Biblical literalism.

May I kiss your ring, your highness? By the way. That last pontifical statement about Biblical literalism is itself a claim of truth, and not proven true. You're sinning against your own religion.

I can't sin against my religion if I don't have one. Neither am I violating my own moral code of honesty, since I am speaking the truth. Because it is proven true that that the Bible is not literally accurate. For one thing, the Bible says that the Earth is covered by a giant crystal dome with windows in it that let in the rain. It also says there is water above this dome instead of the void of space, and that night is spread out over it like a curtain, or a tent, in reference to the star-studded cloak originally attributed to the Zoroastrian god, Mithra. The Bible also says that the Earth is a flat disk fixed upon pillars, and that it does not move. The Earth is also said to be the oldest thing in the whole of the universe. There is no question but that none of these claims are true. It is also a certain fact that many existing cultures were already established, all with different written and spoken languages prior to the construction of your tower of Babel, a project which was apparently abandoned in the 18th century BCE. There are also glaring contradictions and inconsistencies throughout the Bible; talking animals, animated golems, misrepresented characters, magic spells that don't work, and other absurdities too ridiculous to consider. It is also a certain fact that there was never any global flood, and that one simply couldn't have happened the way the Bible describes. But there is significant evidence that while the rest of the world remained dry, the Tigris-Euphrates flood plain was part of a brief, isolated flood of approximately 15 cubits (22 feet) over flood depth roughly 4900 years ago, just as the previously polytheist myths of Semitic ancestry detail in the oldest verifiable syllabic texts known to man. It is also a demonstrable fact that humans are apes and Old World monkeys just as surely as we are also vertebrate mammals and eukaryote animals. So my claim is indeed proven true. The Bible is not literally accurate, and cannot be said to be unless a great many truths are deliberately ignored.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Aron-ra

Now you will need to be patient with me as well. I have worked full time this week (in the post office) and believe me it is the Christmas season. I have to catch up on studying, cleaning and putting up the Christmas decorations so I am going to be rushed.

You and me both.

I want to say well done on your exam...well done

Thank you very much.

 

[awstar]

I can't sin against my religion if I don't have one. Neither am I violating my own moral code of honesty, since I am speaking the truth. Because it is proven true that that the Bible is not literally accurate. For one thing, the Bible says that the Earth is covered by a giant crystal dome with windows in it that let in the rain. It also says there is water above this dome instead of the void of space, and that night is spread out over it like a curtain, or a tent, in reference to the star-studded cloak originally attributed to the Zoroastrian god, Mithra. The Bible also says that the Earth is a flat disk fixed upon pillars, and that it does not move. The Earth is also said to be the oldest thing in the whole of the universe. There is no question but that none of these claims are true. It is also a certain fact that many existing cultures were already established, all with different written and spoken languages prior to the construction of your tower of Babel, a project which was apparently abandoned in the 18th century BCE. There are also glaring contradictions and inconsistencies throughout the Bible; talking animals, animated golems, misrepresented characters, magic spells that don't work, and other absurdities too ridiculous to consider. It is also a certain fact that there was never any global flood, and that one simply couldn't have happened the way the Bible describes. But there is significant evidence that while the rest of the world remained dry, the Tigris-Euphrates flood plain was part of a brief, isolated flood of approximately 15 cubits (22 feet) over flood depth roughly 4900 years ago, just as the previously polytheist myths of Semitic ancestry detail in the oldest verifiable syllabic texts known to man. It is also a demonstrable fact that humans are apes and Old World monkeys just as surely as we are also vertebrate mammals and eukaryote animals. So my claim is indeed proven true. The Bible is not literally accurate, and cannot be said to be unless a great many truths are deliberately ignored.

Ha, but you do have a religion. It's science. And the rest of your paragraph is your creed. You stated yourself that you can only know truth through science, You are saying your religion is superior to mine, and you are blind to how you are offending me by saying mine is not worthty to be taught, even though my religion was passed down to me and to most everyone in this nation by our parents and grandparents. Including those who died in wars fighting tyrants who placed science above God's Word.

The understanding of truth comes from the heart not the mind. And that should be taught in science classes so that precious children should not be blinded by the religion of science.

 

[Mistermystery]

Ha, but you do have a religion.

I think this is the 3rd time that I've explained this to you, so please I'm sorry that I've not invested more time in your baseless claim:

1. Evolution merely describes part of nature. The fact that that part of nature is important to many people does not make evolution a religion. Consider some attributes of religion and how evolution compares:
   • A religion explains ultimate reality. Evolution stops with the development of life (it doesn't even include the origins of life).
   • A religion describes the place and role of humans within ultimate reality. Evolution describes only our biological background relative to present and recent human environments.
   • Religions almost always include reverence for and/or belief in a supernatural power or powers. Evolution does not.
   • Religions have a social structure built around their beliefs. Although science as a whole has a social structure, no such structure is particular to evolutionary biologists, and one does not have to participate in that structure to be a scientist.
   • Religions impose moral prescriptions on their members. Evolution does not. Evolution has been used (and misused) as a basis for morals and values by some people, such as Thomas Henry Huxley, Herbert Spencer, and E. O. Wilson [Ruse 2000], but their view, although based on evolution, is not the science of evolution; it goes beyond that.
   • Religions include rituals and sacraments. With the possible exception of college graduation ceremonies, there is nothing comparable in evolutionary studies.
   • Religious ideas are highly static; they change primarily by splitting off new religions. Ideas in evolutionary biology change rapidly as new evidence is found.
2. How can a religion not have any adherents? When asked their religion, many, perhaps most, people who believe in evolution will call themselves members of mainstream religions such as Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. None identify their religion as evolution. If evolution is a religion, it is the only religion that is rejected by all its members.
3. Evolution may be considered a religion under the metaphorical definition of something "pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion." This, however, could also apply to stamp collecting, watering plants, or practically any other activity. Calling evolution a religion makes religion effectively meaningless.
4. Evolutionary theory has been used as a basis for studying and speculating about the biological basis for morals and religious attitudes [Sober and Wilson 1998]. Studying religion, though, does not make the study a religion. Using evolution to study the origins of religious attitudes does not make evolution a religion any more than using archaeology to study the origins of Biblical texts makes archaeology a religion.
5. Evolution as religion has been rejected by the courts:
   Assuming for the purposes of argument, however, that evolution is a religion or religious tenet, the remedy is to stop the teaching of evolution, not establish another religion in opposition to it. Yet it is clearly established in the case law, and perhaps also in common sense, that evolution is not a religion and that teaching evolution does not violate the Establishment Clause, Epperson v. Arkansas, supra, Willoughby v. Stever, No. 15574-75 (D.D.C. May 18, 1973); aff'd. 504 F.2d 271 (D.C. Cir. 1974), cert. denied , 420 U.S. 924 (1975); Wright v. Houston Indep. School Dist., 366 F. Supp. 1208 (S.D. Tex 1978), aff.d. 486 F.2d 137 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied 417 U.S. 969 (1974). [McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education 1982]​

