I think its the right idea looking for similarities rather than differences. With a little open-mindedness, people could realize that quite similar religions have sprung up throughout the world despite VAST seperation. e.g. the American Indian "Great Spirit" versus the Judeo-Christian "God." Different names, same deity, if you ask me.

Even the line between monotheism and polytheism is blurred. I mean, consider Christianity, a typical monotheism. What is God? A Trinity... Father, Son, Holy Ghost. Doesn't sound like one... but they are. Perhaps Vishnu, Krishna, etc... they seem like many, but they are one. Or perhaps God is many.

All is one. The differences lie in the expression of this one.

And before you ask, I'm Presbyterian. I'm just kinda... liberal.

I have a lovely bunch of coconuts... or some such drivel p

When you get into polytheisms, probably the best way to turn it into a monotheistic setup is to claim that each God represents a different facet of a larger entity, one so large that we cannot even begin to conceive of it, therefore we focus on what we *can* conceive of, the "gods".

I believe that *all* Gods are just different aspects of the same thing. Different names, same deity is right, hopefully.

Otherwise, I have a nice place reserved for me in the 7th circle of Hell.

Booya.

Raven

"When I'm good, I'm very good, but when I'm bad, I'm better...Is that a gun in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?...When caught between two evils, I generally pick the one I've never tried before" Mae West, actress.

Yeah, I know the circle set up.

It's just that I am not a nice person )

Raven

"When I'm good, I'm very good, but when I'm bad, I'm better...Is that a gun in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?...When caught between two evils, I generally pick the one I've never tried before" Mae West, actress.

"A dog is not considered a good dog because he is a good barker. A man is not considered a good man because he is a good talker."-Buddha

Buddha likes Double-Yah

Raven,
Try telling a believer in one of those highways that there are others that lead to the same destination. For a believer there is only one true way - the one he believes - and anyone else is at best mistaken if not suffering from hallucinations.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
A not-very-silent minority of one.

Not likely to get so worked up about it, though.

Fundamentalist atheists aren't generally known as trouble-makers and they don't normally hassle you in the street or ring your door-bell on a Sunday morning.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
A not-very-silent minority of one.

I'm reading a REALLY interesting book right now by this Vietnamese monk named Thich Nhat Hanh called "Living Buddha, Living Christ".

Good stuff.

Raven

"When I'm good, I'm very good, but when I'm bad, I'm better...Is that a gun in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?...When caught between two evils, I generally pick the one I've never tried before" Mae West, actress.

The Arab Jew, Joshua-bar-Joseph, known as Jesus, was a member of a political terrorist organisation whose aims were to evict the Roman invaders and establish a Jewish fundamentalist kingdom. He was captured and executed and the last of his army was massacred some years later.
After his death he was betrayed by Peter who edited, distorted and transformed his biography into a religious mystic text that suited his own power agenda.

So, has the Middle East changed in the last 200 years?

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
A not-very-silent minority of one.

Matter? No, not really.
But then religious belief isn't based on reality, logic or reason. Faith is what keeps it turning.
Any mindset that involves abandoning the former three in favour of the fourth is, IMHO, dangerous to the safety of anyone who doesn't share that mindset.
It's not a question of understanding or misunderstanding. It's a question of human nature which inevitably develops the "you're different" statement to "you're bad" and finally a "you're the enemy" conclusion.
It works like this. If you don't believe what I know is true
1. you're inferior to me because you don't/can't/won't understand/appreciate it hence
2. you probably don't even deserve the salvation that I'm going to get so
3. don't get in my way or dare to contradict or criticise me.
Religious conviction makes people feel inwardly satisfied and superior and that's a very unhealthy attitude when you share a society with people who don't have that same conviction or, worse still, hold a contradictory conviction.
This may not have been the original intent of the founders of the different religions that now prolifer across the face of our globe, but it's what has happened to them at this point. They may recover and reform, a new religion may be born and remain "pure" for some time. But in their present state, the world's religions are on the same level as belief in UFO's, Atlantis and the Matrix.
So who are the great religious leaders of our age? Arafat, von Däniken, George Lucas? It would be interesting to come back in 2000 years and see what (if any) belief structure has grown up around Bush or Marylin Manson.

Jesus' way works? To do what? It has certainly inspired (or been the excuse for) a vast number of conflicts and suffering over the centuries. Christianity has without doubt killed and warped more humans that it has "saved" or "redeemed".
Who says it "works"? People with the Jesus-sheep mindset.
Who says the other religions "don't work"? People with the Jesus-sheep mindset.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
A not-very-silent minority of one.

