Comparative Religion: Godmen

1…5681011…34

Comments

  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    Kann wrote:
    That is the most interesting question in the thread. Other than the fact that Dec. 25 means nothing in regard to Quezecoatl or Krishna (who just don't happen to have the same calendar as we do, so all these dates are just approximations fought over by more or less partisan scholars), the striking similarity between religions that aren't supposed to have had any contacts at that time.
    It's common knowledge that some of the attributes given to jesus who do not appear in the bible (such as his birthdate) have been selected by the first church to ease the conversion of pagans. Even some parts of the new testament share similarity with greek gods which is understandable (same region), but for a religion on the other side of the world? I find that really strange.
    Did you read about the new born shark, born of a virgin mother? It's the first time this is observed in a superior vertebrate.

    I haven't seen that. But I do have the HHMI.org DVD on Sex Determination. Apparently it's entirely possible to have a virgin birth, also known as parthenogenesis, named after Parthenos 'Virgin' an epithet for the Greek Goddess Athena. However, it is not physically possible for a human female to conceive a human male through parthenogenesis. This is because of the way our genes propogate, females do not have Y chromosomes and can therefor only produce females through parthenogenesis. Other species, particularly some species of worms and lizards, primarily reproduce via parthenogenesis and use a different structure of sex-determination that allows for male offspring via parthenogenesis. It's scientifically impossible in humans.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • Jeanie
    Jeanie Posts: 9,446
    Ahnimus wrote:
    I haven't seen that. But I do have the HHMI.org DVD on Sex Determination. Apparently it's entirely possible to have a virgin birth, also known as parthenogenesis, named after Parthenos 'Virgin' an epithet for the Greek Goddess Athena. However, it is not physically possible for a human female to conceive a human male through parthenogenesis. This is because of the way our genes propogate, females do not have Y chromosomes and can therefor only produce females through parthenogenesis. Other species, particularly some species of worms and lizards, primarily reproduce via parthenogenesis and use a different structure of sex-determination that allows for male offspring via parthenogenesis. It's scientifically impossible in humans.

    I'm pretty sure I told you about this months ago and you laughed at me.
    NOPE!!!

    *~You're IT Bert!~*

    Hold on to the thread
    The currents will shift
  • over bends
    over bends Posts: 1,568
    Ahnimus wrote:
    Care to take a crack at Hinduism?

    I just spoke with a Hindu last night who confirmed that he believes Krishna was born of the virgin Devaki on Dec. 25, with 3 wise men following the eastern star.

    But again, much of Acharya's claims are corroborated by other scholars and expressed here in the wiki article on Dionysus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysus#Parallels_with_Christianity

    Ok, you can't pick away at all the similarities, because many will still remain, especially in concern with Quezecoatl and Krishna. So how do you reconcile these similarities with Christianity?

    I must admit I do not know much about Quezcoatu and Krishna but you are so unforgivably, sickeningly wrong about Bromius that you are going to have to do better than "My Hindu friend said." If you sources regarding Quezecoati are the same as the ones you used for Bromius, then there's no doubt in my mind that its all bull. Seriously, being corroborated by scholars means nothing, as I can guarantee there are scholars who disagree with these claims. My proof here is that there are conflicts and contradictions about every issue. Its laughable to think religion is excluded from controversy. Seriously, if you think you can disprove Christianity by making up inconclusive "facts" that appear similar to other religions than you seriously underestimated our resolve. Any similarities that lie are going to be ultimately superficial. For example, when HUMANS celebrate his birthday, what HUMANS decide to call him, how HUMANS decide to honor him. Why do you expect people of different religions to act, behave, and think differently, just because their beliefs are different.

    This doesn't change anything, even if the bogus claims you are making were indeed true. It only proves the consistency of human behavior, as it has nothing to do with disproving religion. Most of what you are attacking is traditions that are man-made, and as a result you are always going to find similarities. I love how people trying to disprove Christianity never attack what Christians truly value the most and that is the ideologies of Jesus. Try disproving "love your neighbor" or "honor your parents" next time rather than when the church decided upon when he was born.

    Also, what would help is if next time you used facts that were actually facts.
    Yield!

    3 Decibels Doubles the Volume

    2006
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    Jeanie wrote:
    I'm pretty sure I told you about this months ago and you laughed at me.