(from talk origin)

Including those who died in wars fighting tyrants who placed science above God's Word.

Science is the root of all evil, all evil tyrants were evil scientists lovers... Now who is the blind and arrogant one? You are again equating science with atheism. Screw that, it's not true, as this forum attests to this.

 

[Herman Hedning]

The understanding of truth comes from the heart not the mind. And that should be taught in science classes so that precious children should not be blinded by the religion of science.

Okeedokee, let me get this straight. Science class should not teach science, but rather that you can make up whatever story you want as explanation for scientific fenomena, as long as you really believe it? Is that right?

Well, fortunately for humanity, this is not what most people have thought on the matter, or else we would probably not have progressed past the stone age level of science.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Ha, but you do have a religion. It's science. And the rest of your paragraph is your creed.

If you look in a dictionary, you'll see that religion is always defined as a belief system that is based on faith as opposed to evidence, and that it always centers around some element of the supernatural. This is according to every dictionary you're likely to find. So since science is strictly evidence-based, and doesn't bother with anything supernatural, then by definition, it can't be a religion.

You stated yourself that you can only know truth through science,

I said truth is better winnowed by doubt and scrutiny than by blind gullability and faith, which means about the same thing.

You are saying your religion is superior to mine, and you are blind to how you are offending me by saying mine is not worthty to be taught,

No sir. My religon can't be better than yours because I don't have one. And yours is worthy to be taught. But it should be taught in a religion class, humanities, philosophy, or in your case, mythology. It cannot be taught in a science class because there isn't any science in it. Would you also support teaching history or economics in autoshop, or P.E.?

even though my religion was passed down to me and to most everyone in this nation by our parents and grandparents. even though my religion was passed down to me and to most everyone in this nation by our parents and grandparents. Including those who died in wars fighting tyrants who placed science above God's Word.

That never happened. We first faught against a nation who's religion was so important to them that their prejudice sought to punish everyone who believed differently. Then once "safe" in our own country, the puritans oppressed and tortured the Quakers in the same way the English had oppressed them both before. Religious judiciaries burned anyone said to be a witch on mere testimony alone because they knew not what science even was.

Then we fought a war with Muslims in 1812, in which no peace could be had unless we could assure them we were not a Christian nation. There certainly was no science involved there. We fought against Catholic Mexicans also because we believed "devine providence" and "manifest destiny" meant God wanted us to take over everyone else's territory. As a result, tens of thousands of native American shaman were forced out of their home lands, with many of the aged marched to their death.

Then we fought another war brought about again by religiosity and superstion in a revolution that began with the mad monk, Rasputin, the mystic faith healer. In our next war, we fought a collective of Jew-hating Catholic Christians and pagan occultists, all united by a mythos borrowed from the Indo-Persian religion of the Aryans. Occultism and religiosity ruled the nazis as well. Their allies in Japan fought for an emporer who was hailed as the god of the Shinto. We beat them only because we placed science ahead of religion, which allowed us to conceive the bomb. Then in a moment of national humiliation, we forced the Japanese emporer to publicly denounce his own divinity. We were the godless atheist horde in that case.

Then we fought a number of battles in the Orient that were neither religiously nor scientifically motivated. But even then, we relied more on our science, and they relied more on their religion.

And now we're in it once again with Muslim extremists, men who still believe the world is flat, and that religion should utterly replace science in every respect. This fanatic cult of thiers is many centuries old, and was passed down to them, and to most everyone in their nation by their parents and grandparents. But does that make it right? Of course not.

"The earth is flat. Whoever claims it is round is an atheist deserving of punishment."
--Sheik Abdel-Aziz ibn Baaz, Supreme Religious Authority of Saudi Arabia
[1993, quoted by Yousef M. Ibrahim, The New York Times, 12 February 1995] Yes, 1993 CE, not BCE.

The understanding of truth comes from the heart not the mind. And that should be taught in science classes so that precious children should not be blinded by the religion of science.

Here you demonstrate the very thing that so amazes me about creationist Bibliolaters and other religious zealots; How can someone be so consistently proven to be absolutely wrong about absolutely everything, 100% of the time, for such a long time, and still believe theirs is the absolute truth? I mean, if you never get even one point right...ever... why do you keep it up? If this is the best you can do, why keep trying? And that is especially true here, where everything said has been illogical, irrational, insane and dead wrong in every detail. Obviously understanding of the truth does not come from the heart. That much you've made very clear to everyone but yourself.