Edited by - DiGiMac on Jun 04 2003 034739 AM

The entire point to this thread was to exterminate the idea that there is one TRUE religion.

That someone think they KNOW the truth isn't as dangerous as someone thinking they KNOW the ONLY truth.

That religious exclusivity is the cause of the vast majority of all suffering caused in the name of religion.

Much better to accept all religions. Logically, it doesn't make sense that God, who is among other things, an EMBODIMENT of love, can show favouritism to some of his children by giving them the one true path. Therefore, if you accept that all humans are loved equally by God, then you must accept that all ways of life, hence all religions are perfectly viable, and furthermore, that the human condition is therefore entirely balanced and perfect already--perfect in its mutability. From there, go where you will, but I think I'll attain enlightenment.

)

Raven

PS--I think this proves that spirituality, if not religion, is almost entirely based upon logic and reason.

"When I'm good, I'm very good, but when I'm bad, I'm better...Is that a gun in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?...When caught between two evils, I generally pick the one I've never tried before" Mae West, actress.

Raven "Logically, it doesn't make sense that God, who is among other things, an EMBODIMENT of love, can show favouritism to some of his children by giving them the one true path"
and
"if you accept that all humans are loved equally by God, then you must accept that all ways of life, hence all religions are perfectly viable"

Again you're basing a generalisation upon YOUR personal interpretation of the Christian-sheep mindset. You may be happy with the idealistic "Much better to accept all religions" but I'd like to see that in action.
Who says God is an embodiment of love towards all? The Christian god derives from the Hebrew God who most certainly was not all-loving and selfless. The Old testament God did a lot of casting down, smiting and wielding of WMD. He considered soldiers and civilians to be equally valid targets, he invented chemical and biological warfare, and he created the precedent of "reclaiming" land by force.
George W is a fundamentalist who receives his battle plans from God every night. Should we be surprised that the crusades and inquisitions are still with us?

Selection based on how strongly you believe and how closely you adhere to the tenets of the local/fashionable religion (to the exclusion of all others) is at the core of all the major credos.
No two ways about it, religious fundamentalism = racism.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
A not-very-silent minority of one.

First of all I would like to make a short case for my lack of ignorance. I have read the bible cover to cover twice out of intellectual curiosity and keep a copy near my bed. I have also read a number of books for and against the Jesus story. I find it fascinating trying to understand from what little evidence remains the historical background and events of the years around 0 AD.
I have three priests/preachers in the family, one Baptist and two methodists, and my father-in-law came to within 6 months of becoming a catholic priest so religion has been a frequent topic of family discussion for as long as I can remember.
Raven's version, Religion Light, is really just a demo - saying that they all have some grain of truth and not committing to a single religion isn't really a religious belief, it's sitting on the fence to avoid offending anyone. At least have the courage to buy the full version, Religion Pro XP, and stand by it. I hope this sets the tone OK. Serious But not too serious. Don't take it personally that I want to undermine your world-vision.

As far as the Peter conspiracy theory that you seem to enjoy delving into, how do you explain the fact that no ancient writer has been able to come up with evidence contradicting the gospels

The Gospels contradict each other almost enough as to make that unnecessary. But let's follow the chain of events anyway my friend appears to perform some actions we are unable to explain; by word of mouth we keep the news alive; around 50 years later 4 people who never met my friend write the story down; 2000 years later you want to find a witness who says it never happened?
I say it happened. No-one can prove it didn't happen. Therefore it happened? Wow, back-to-front logic is in fashion again. Fun time for us skeptix.

(written, mind you, by four people, none of whom were Peter, who, also incidentally, only wrote a couple of the books in the New Testament, and who was killed for his own "power propaganda")?

So was Hitler - his megalomania caught up with him.

If the Jewish leaders(who were actually the ones who incited His execution) had the body of Jesus, then how would the story of the resurrection not have been squelched when is started, or why would Josephus not deny the miracle's that were performed by Jesus.

Miracles are an accepted part of the Jewish-Christian myth. Josephus couldn't demand physical evidence for one man's miracles without questioning the whole framework.

Let's see Osama bin Laden turn water into wine, walk on water, evict demons and then be publically executed only to return to life three days later.

You believe these things really happened because they're written in an old book. That doesn't make them true. The mahaabhaarata tells a story that took place in 5000 BC, lots of hindus accept the events, Gods and heroes described as literal truth. It was dictated by one of the protagonists to Ganesha, the god with an elephant's head - he wrote it with one of his tusks. Far fetched? But their premise is the same as yours (blind faith) so you should believe it all too. Or do you select which unsupported stories to believe by letting your faith (or priest) tell you what is true?

