|
|
Duke_Falcon
Disgraceful
Supreme Hero
|
posted March 16, 2011 08:22 AM |
|
|
Quote:
And on that note... *Gnomes drags the conversation kicking and screaming from the subject of Religion.* What would have happened if Carthage had Eradicated every last Roman man, woman and child?
Well, here's some of the logical conclusions: Charlemagne would have stayed as a clan leader with one of the Germanic tribes, since there would have been no Roman Holy Empire, since Judaism (And, subsequently) Christianity would have lost their main base of support. Aka, the original Roman Empire.
Christianity would probably not have spread as fast or as far, since its main supporters were the Roman Emperors. This would also mean that the European Kings would have had to come up with some other excuse (Probably something like, "Hey, look at my big army over there... Give me your corn).
The Jewish population would have been lower, since they had been kicked out of basically every other country. Or the Jews would have created their own sovereign kingdom. Still, they would be fewer or more concentrated (Or both) then they are today.
Government wouldn't have changed too much, since the Greeks already gave us Democracy 
What do you think?
Look at my earlier post
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted March 16, 2011 10:18 AM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 10:21, 16 Mar 2011.
|
Quote:
Sorry, but you have made false claims. The Old Covenant prophets spoke about God beginning to exist as a man to die to deliver us, and of the coming kingdom. You are obvious basing your statements on something other than a good knowledge of the Old Covenant writings. The coming of the Messiah is refered to in hundreds of places in the Old Covenant Scriptures.
The Old Covenant, just like the New one, was not written by one person, in one place and at one time. This is not a novel. The old Jewish religion is somewhat similar to most of the religions of the people in the Ancient Middle East and was not even monotheistic for quite a long time (Yahveh had to share his place with at least several more deities, some of which became demons after the monotheistic cult prevailed). The ideas about the Messiah dates roughly to the time after the Babylonian captivity, there are no traces of it in the texts found and dated prior to that. And Babylon happens to be under the influence of the already established Zoroastrianism of the Persians (among other things), which has concepts incredibly similar to the would-be Christianity - introduces the figure of "the ultimate evil" - Angra Mainyu - as opposed to the figure of the Creator - Ahura Mazda ("good" and "evil" are not very appropriately used here but I don't think you'll get the idea without them), the idea about the time when the evil will be predominant until the coming of a Judgement Day and the Messiah - Saoshyant that will end this period and will lead to the kingdom of good.
These are just the basics. You'll be stunned how many things in the Christianity can be found in the Zoroastrianism are readily available concepts even before the old Jewish religion was fully shaped. And not only. The Christianity, specifically the Old Testament, has a number of myths that appear long before you can even talk about Jewish people outside relatively small tribes, worshipping a few dozens of deified things - including inanimate matter. Take the Great Flood and the Arc for example - you can find it even in one of the oldest epics discovered so far - that of Gilgamesh which has Sumerian origin.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted March 16, 2011 02:53 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The Old Covenant, just like the New one, was not written by one person, in one place and at one time.
Errrrr...the Old Covenant was made on Mount Sinai. Moses mediated the covenant between God and the people. The New Covenant was made upon the resurrection of Christ. I presume you mean the Old Covenant writings. Certainly, the Old Covenant writings were inspired by God and given through men from Moses to Malachi.
Quote:
This is not a novel. The old Jewish religion is somewhat similar to most of the religions of the people in the Ancient Middle East and was not even monotheistic for quite a long time
Please stop making false statements. The cornerstone of the Judaism the Shema, "Hear, O Israel: the Lord is our God, the Lord is one." That is derived from Deut 6:4.
Quote:
Deu 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:
Jesus included this as part of the greatest commandment given by God. Man is to know that there is one God (which means that it is knowable) and to love him with all his heart.
Quote:
Mar 12:29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
Mar 12:30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
Mar 12:31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
Quote:
Deu 4:28 And there ye shall serve gods, the work of men's hands, wood and stone, which neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell.
It is rather unfortunate that you are repeating lies of anti-theists. I have proven you wrong. 