    That is not true.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    over_bends wrote:
    I must admit I do not know much about Quezcoatu and Krishna but you are so unforgivably, sickeningly wrong about Bromius that you are going to have to do better than "My Hindu friend said." If you sources regarding Quezecoati are the same as the ones you used for Bromius, then there's no doubt in my mind that its all bull. Seriously, being corroborated by scholars means nothing, as I can guarantee there are scholars who disagree with these claims. My proof here is that there are conflicts and contradictions about every issue. Its laughable to think religion is excluded from controversy. Seriously, if you think you can disprove Christianity by making up inconclusive "facts" that appear similar to other religions than you seriously underestimated our resolve. Any similarities that lie are going to be ultimately superficial. For example, when HUMANS celebrate his birthday, what HUMANS decide to call him, how HUMANS decide to honor him. Why do you expect people of different religions to act, behave, and think differently, just because their beliefs are different.

    This doesn't change anything, even if the bogus claims you are making were indeed true. It only proves the consistency of human behavior, as it has nothing to do with disproving religion. Most of what you are attacking is traditions that are man-made, and as a result you are always going to find similarities. I love how people trying to disprove Christianity never attack what Christians truly value the most and that is the ideologies of Jesus. Try disproving "love your neighbor" or "honor your parents" next time rather than when the church decided upon when he was born.

    Also, what would help is if next time you used facts that were actually facts.

    Actually, as stated several times in this thread you clearly did not read, I'm not trying to disprove Christianity with this non-sense. IMO, Mythology is a bad way to wage an attack on Christianity. The field of Neuroscience has proven undeniably that the teachings of Christ are wrong. There is no soul, no spirit, no divinity in human life. As physical constructs in the fabric of reality we do not even drive our own molecules, we cannot have the capacity to choose God or Evil in the manner described by Jesus.

    As neuroscientist Christof Koch says in his book The Quest for Consciousness:
    What about religion? Most people on the planet believe
    in some sort of immortal soul that lives on after the body
    has died. What do you have to say to them?
    Well, many of these beliefs can’t be reconciled
    with our current scientific world view. What is
    clear is that every conscious act or intention has
    some physical correlate. With the end of life,
    consciousness ceases, for without brain, there is no
    mind. Still, these irrevocable facts do not exclude
    some beliefs about the soul, resurrection, and God.

    Meanwhile, theists, try to debate the origin of the universe and the validity of the soul. Even if, these two things could be proven in favor of a cosmic architect, it still does not give any credence to the Christian God. And I can guarantee you that there will be no scientific proof of God, because as Christof Koch has already stated amongst many others, it's not possible with current scientific understanding.

    So, no I'm not out to attack Christianity with mythology, that would be a rather weak attack, in my opinion. I consider Christianity a dead myth already.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • Jeanie
    Jeanie Posts: 9,446
    Ahnimus wrote:
    That is not true.

    Of course not. I make a habit of lying. :rolleyes:
    NOPE!!!

    *~You're IT Bert!~*

    Hold on to the thread
    The currents will shift
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    Jeanie wrote:
    Of course not. I make a habit of lying. :rolleyes:

    I told you the virgin birth of a human male is not possible months ago.

    Here are a few examples, going back a few months, where I've repeatedly said it is not possible. Do you have any more self-satisfying lies?

    http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=4125405&postcount=357 02-02-2007, 04:38 AM
    http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=4286687&postcount=75 03-23-2007, 06:42 PM
    http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=4199243&postcount=6 02-25-2007, 04:05 AM
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • Jeanie
    Jeanie Posts: 9,446
    Ahnimus wrote:
    I told you the virgin birth of a human male is not possible months ago.

    Here are a few examples, going back a few months, where I've repeatedly said it is not possible. Do you have any more self-satisfying lies?

    http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=4125405&postcount=357 02-02-2007, 04:38 AM
    http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=4286687&postcount=75 03-23-2007, 06:42 PM
    http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=4199243&postcount=6 02-25-2007, 04:05 AM


    You know what? If you're going to be a .... then you can go .... yourself.

    Why am I even bothering? :rolleyes:
    NOPE!!!

    *~You're IT Bert!~*

    Hold on to the thread
    The currents will shift
  • over bends
    over bends Posts: 1,568
    Ahnimus wrote:
    Actually, as stated several times in this thread you clearly did not read, I'm not trying to disprove Christianity with this non-sense. IMO, Mythology is a bad way to wage an attack on Christianity. The field of Neuroscience has proven undeniably that the teachings of Christ are wrong. There is no soul, no spirit, no divinity in human life. As physical constructs in the fabric of reality we do not even drive our own molecules, we cannot have the capacity to choose God or Evil in the manner described by Jesus.