I was upset to see that only one person had taken the bait so far. Let's get lively people. Demolish some taboos, admit your doubts, look at things from the other side of the wall.
btw I don't mean to say that Peter was like Hitler, just that marketing can have a big effect on how we view historical figures. Both took over control of an existing structure and bent it to their will. Both died for their beliefs. One was a martyr, the other a monster. Present only partial facts and the truth gets very blurred and logic very fuzzy...

Have a good weekend, everyone.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
A not-very-silent minority of one.

Edited by - DiGiMac on Jun 06 2003 040100 AM

Edited by - DiGiMac on Jun 06 2003 121030 PM

Alright, and away we go...

First of all (I'll go point-by-point in response to your last post Digi) You say that the gospels contradict each other enough as it is, I'd like a solid example of that, as debating abstract statements like that is a bit of a waste of time. Also in the same section how is it that you figure that the four people who wrote the gospels never met Jesus. Concessions are made with Mark and Luke, but then again, Luke had less reason than anyone to keep a false story alive, as he was a historian who was trying to document an accurate tale so that people would have an objective author to read for this information. Mark was a close personal friend of Peter, and you can twist that any way you want, but you're still left with Matthew and John, both of whom were disciples of Jesus. Also, there is a fairly widely-accepted theory that all of the gospels were getting some of their material from an even earlier recording of the events. This is called Q by scholars and you can look it up to your heart's content. this would heavily suggest that the gospels weren't the first recordings of the events of the life of Jesus. Also, the epistles written by Paul were also written and contain material that is earlier from the gospels, some of it from as little as 5-10 years after the execution of Jesus.

Onto point tow (the Peter-Hitler argument in the last post). Peter's part in the New Testament writings is relatively small. He is personally responsible for a very small portion of the text, and I don't know of anyone whose power progpaganda consists of giving all the glory to someone else and insisting on taking none of it for themselves. It seems kind of strange, and was something that Hitler most certainly wouldn't have died for. Lets' take a quick look Hitler's work of literature Mein Kampf (MY Struggle), the work of literature that Peter contributed to the New Testament, a book revolving around the struggle and triumph of someone else, and the helplessness and powerlessness of mankind (including Peter). Does anyone else see a difference?

Thirdly, people claiming to perform miracles in the name of God were considered the highest form of blasphemers by the Jewish high council, so anyone simply going aroung saying that he was doing so would be immediately put to death. As a result of this, Josephus would have had a great reason for giving an alternate explaination to Jesus miracles, such as 'he never performed them', however, he couldn't do that. Why? Because the miracles of Jesus were all public, in plain sight of anyone who was around, leaving dozens , sometimes thousands of eyewitnesses who would readily attest to their authenticity, which left Josephus with the only recourse of claiming that Jesus was performing these miracles as a demonic power, because there was simply too much evidence for him to say that they never happened.

As far as the final point about believing these things because they're written in an old book, and that the Hindu stories of miraculour occurances have as much historical weight, let me just point out one fact there is not a single ancient piece of literature with as much corroborating outside evidence, as many repeated recordings is as many far-reaching geographical locations as the New Testament. Speaking from a strictly documentarily historical standpoint, there simply isn't another book around with as much credibility. However, some of the things that the book talks about seem far-fetched to people who aren't open to it, so they choose instead to go against overwhelming evidence and listen to what their own particular faith (or athiestic skeptic mentor) tells them, and chooses to grasp at straws and incompatible comparisons to attempt to back up their own lack of faith.
That's the beauty of the Christian faith, is that the more you look into it, the less blind it becomes.

People trust that Homer's Oddysey that we read today is a fairly good representation of what Homer originally wrote, but the earliest copy anyone's found of that work was dated at around 500 years after it was originally written. Double-standards are interesting, no?

I'd like to apologize for the length, but I felt that Digi's response deserved a detailed, and thorough response of its own.

-Haddock-Boy

Alright, so let's assume that the four gospels are true, and that there was a person called Jesus.

We know from external non-believing Jewish and non-Jewish historians alike that he was executed by crucifixion. Where did the body go? Think about it, wouldn't that be the easiest way to disprove an ever-growing group of people who claim that this Jesus character rose from the dead? Simply provide a body and say "Here heis, you're all wrong, go home."? You'd think tha would be really easy and that it would've saved everyone a lot of time and headache. Then why didn't they do anything like that?

It's completely illogical to assume that the disciples hid the body, since people simply don't go to a tortuous death on a cross or otherwise if they're doing nothing more than scamming people.