Quote:
The ideas about the Messiah dates roughly to the time after the Babylonian captivity, there are no traces of it in the texts found and dated prior to that.
Boy, you sure copied a lot of lies from some website. I'd recommend steering clear of that.
The very first mention of the Messiah is in Genesis chapter 3, written by Moses long before the Babylonian captivity. God promised a womans "Seed" (thus a virgin born man) would crush the head[ship] of Satan but die in the process [Satan would bruise his heel.]
Quote:
Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
There are quite a number of references to Christ in the Old Covenant Scriptures.
Angra Mainyu is nothing like Satan. Angra Mainyu was said to be a co-creator of the world and is the antithesis of God.
Satan is a fallen angel, was created by God, created nothing, owns nothing, and is certainly not God's equal. One angel threw Satan out of Heaven.
Quote:
The Christianity, specifically the Old Testament, has a number of myths that appear long before you can even talk about Jewish people outside relatively small tribes, worshipping a few dozens of deified things - including inanimate matter. Take the Great Flood and the Arc for example - you can find it even in one of the oldest epics discovered so far - that of Gilgamesh which has Sumerian origin.
Of course stories of the flood appear in pretty much all cultures. That was a tremendous event and the stories were passed down from generation to generation. Of course many things passed down by word of mouth became corrupted. Divine revelation gives us an accurate portrayal of the event, as recorded in the Bible.
Please stop visiting anti-theist websites as you will gather nothing there but lies.
Oh, here is a good website that debunks the anti-theist lie that Jesus is based on pagan myths.
[url=http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/JesusEvidenceCrucifiedSaviors.htm[/url] Clicky [/url]
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted March 16, 2011 03:30 PM |
|
|
Dear Elodin
Please. Look at my complains. Look at your post. Back to my complanis. Back to your post. Am I wearing pants? Yes.
Do you really think you're gonna get a response to such crap? Maybe you should try to RESPECT other members?
Kindest regards.
Yours truely.
|
|
Adrius
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Stand and fight!
|
|
posted March 16, 2011 03:42 PM |
|
|
Man I'd never think someone would manage to piss Forf off.
Elodin has special skillz.
____________
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted March 16, 2011 04:32 PM |
|
|
|
@Elodin, my sources are not "anti-theist sites" but scientific researches on the matter. Archeological. Historical. Made by people who don't study the history of the ancient world just by reading the Bible, unlike yourself. Your post is full of so many nonsenses that it will be a waste of time to point them all and in the end you don't look like someone who can look at his religion critically. If you want, I can give you MY sources though I strongly doubt that even if you read them something will change. I'm not in the habit of discussing serious topics with screamers. Prove that you are not one and we may talk.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted March 16, 2011 05:52 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 17:54, 16 Mar 2011.
|
Quote:
Dear Elodin
Please. Look at my complains. Look at your post. Back to my complanis. Back to your post. Am I wearing pants? Yes.
Do you really think you're gonna get a response to such crap? Maybe you should try to RESPECT other members?
Kindest regards.
Yours truely.
I know, anything about Christianity that does not say "Christianity sucks, capitalism sucks, America sucks, conservatism sucks" is crap, right?
Quote:
@Elodin, my sources are not "anti-theist sites" but scientific researches on the matter. Archeological. Historical. Made by people who don't study the history of the ancient world just by reading the Bible, unlike yourself. Your post is full of so many nonsenses that it will be a waste of time to point them all and in the end you don't look like someone who can look at his religion critically. If you want, I can give you MY sources though I strongly doubt that even if you read them something will change. I'm not in the habit of discussing serious topics with screamers. Prove that you are not one and we may talk.
Your "scientific research" was shody. The fact is you don't know what the Bible says and are trying to base your arguments on what somebody else thinks the Bible says. It was very easy for me to prove you wrong because I actually have knowledge about the Bible.
Oh, you have lied in saying that I study the history of the world just be reading the Bible. Please don't lie about me.
No, my post is not full of nonsenses. I proved you wrong with the actual text of the Bible.