    As neuroscientist Christof Koch says in his book The Quest for Consciousness:
    What about religion? Most people on the planet believe
    in some sort of immortal soul that lives on after the body
    has died. What do you have to say to them?
    Well, many of these beliefs can’t be reconciled
    with our current scientific world view. What is
    clear is that every conscious act or intention has
    some physical correlate. With the end of life,
    consciousness ceases, for without brain, there is no
    mind. Still, these irrevocable facts do not exclude
    some beliefs about the soul, resurrection, and God.

    Meanwhile, theists, try to debate the origin of the universe and the validity of the soul. Even if, these two things could be proven in favor of a cosmic architect, it still does not give any credence to the Christian God. And I can guarantee you that there will be no scientific proof of God, because as Christof Koch has already stated amongst many others, it's not possible with current scientific understanding.

    So, no I'm not out to attack Christianity with mythology, that would be a rather weak attack, in my opinion. I consider Christianity a dead myth already.

    You're right about one thing. I didn't read any of this thread, just the first post. So let me ask you, what is the point of this then? I think you are going after Christianity if you are telling me "reconcile the similarities of Christianity" within these religions. And just like I said before, there's always two sides to every argument, and while you use science to not find proof of religion, I can use it to find proof. Albert Einstein stated that through all of his research that there must be a God since everything is in a complete perfect balance. It comes down to one question, do you believe in chance (and this universe surviving more than a single nanosecond is extremely remarkbly) or do you believe in God? We're going to be going around in circles here, as clearly neither one of us will be budged. I just think if you wish to show us how Christianity is the same as every other "mythical religion" actually use facts and show respect for the largest followed religion in the world today.
    Yield!

    3 Decibels Doubles the Volume

    2006
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    Jeanie wrote:
    You know what? If you're going to be a .... then you can go .... yourself.

    Why am I even bothering? :rolleyes:

    lol, Jeanie, you came at me.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    over_bends wrote:
    You're right about one thing. I didn't read any of this thread, just the first post. So let me ask you, what is the point of this then? I think you are going after Christianity if you are telling me "reconcile the similarities of Christianity" within these religions. And just like I said before, there's always two sides to every argument, and while you use science to not find proof of religion, I can use it to find proof. Albert Einstein stated that through all of his research that there must be a God since everything is in a complete perfect balance. It comes down to one question, do you believe in chance (and this universe surviving more than a single nanosecond is extremely remarkbly) or do you believe in God? We're going to be going around in circles here, as clearly neither one of us will be budged. I just think if you wish to show us how Christianity is the same as every other "mythical religion" actually use facts and show respect for the largest followed religion in the world today.

    Einstein did not believe in the Christian God though. You are taking his words out of context. Einstein believed in Spinoza's God and said: "Everything is determined, the beginning as well as the end, by forces over which we have no control. It is determined for the insect as well as the star. Human beings, vegetables, or cosmic dust, we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible piper."

    That is Einstein/Spinoza's God and it is not anywhere close to the Christian God. Their God is not a personal God and does not judge people, but rather predetermines what people are and what they do. Their God is the God of DESTINY, quite contrary to the Christian God of Moral Responsibility!

    While I don't share Einstein's faith in Spinoza's God. I do know for an absolute and undeniable fact that all of our actions are predestined, that is all that you will find in science. Science is the study of causality, you cannot find causlessness with science, it just doesn't work that way. Therefor Science can never prove the existence of God, because God is not causal by definition.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • lucylespian
    lucylespian Posts: 2,403
    And still no-one cares about Kevcin Bloody Wilson and teh Pissed up Testicostocals. I gave you guys a chance to have a laugh and chill this into perspective and you all ignored it, prefering instead to wage your own version of the eternal bloody war between religious factions on this planert that has been ragin in one form or another since teh bolldy dawn of time !!!!!!!!!!
    Music is not a competetion.
  • Jeanie
    Jeanie Posts: 9,446
    Ahnimus wrote:
    lol, Jeanie, you came at me.

    So here we are, based on an incorrect first assumption.
    NOPE!!!

    *~You're IT Bert!~*

    Hold on to the thread
    The currents will shift
  • Jeanie
    Jeanie Posts: 9,446
    lucylespian wrote:
    And still no-one cares about Kevcin Bloody Wilson and teh Pissed up Testicostocals. I gave you guys a chance to have a laugh and chill this into perspective and you all ignored it, prefering instead to wage your own version of the eternal bloody war between religious factions on this planert that has been ragin in one form or another since teh bolldy dawn of time !!!!!!!!!!


