Who believes in mythological religions? Worshiping the bible which talks about talking snakes, Giants, burning bushes, and 7 headed beasts is the equivalent of believing in centaurs, hydras, nymphs, and Minotaurs. Prove me wrong.
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Zeus
- Thread starter Prajna
- Start date
Acts 14:8-20
8 And in Lystra a certain man without strength in his feet was sitting, a cripple from his mothers womb, who had never walked. 9 This man heard Paul speaking. Paul, observing him intently and seeing that he had faith to be healed, 10 said with a loud voice, Stand up straight on your feet! And he leaped and walked. 11 Now when the people saw what Paul had done, they raised their voices, saying in the Lycaonian language, The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men! 12 And Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul, Hermes, because he was the chief speaker. 13 Then the priest of Zeus, whose temple was in front of their city, brought oxen and garlands to the gates, intending to sacrifice with the multitudes.
14 But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard this, they tore their clothes and ran in among the multitude, crying out 15 and saying, Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you, and preach to you that you should turn from these useless things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them, 16 who in bygone generations allowed all nations to walk in their own ways. 17 Nevertheless He did not leave Himself without witness, in that He did good, gave us rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness. 18 And with these sayings they could scarcely restrain the multitudes from sacrificing to them.
19 Then Jews from Antioch and Iconium came there; and having persuaded the multitudes, they stoned Paul and dragged him out of the city, supposing him to be dead. 20 However, when the disciples gathered around him, he rose up and went into the city. And the next day he departed with Barnabas to Derbe.
8 And in Lystra a certain man without strength in his feet was sitting, a cripple from his mothers womb, who had never walked. 9 This man heard Paul speaking. Paul, observing him intently and seeing that he had faith to be healed, 10 said with a loud voice, Stand up straight on your feet! And he leaped and walked. 11 Now when the people saw what Paul had done, they raised their voices, saying in the Lycaonian language, The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men! 12 And Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul, Hermes, because he was the chief speaker. 13 Then the priest of Zeus, whose temple was in front of their city, brought oxen and garlands to the gates, intending to sacrifice with the multitudes.
14 But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard this, they tore their clothes and ran in among the multitude, crying out 15 and saying, Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you, and preach to you that you should turn from these useless things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them, 16 who in bygone generations allowed all nations to walk in their own ways. 17 Nevertheless He did not leave Himself without witness, in that He did good, gave us rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness. 18 And with these sayings they could scarcely restrain the multitudes from sacrificing to them.
19 Then Jews from Antioch and Iconium came there; and having persuaded the multitudes, they stoned Paul and dragged him out of the city, supposing him to be dead. 20 However, when the disciples gathered around him, he rose up and went into the city. And the next day he departed with Barnabas to Derbe.
Upvote
0
Why is believing in the Bible equivalent to believing in the existence of the Olympic pantheon, or the varieties of monsters and creatures in Greek mythology?
Upvote
0
Probably because both mythologies contain equally fantastic creatures, events, and motifs.
There certainly is a certain double standard at work when literalist Christians sneer at the "primitive superstitions" of others, yet embrace concepts and ideas that are equally fanciful
Upvote
0
Eudaimonist
I believe in life before death!
- Jan 1, 2003
- 27,482
- 2,738
- 58
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
I've always liked Prometheus, but no I don't believe in any gods (or Titans).
eudaimonia,
Mark
eudaimonia,
Mark
Upvote
0
There is a certain hypocrisy at work when a Buddhist thinks that other religions are incorrect because they posit the existence of fantastical beings, when Buddhism is very much at home with all sorts of supernatural creatures, demons and saviours.
Upvote
0
*shrugs*
The "tu quoque"-aspect doesn't really change anything, of course.
But yeah, provided that the OP does belong to a Buddhist sect that does embrace such "supernatural" beliefs, that would qualify as hypocrisy, too.
Upvote
0
hikersong
Walkin' and Singin'
I used to believe in the Loch Ness Monster. That's a sort of mythological faith isn't it? I read a book which argued that though there were indeed fake reports of the creature, an actual creature did exist. It convinced me at the time, and like many people I liked the idea of a mysterious, seldom seen "monster" existing. It was exciting. And I love the Scottish highland landscape.
I had a wee boat weekend on the Loch a few years ago, during which I visited the quieter of the visitor centres. The reason it was quieter, it turns out, was that while it gave a fascinating over view of the Loch from a scientific point of view, it was also very persuasive about the absence of any large, unknown creature inhabiting the loch. It clearly wasn't the better money spinner though!