You are the screamer. You are the one making blatantly false claims about Judaism. I advise you to actually read the Bible if you are going to make claims about what it says because so far you are swinging wildly and striking out.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted March 16, 2011 05:56 PM |
|
|
Quote:
No, my post is not full of nonsenses. I proved you wrong with the actual text of the Bible.
For Elodin:
Check 11th point of the masterpost.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted March 16, 2011 08:25 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
And on that note... *Gnomes drags the conversation kicking and screaming from the subject of Religion.* What would have happened if Carthage had Eradicated every last Roman man, woman and child?
Well, here's some of the logical conclusions: Charlemagne would have stayed as a clan leader with one of the Germanic tribes, since there would have been no Roman Holy Empire, since Judaism (And, subsequently) Christianity would have lost their main base of support. Aka, the original Roman Empire.
Christianity would probably not have spread as fast or as far, since its main supporters were the Roman Emperors. This would also mean that the European Kings would have had to come up with some other excuse (Probably something like, "Hey, look at my big army over there... Give me your corn).
The Jewish population would have been lower, since they had been kicked out of basically every other country. Or the Jews would have created their own sovereign kingdom. Still, they would be fewer or more concentrated (Or both) then they are today.
Government wouldn't have changed too much, since the Greeks already gave us Democracy
What do you think?
Your theory has a critical and fatal flaw.
Corn is native to the Americas.
...? I'm so confused...
But, hey guys, last chance to make a thread that isn't a religious thread before I convince Elvin to throw it to the VW where it will (porbably) die a very quick and painful death.
In other words, Elodin, if you can't not quote the bible, please don't post. And everyone else, please don't try to set Elodin off.
Thank you.
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 16, 2011 09:51 PM |
|
|
I will agree with that the world would be a little better place without religion.
You know who the greeks came up with the stuff that we base like 90% of our modern science on today?
Other people did it aswell. I think the romans were pretty smart, and the persians too.
Then came Christainty and Islam for these.
Christiainty: Woooow lots of scientific advancements and then christainity becomes big for like 1500 years, year 0 to industrial revolution, NOTHING HAPPENS AT ALL.
Islam: Woooow the persians and those who lived in Mesopotamia were soooooo smart. Oh noes, Islam comes from modern Saudi-Arabia and invades lots of countries and puts them back to the Stone age aswell (well maybe not stone age, but look at the state of Iran etc today, I think pre-islamic Persia was better).
There were lots of nice civlizations here too.
Conclusion: Without certain religions (*cough* christianity and islam *cough*), the research that the Greek's were doing etc would contiune and we would have had a settlement on Mars by now.
However, priests saying that science is the work of Satan for 1500 years, really stopped our development.
I do not understand how people can be religious. I understand if people believe that some extraterresetial force which they call a god or gods have created the universe, but I do not get who people can believe in specific religions that we know when they were created etc. Religions that say that the Earth is flat, when several peoples had already calculated that the Earth was round but of course, Maths is the work of satan too.
Or people that STILL claim that the dinosaurs are all a big hoax, and the Earth is only 6000 years old (lol xD) when there lived humans long before that, but we did not get anywhere because we had not developed agriculture properly yet.
No, I simply can't understand why people STILL in 2011, can believe in specific human-created religions except some like Buddhism but that one doesn't count.
Thinking about how people can be religious makes me mad and causes me to suffer a major headache.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted March 16, 2011 10:21 PM |
|
|
Actually, this is quite wrong. The reasoning behind this is completely wrong.
Were Greeks religious? Yes.
Was their religion any smarter than Christianity? Well, I'd say no. Ancient Greek religion, with Gods living in mortal world on Olympus and being, well, horrible (greedy, lustful, vengeful, ambitious, totally evil)
Did they push the world forward as Xerox claim? I'm not exactly going to agree, but let's agree with Xerox for the sake of his argument.
So...