The theory that Jesus didn't actually die, but only swooned on the cross and was later revived and brought out of the tomb, thus eliminating the resurrection doesn't hold water either, since the Romans were exceptionally good at their job, and they would not ever allow someone sentanced to execution to escape alive. In fact, most of the time the people who were to be executed died before they even reached their cross, due to the savage beatings that the centurions would inflict on them.
So, Jesus actually did die on the cross.
There was no body to be found.
It would be rediculously illogical to assume that the disciples did away with the body themselves.

what conclusions would you draw from all this if you were actually approaching it from an objective standpoint?

Also, the hallucination theory just doesn't work. Hallucinations are incredibly individual experiences, and they just don't happen to multiple people with any kind of similarity in the visions themselves. they especially don't happen to people in such a wide range of geographical setting and circumstances.

As for the Muhammed comparison, Paul's experience on the Road to Damascus was public and involved more people than only himself. His travelling companions, although they didn't see Jesus (and that's the story as it acutally goes -- he did meet Jesus personally), they heard the voice speaking and saw Paul (or Saul as he was called then) fall to the ground and they witnessed that he was suddenly and inexplicably blinded. The story also involves a Christian by the name of Ananias who was visited and told to seek out Saul of Tarsus and through Ananias, Saul's conversion into Paul would be complete.

Finally, with regard to your third point about God changing His plan of action suddenly, and using the OT-NT differences as support, I'd invite you to look at the examples you're using a little more closely. You'll find that the God of the Old Testament is filled with compassion, mercy and grace, just as the New Testament portrays him. There are times when I can understand people's views on the "Old Testament God" being nothing but wrathfula dn vengeful, but overall, it's just not the case. Regardless, the plan of God has stayed the same since creation. Granted that because of the course of humna actions, the method of attaining that plan needed to be slightly altered here and there, but the overall goal of the plan stayed the same.

Also, if you were to do reading into the nature of Allah, you would find some incredibly huge differences between him and the God of the Bible.

-Haddock-Boy

Sanity the playground for the unimaginative.

Alright.

The Romans did break the legs of people who were crucified, but they didn't do it to make sure they were dead, they did it to kill them after a couple days on the cross. The final cause of death in crucifixion is asphyxiation. The diaphragm is pressured in such a way that inhalation is impossible, and therefore the person being executed is forced to try to stand on the nail attaching their feet to the cross in order to breath. If they manage to do this for long enough, the Romans would come around and break the legs, which would make them unable to support themselves, causing them to asphyxiate.

In Jesus' case, the Roman guard didn't break his legs. That part you got right. However, they didn't do it because He was already dead. They knew this because they took a spear and stabbed him in the chest. So, the theory goes that after the intense flogging (which most prisoners wouldn't survive), the lack of food and nourishment, and being nailed to a cross, and then being stabbed in the chest, Jesus still wasn't dead? This makes very little sense at all.

Even if somehow He managed to survive all that, the texts say that 'blood and water' spilt from the wound. This may sound likenothing more than good poetic imagery, but it is actualy fairly conclusive proof that Jesus was, in fact, dead on the cross before they took him down. When someone undergoes a beating like the Roman flogging, they go into a shock as a result of a huge loss of blood. This shock, called hypovolemic shock, would cause an excess of fluid around the heart and lungs, called pericardial and pleural effusion, respectively. When Jesus was stabbed with the spear these fluids, which are clear, would have escaped the wound, followed by a lot of blood, leaving the author with the image he describes. This shows the extent of the hypovolemic shock that Jesus experienced even before he was on the cross. This combined with all the other historical facts about crucifixion, including the fact that Roman soldiers who would allow a prisoner to escape alive once he had been sentenced to crucifixion would be put to death immediately, leave very, VERY little room for doubt about the dead-ness of Jesus after the crucifixion ordeal.

As for the idea that the disciples took the body and hid it, you're forgetting several important points. Number one, the disciples were scattered and abandoned Jesus after His arrest and sentancing. They were completely devastated that this person who they thought was their deity, as you put it, was arested by the very people He was suposed to overthrow. Therefore, we can see that the disciples were temporarily extremely disheartened with Jesus, and certainly weren't in the frame of mind to concoct a story like the resurrection, which they were well aware could easily have them all killed with extreme speed.

Secondly, they didn't just move the body to hide it, otherwise they would've kept relatively quiet about it if they were only trying to save the body from desacration. No, what they were claiming is that Jesus rose from the dead, and they were sufficiently convinced of this to each go to gruesome deaths of their own. That's not normal behaviour for devastated people without a God.

Thirdly, you're also forgetting that the Jesus appeared to more people than just the disciples. How would you account for all these outside appearances, if the body was merely stolen and moved to a safer location?