You could say science and reason put a real dampner on my beliefs, and in truth a part of me was quite disappointed. In the long term though it has helped me to start to truly appreciate the wonders and majesty and mysteries of reality.
I still like to think that the Yeti exists though.
I had a wee boat weekend on the Loch a few years ago, during which I visited the quieter of the visitor centres. The reason it was quieter, it turns out, was that while it gave a fascinating over view of the Loch from a scientific point of view, it was also very persuasive about the absence of any large, unknown creature inhabiting the loch. It clearly wasn't the better money spinner though!
You could say science and reason put a real dampner on my beliefs, and in truth a part of me was quite disappointed. In the long term though it has helped me to start to truly appreciate the wonders and majesty and mysteries of reality.
I still like to think that the Yeti exists though.
Upvote
0
No it doesn't. But it was such a glaring hole in Prajna's argument that I thought it should be brought up.
Even if Prajna is a Buddhist who doesn't believe in supernatural stuff, the long tradition of his religion does. Materialists did exist, even in the Buddha's time, but I don't think Buddha was one of them. And I guess, it would depend on what you mean by supernatural. If gods really do exist, then are they supernatural or just natural?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Catherineanne
Well-Known Member
- Sep 1, 2004
- 22,924
- 4,646
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Widowed
Why? Do you want to be proven wrong?
It is a shame if so, because I have nothing to prove, to you or anyone else. You can think what you like, and it really doesn't make a jot of difference to me.
Good luck with that.
Upvote
0
Catherineanne
Well-Known Member
- Sep 1, 2004
- 22,924
- 4,646
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Widowed
I am sure modern pagans are very nice people; there is no reason they wouldn't be. I have to say, though, that Zeus is rather too capricious for my taste. Not to mention a randy old soul.
The attraction of pagan faiths to the ancients was, I would think, the way their gods, fates etc reflect the capriciousness and uncertainty of life. Certainly, I can understand why such beliefs resonated with people's lives, and why a similar approach would appeal to some today.
But imo the faith modern 'pagans' have is not what the ancients had; it is likely to be far too self conscious and inauthentic, and lack a serious amount of slaughtering animals and interpreting entrails. Imo any dehydrated and reconstituted mashed potato faith is never going to have the same authenticity as those which have had true continuity. Druidism; paganism; even Celtic Christianity, all have precious little real relation to the authentic ancient faiths. They are the modern convenience version, lacking any real substance.
However, each to his own. There is a place for instant mash, once in a while, perhaps. But I wouldn't want it every day.
Upvote
0
Well, I'd context the notion that "new" equals "inauthentic". After all, each and every religious tradition started out at some point, no matter how venerable they may seem nowadays.
And if 21st century neo-paganism doesn't include animal sacrifice among its practices, that might be because it adjusts to our present reality, our changed living conditions. (After all, who owns lifestock these days, for starters?) If a new spiritual path drawing upon ancient roots shapes itself around the living conditions of the 21st century, rather than basically demanding that people adhere to practices that were suited to bronze age peasants - more kudos to them!
Christianity constantly has to re-align itself to societal changes (well, usually it starts out by contesting such changes, and then ends up embracing them and claiming that the "real" Christians did so all along, but that's a different issue), for example.
That said, there *are* pagans who insist that what they do is basically more than just inspired by the ancients - and they're usually not the ones who actually bother to read historical source texts, either. (*cough* Wicca as stone-age-religion *cough*) They tend to be rather annoying, especially if they switch into "what-the-christians-did-to-us-during-the-"Burning Times"-mode.
And if 21st century neo-paganism doesn't include animal sacrifice among its practices, that might be because it adjusts to our present reality, our changed living conditions. (After all, who owns lifestock these days, for starters?) If a new spiritual path drawing upon ancient roots shapes itself around the living conditions of the 21st century, rather than basically demanding that people adhere to practices that were suited to bronze age peasants - more kudos to them!
Christianity constantly has to re-align itself to societal changes (well, usually it starts out by contesting such changes, and then ends up embracing them and claiming that the "real" Christians did so all along, but that's a different issue), for example.
That said, there *are* pagans who insist that what they do is basically more than just inspired by the ancients - and they're usually not the ones who actually bother to read historical source texts, either. (*cough* Wicca as stone-age-religion *cough*) They tend to be rather annoying, especially if they switch into "what-the-christians-did-to-us-during-the-"Burning Times"-mode.