People with dumber religion push the world forward
but
People with smarter religion halt it
meaning
there is no correlation between religion and pushing the world forward, unless you want to come to a ridiculous conclusion that the stupider the religion is, the better the civilization performs.
thank you.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted March 16, 2011 10:30 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Was their religion any smarter than Christianity? Well, I'd say no. Ancient Greek religion, with Gods living in mortal world on Olympus and being, well, horrible (greedy, lustful, vengeful, ambitious, totally evil)
This is flawed on a basic level, the greek gods were not evil. Were they greedy, lustful, vengeful, ambitious and all in all total pains in the ass? YES! Was this how your regular greek citizen was? YES! So you see, they weren't evil, they were regular.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 16, 2011 10:52 PM |
|
|
I never ever wrote that the Greeks were not religious. But there were many greek philosophers etc who could imagine a world without gods. Their religion certainly did not say that science was evil, but encouraged it. The greeks did not burn their own books.
And its true that the greek gods just represented the normal greek way of life, or atleast how they wanted that to be (I think the life around this time is often very romantized, a lot of people were still poor peasants etc).
I do not understand who you can not agree with that the greeks and then romans were the ones who really pushed forward Europe.
Like 90% of what you learn in maths, has roots from the ancient greek. My math book is spammed with backstory regarding lots of greek people. Some greek sects even worshipped numbers. >.>
And I really do not agree with that the Greeks religion was in any way dumber than the modern ones. What if we had Greek religion today and christainity was dead? Then we would have thought that the abrahamitic religions were stupid.
Christianity: According to wikipedia, a copy of judaism that believes that one god who is actually three gods created the world in seven days and that the whole human race originally came from 2 people. The worshippers of this god constantly try to make excuses to justify their religion, in modern days the view on the bible seems to be that 99% of it is like metaphors or something like that. As I said, makes up excuses which moves it away from the original belief.
Compare the scientific advancements made in Ancient Greece compared to between year 0 and around 1600-1700. There is an enormous difference in enlightenment, and the culture brought forward by the christains apparently did not like knowledge and science.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted March 16, 2011 11:03 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 01:08, 17 Mar 2011.
|
@Doomforge
I don't agree with what Xerox wrote. For one thing, the Greeks were clearly a religious society, as you pointed out. Therefore, using the alleged fact that science, mathematics and philosophical thought thrived in ancient Greece but did not in early Christian Europe as evidence that religion (in any form) stifles free thinking is fundamentally a bit of failed logic.
Still, it's an interesting question to ponder.
Your own debunking of Xerox's post I feel also misses the mark. I don't think you can rank religions in "degrees of stupidity" or even "degrees of evilness". You're setting yourself up for failure because that's very subjective.
What strikes me as a fundamental difference between Christianity/Islam and the ancient Greek religion is that one is monotheistic and authoritative, whereas the other is polytheistic, with a diffuse power structure. The differences between societies based on authoritarian, monothestic religions and polythesistic religions are very clear - the latter tend to be more tolerant of other belief systems (and this would translate into a more general tolerance as well) and also have a rather loose moral-legal framework. The Greeks and Romans acknowledged the presence of deities from other civilizations, for example, even if they did not worship them. I think it's rather clear which sort of society would be more supportive of scientific progress and free-thought.
Of course, I'm painting with rather broad strokes here and also operating under the assumption that the only difference between the ancient Greeks and dark-ages-Europe was their respective religions. Not really the case - other social, cultural and political differences were certainly involved and to lay the stifling of science/technology solely at the feet of monothestic religion is pretty unfair. Certainly, I do believe that monothestic religions have done their share of impeding scientific progress (Galilleo is a prime example). But as in most things, I think the problem is way too complicated to boil down to a single factor.
EDIT: This post I wrote rather quickly, so I'd like to clarify that the primary difference between most monotheistic religions and most polytheistic religions is that the former have tended historically to have centralized power structures and consequently much more political presence, whereas the latter have not.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 16, 2011 11:16 PM |
|
|
I think the main difference is that the Greek's religion encouraged scientific research and enlightenment et cetera. It did not have anything against saying that the Earth is flat, or the theory that everything is made out of elements.
But christainity did not encourage that. It encouraged people to stay true to the Bible's teachings (and afaik, the greeks did not have a holy text so that could also be one reason) and discard all scientific stuff that went against the Bible's claims.