-
Haddock-Boy

Haddock-Boy
I’ll leave point one until I’ve had a chance to dust down my reference books...

the Peter-Hitler argument in the last post Like I said, I don’t want to compare Peter to Hitler. Peter was a humanitarian who took the focus off the OT temperamental God and emphasised his new look Jesus. Jesus was a Jewish rabbi who never taught anything but total respect for Jewish law and Jewish tradition. Peter’s divine vision to demolish kosher and open the Word up to the heathen goes against Jesus’ teachings and created a schism – his splinter group grew and the true followers of Jesus – devout Jews struggling for a homeland – were swallowed up by history. The supporting documents selected centuries ago (yes, so I missed a “0” a couple of posts back) all originate from his winning side.

people claiming to perform miracles in the name of God were considered the highest form of blasphemers by the Jewish high council Not quite true. Like today’s Churches, the elders couldn’t allow everyone and his dog to go around saying “Hey I performed a miracle! I’m the One!” (although they did and without being “immediately put to death” – minority cults around charismatic figures were quite a fashion at the time). So you outlaw miracles and any really persistent cases get to be examined (i.e. buried in burocracy and committees). As I said, the Jewish (and hence Christian) faith is based on the total acceptance of miracles (if only certain approved miracles) – Moses, for one, would still be in Egypt without them.

the miracles of Jesus were all public, in plain sight of anyone who was around, leaving dozens, sometimes thousands of eyewitnesses who would readily attest to their authenticity . . . there was simply too much evidence for him to say that they never happened Says who? Oh, the same source that needs authenticating is also the sole source of “proof”? Where are the personal diaries of all the people who ate fish sandwiches that day? Where’s the invoice to the temple for a new curtain? I’m not saying anyone is on trial here because everyone is free to believe what they want as long as their behaviour in society is basically “good” and as raven says, most religions agree on what is good – it’s just the application and the means that differ. But in a court of law I don’t think the accused is ever considered a valid witness in his own defence.

As far as the final point about believing these things because they're written in an old book, and that the Hindu stories of miraculous occurrences have as much historical weight, let me just point out one fact there is not a single ancient piece of literature with as much corroborating outside evidence, as many repeated recordings is as many far-reaching geographical locations as the New Testament. “Repeated” is the key word here. Repeating and re-writing the same story does not make it true even if you stay in the same place - going to the other side of the world to do it makes no difference. 100 million believers do not make a story more likely to be true than if only one person believes it.

That's the beauty of the Christian faith, is that the more you look into it, the less blind it becomes. What does that mean? When you start out as a non-believer Christian faith is blind? You gain insight by closing your eyes?

People trust that Homer's Odyssey that we read today is a fairly good representation of what Homer originally wrote, but the earliest copy anyone's found of that work was dated at around 500 years after it was originally written. Double-standards are interesting, no? All those people preaching the word of Zeus based on this poem should stop right now. Seriously, this is indeed a very good point except for the fact that we were discussing how closely the bible may or may not correspond to historical facts, not how closely the bible today may or may nor correspond to the bible as written 2000 years ago. Twisting apparent logic to suit your argument is interesting, no?

It's completely illogical to assume that the disciples hid the body, since people simply don't go to a tortuous death on a cross or otherwise if they're doing nothing more than scamming people. Organising a rebellion against the Romans would qualify. Jesus was pushing his role of heir to the House of David on both fronts, political and religious.

Regardless, the plan of God has stayed the same since creation. Granted that because of the course of human actions, the method of attaining that plan needed to be slightly altered here and there, but the overall goal of the plan stayed the same. To save the Children of Israel as long as they adhere to the laws of the prophets? Well, you’ve made a pretty good case for the Jewish religion. Where does Christianity come into the picture?

you're also forgetting that the Jesus appeared to more people than just the disciples. So have Elvis and aliens. I’m not taking the piss, Haddock Boy, but giving advise avoid the “visions of a dead person” argument when discussing with non-believers. Ve-e-e-ry shaky ground.

PS on eye witnesses a mundane example of how reliable eye witnesses can be (if anyone still though they could be trusted). A friend was in his bank last Thursday, the only customer with 5 bank employees. 2 masked guys come in and my friend finds himself in the standard "get on the floor", "gimme the money" scene. In less than two minutes they empty the tills of the small amount of cash that wasn't in the safe and disappear. Within 20 minutes all six people gave their written accounts of what happened (physical descriptions, what was said, who was lying where etc.). Result 6 apparently different bank robberies.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
A not-very-silent minority of one.