    **Jeanie's hand goes up**

    Um.......HELLO????!!! :o
    NOPE!!!

    *~You're IT Bert!~*

    Hold on to the thread
    The currents will shift
  • over bends
    over bends Posts: 1,568
    Ahnimus wrote:
    Einstein did not believe in the Christian God though. You are taking his words out of context. Einstein believed in Spinoza's God and said: "Everything is determined, the beginning as well as the end, by forces over which we have no control. It is determined for the insect as well as the star. Human beings, vegetables, or cosmic dust, we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible piper."

    That is Einstein/Spinoza's God and it is not anywhere close to the Christian God. Their God is not a personal God and does not judge people, but rather predetermines what people are and what they do. Their God is the God of DESTINY, quite contrary to the Christian God of Moral Responsibility!

    While I don't share Einstein's faith in Spinoza's God. I do know for an absolute and undeniable fact that all of our actions are predestined, that is all that you will find in science. Science is the study of causality, you cannot find causlessness with science, it just doesn't work that way. Therefor Science can never prove the existence of God, because God is not causal by definition.

    I never said he believed in the Christian/Judeo God so you are taking my words of context, not vice versa. I was countering your argument that through science, one cannot find God, yet arguably the most influential scientist of all-time was able to. And secondly, I'd looove for you to share your knowledge how there is an "absolute and undeniable fact that all of our actions are predestined." What do you know that 5,000+++ years of human life was not able to figure out? Your dealing with absolutes also shows the kind of person/debater you are, so I really don't see the point in arguing with you. I'm still waiting for your point in this thread if you are not trying to "disprove"/void/invalidate Christianity.
    Yield!

    3 Decibels Doubles the Volume

    2006
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    over_bends wrote:
    I never said he believed in the Christian/Judeo God so you are taking my words of context, not vice versa. I was countering your argument that through science, one cannot find God, yet arguably the most influential scientist of all-time was able to. And secondly, I'd looove for you to share your knowledge how there is an "absolute and undeniable fact that all of our actions are predestined." What do you know that 5,000+++ years of human life was not able to figure out? Your dealing with absolutes also shows the kind of person/debater you are, so I really don't see the point in arguing with you. I'm still waiting for your point in this thread if you are not trying to "disprove"/void/invalidate Christianity.

    Determinism is all we know. And Einstein or Spinoza's Gods weren't old men with long beards playing mischeivous tricks on humanity. Their God was a set of physical laws. Determinism/Destiny is evident in absolutely everything. There is not one thing in existence that is not evidence of determinism. Only through confabulation and wishful thinking can you produce concepts that try to go against nature, but they don't work, they are fundamentally flawed.

    By the way, Determinism can be dated back to Leucippus and Democritus at approx. 600 B.C.E., before the advent of Christianity.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    Jeanie wrote:
    So here we are, based on an incorrect first assumption.

    This one, right?
    I'm pretty sure I told you about this months ago and you laughed at me.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • lucylespian
    lucylespian Posts: 2,403
    Jeanie wrote:
    **Jeanie's hand goes up**

    Um.......HELLO????!!! :o

    Hello darlin', yeah i know you saw it, I'm not that senile yet, but I was referring to everybody else.

    For you it was just a refresher, for everyone else it was a chance to be "welcomed to a whole new fucking world" !!

    How are ya anyway ?? Will; we hijack this thread and chat here, or be good little vegemites and do the PM thing. I'm inclined to do it here to further annoy the feuding factions !!
    Music is not a competetion.
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    lucylespian wrote:
    Hello darlin', yeah i know you saw it, I'm not that senile yet, but I was referring to everybody else.

    For you it was just a refresher, for everyone else it was a chance to be "welcomed to a whole new fucking world" !!

    How are ya anyway ?? Will; we hijack this thread and chat here, or be good little vegemites and do the PM thing. I'm inclined to do it here to further annoy the feuding factions !!

    I would prefer you utiliize PMs, but you've already displayed contempt for this thread and forum conduct with this post. :p
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • Jeanie
    Jeanie Posts: 9,446
    Ahnimus wrote:
    This one, right?

    Yup. That'd be it.
    NOPE!!!

    *~You're IT Bert!~*

    Hold on to the thread
    The currents will shift

Categories