So main difference imo is that the Greek's religion was quite liberal and encouraged science, but Christianty was a lot more conservative and did not.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted March 17, 2011 12:25 AM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 00:32, 17 Mar 2011.
|
@Elodin, if I wanted to argue with the wall, I wouldn't post in web-forums. But I'm utterly defeated by the enormous weight of your crushing argumentation and will go to the corner to suffer my shame. 
Regarding the Greeks and the Romans - both societies were very religious and certain degrees of obscurantism were not alien to them, even though they never reached the level of the post-Roman period. But anyway - one of the popular accusations against Socrates was that he was, among other things, a blasphemer - and this was not a good thing for the vast majority of the Greeks at all. There were similar accusations against Epicurus and other philosophers. The Romans on the other hand built their grand society by adding the religions of the conquered people to their own but remained religious themselves. Their religion however had a vast range of nuances, depending on the region, the time period and what not and is very incorrect to compare it (only) to the Christianity. And mostly, the religious institutions were never dominant in the state itself.
Quote:
Christiainty: Woooow lots of scientific advancements and then christainity becomes big for like 1500 years, year 0 to industrial revolution, NOTHING HAPPENS AT ALL.
Islam: Woooow the persians and those who lived in Mesopotamia were soooooo smart. Oh noes, Islam comes from modern Saudi-Arabia and invades lots of countries and puts them back to the Stone age aswell (well maybe not stone age, but look at the state of Iran etc today, I think pre-islamic Persia was better).
This is a common misconception. These two religions indeed did a great harm when it comes to holding certain progress but are not monotonous at all. As far as I can tell very few people notice how many of the old religions, superstitions, cults and so on have survived though the Christianity and the Islam (if we are to discuss only these two) and from here - how they have created many different "local" versions of the main religions which kept many beliefs dating back to the Stone Age alive and at the same time maintaining some inner diversity in what would seem like monotonous religions. Truth is that neither the Christianity, not the Islam are very strict systems which have always followed one and the same principles. And as I said before, they didn't just fall from the sky, they are the result of the social evolution.
A few examples. First, 25.12, the first day of Christmas, is widely considered the birthday of Christ. OK, sure, but how do we know that he was born on that day (if he was born at all)? Well, we don't, this is not proven at all. In the ancient times however, on 25.12 was celebrated the holiday of Mithra, one of the oldest Indo-European deities. In the middle-late Roman period, before the Christianity became a state religion, the Mithraism enjoyed great popularity in the empire. Hm, eh? Now, the Mithraism itself is a complex topic which could be discussed separately, but for now I'd say that some of its rituals still take place in the Christian churches.
Second - virtually every nation which has or had the Christianity or the Islam as its religions (or one of its religions) has pictured it with its local folklore and traditions. Let it be the Islam this time. For some reason most people in the West think that the Islam is solid, always identical and unshakable like the Great Wall of China. Well, it isn't. Take for example the division between the Sunni and the Shia Muslims - surely you should have heard of them at least on the news. Each of these groups covers certain geographical regions which are not accidental. The Shia Islam for example has more complex mysticism which at times could even look somewhat alien to the Islam itself and it so happens that some of the brightest Shia theologians and philosophers express ideas which are pretty similar to the old teachings of Zarathustra. And the most influential Shia state happens to be Iran, which is placed where once was the core of the Persian empire and where the Zoroastrianism thrived. Yet again neither the Sunni, nor the Shia doctrines are so solid that they don't allow differences. Just like in the Christianity, the Islam has one more or less orthodox centre and plenty of "moons". They are not something "stopped" once and for all.
Third - both the Christianity and the Islam accommodate themselves to certain needs and do not remain static ideologies. Take the split between the Eastern and the Western Churches, then the Reformation within the Catholic church and then the scores of Protestantism churches - and these are only the major historical events, there are many more lesser ones, not to mention the many heresies which are forms of the same religion too, although not officially recognized. All these events happen at certain times and on certain places when the societies there - or at least part of them - require some kind of change. The reasons for this change are usually pretty material but then again the major ideological revisions originate from lack of concurrence between theory and practice and the case here is similar.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted March 17, 2011 12:25 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I think the main difference is that the Greek's religion encouraged scientific research and enlightenment et cetera.