Upvote
0
manicfaith
Newbie
hikersong:
"You could say science and reason put a real dampner on my beliefs, and in truth a part of me was quite disappointed. In the long term though it has helped me to start to truly appreciate the wonders and majesty and mysteries of reality."
Just wondering, how do science and reason help you to appreciate wonders and mysteries of reality?
"You could say science and reason put a real dampner on my beliefs, and in truth a part of me was quite disappointed. In the long term though it has helped me to start to truly appreciate the wonders and majesty and mysteries of reality."
Just wondering, how do science and reason help you to appreciate wonders and mysteries of reality?
Upvote
0
Eudaimonist
I believe in life before death!
- Jan 1, 2003
- 27,482
- 2,738
- 58
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
hikersong:
"You could say science and reason put a real dampner on my beliefs, and in truth a part of me was quite disappointed. In the long term though it has helped me to start to truly appreciate the wonders and majesty and mysteries of reality."
Just wondering, how do science and reason help you to appreciate wonders and mysteries of reality?
The Hubble telescope is a start...
Upvote
0
manicfaith
Newbie
Okay, I see what you're saying, because a telescope is scientific and the stars & such are mysteries, and with the telescope you can see the stuff in space a little better. Gotchya.
The question still stands for Hikersong though!!!!
The question still stands for Hikersong though!!!!
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Since y'all bring up the creationism VS evolution deal, I thought I'd share a theory I've come up with.
In the Qur'an, God says to the angels, "I am going to place a Khaleefah on the earth." The angels reply, "You will you place on it one/s that will cause destruction to it and shed blood while we glorify you in your praises??????????" God replies, "I know that which you do not know." Anyway, the creation of Adam story after that is pretty similar to the one in Christianity, and we take it pretty literally. BUT... Let's examine this discourse taking place between God and the angels.
First of all, God says He will create a Khaleefah. Y'all are probably familiar with the term Caliph. Qur'aanic translators often translate this word as vicegerent (one who carries on) or trustee. Both of those meanings are included in the linguistic meaning of the word. More specifically than carrying on though, is the fact that the word khaleefah implies succession. (Why do we call Abu Bakr the first Khaleefah? He was the first successor after Muhammad. Omar was called the Khaleefah of the Khaleefah, or the one who succeeded the successor.)
So, basically, what I'm saying is: WHO WAS ADAM COMING IN SUCCESSION AFTER? There must have been something on earth BEFORE? And according to my theory here, it would have been a creation that caused destruction and shed blood, since the angels were concerned about that.
So, my GUESS is that maybe God created the first of our particular species with His own Hands as an honor as indicated in the Holy Scriptures. There may have been OTHER species that he chose to create through evolution that lived prior to that.
Were these creations more like animals, or did they have the same sense of accountability that humans have? I don't know. God hasn't mentioned that, which is fair, because He only needs to mention what we need to know.
Anyway, my theory here may be one possible way to bring together the two opposing arguments. Maybe BOTH evolution AND creationism are correct. I wonder if anyone else has thought of it too.
In the Qur'an, God says to the angels, "I am going to place a Khaleefah on the earth." The angels reply, "You will you place on it one/s that will cause destruction to it and shed blood while we glorify you in your praises??????????" God replies, "I know that which you do not know." Anyway, the creation of Adam story after that is pretty similar to the one in Christianity, and we take it pretty literally. BUT... Let's examine this discourse taking place between God and the angels.
First of all, God says He will create a Khaleefah. Y'all are probably familiar with the term Caliph. Qur'aanic translators often translate this word as vicegerent (one who carries on) or trustee. Both of those meanings are included in the linguistic meaning of the word. More specifically than carrying on though, is the fact that the word khaleefah implies succession. (Why do we call Abu Bakr the first Khaleefah? He was the first successor after Muhammad. Omar was called the Khaleefah of the Khaleefah, or the one who succeeded the successor.)
So, basically, what I'm saying is: WHO WAS ADAM COMING IN SUCCESSION AFTER? There must have been something on earth BEFORE? And according to my theory here, it would have been a creation that caused destruction and shed blood, since the angels were concerned about that.
So, my GUESS is that maybe God created the first of our particular species with His own Hands as an honor as indicated in the Holy Scriptures. There may have been OTHER species that he chose to create through evolution that lived prior to that.
Were these creations more like animals, or did they have the same sense of accountability that humans have? I don't know. God hasn't mentioned that, which is fair, because He only needs to mention what we need to know.
Anyway, my theory here may be one possible way to bring together the two opposing arguments. Maybe BOTH evolution AND creationism are correct. I wonder if anyone else has thought of it too.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