If not for the occasional awkward bit.
Or two.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 17, 2011 03:15 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Or two.
That was just politics - little different from the debate about teaching evolution today.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted March 17, 2011 06:56 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 06:56, 17 Mar 2011.
|
I find it amazing how ignorant some people are of history, science, and religion.
Anti-theists love to put forward the false claim that Christianity held science back in spite of the facts. Anyone who says Christianity is opposed to science is quite simply a liar or ignorant of the facts and just repeating lies others have put forward.
God invites us to consider his works and the universe itself points back to God for the rational free thinker. Unfortunately atheism is neither rational nor the result of free thinking but is a rigid denial of the existence of anything beyond the physical. Locked mind. Locked heart. Bound by their false beliefs.
It is no wonder that it is Christianity, not atheism that birthed modern science. Pagans, with their belief in many thousands of capricious and unpredictable nature spirits could never have lead to modern science.
Christianity teaches that God created an ordered universe. Predictable. Everything follows its own "course."
Clicky
Quote:
Conclusion and the Contribution of Christianity
Christianity had an important impact on every step of the road to modern science. Let me now summarise exactly what they were:
The preservation of literacy in the Dark Ages
Because it is a literary religion based on sacred texts and informed by the writings of the early church fathers, Christianity was exclusively responsible for the preservation of literacy and learning after the fall of the Western Empire. This meant not only that the Latin classics were preserved but also that their were sufficient men of learning to take Greek thought forward when it was rediscovered.
The doctrine of the lawfulness of of nature
As they believed in a law abiding creator God, even before the rediscovery of Greek thought, twelfth century Christians felt they could investigate the natural world for secondary causes rather than put everything down to fate (like the ancients) or the will of Allah (like Moslems). Although we see a respect for the powers of reason by Arab scholars they did not seem to make the step of looking for universal laws of nature.
The need to examine the real world rather than rely on pure reason
Christians insisted that God could have created the world any way he like and so Aristotle's insistence that the world was the way it was because it had to be was successfully challenged. This meant that his ideas started to be tested and abandoned if they did not measure up.
The belief that science was a sacred duty
This is not so much covered in this essay, but features again and again in scientific writing. The early modern scientists were inspired by their faith to make their discoveries and saw studying the creation of God as a form of worship. This led to a respect for nature and the attempt to find simple, economical solutions to problems. Hence Copernicus felt he could propose a heliocentric model for no better reason that it seemed more elegant.
Not all these factors were unique to Christianity but they all came together in Western Europe to give the world its only case of scientific take off which has since seen its ideas spread to the rest of the world. An learned examination of why other civilisations failed to make the leap forward can be found here.
For the anti Christians desperate not to give credit for their own faith of scientism to the religion they hate, two questions must be answered. First, if the dominant world view of medieval Europe was as hostile to reason as they would like to suppose, why was it here rather than anywhere else that science arose? And secondly, given that nearly every one of the founders and pre founders of science were unusually devout (although not always entirely orthodox) even by the standards of their own time, why did they make the scientific breakthroughs rather than their less religiously minded contemporaries? I wonder if I will receive any answers.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted March 17, 2011 07:26 AM |
|
|
Quote:
First, 25.12, the first day of Christmas, is widely considered the birthday of Christ.
No it is not. It was picked as a day to celebrate the birth of Christ. The early church fathers said Jesus was born in April or May. I'll bet your anti-theist sources did not tell you that did they? No, of course not, that would not fit in with their smear tactics and lies.
On, the tenents of Mithraism that appear similar to Christian teaching did not appear until after the first or second centruy. Well after the birth of the Christian church. They were trying to piggyback on Christianity. Not the other way around as anti-theist liars try to say. So be careful when you read an anti-theist site.
Clicky
Quote:
For example, the movie asserts that:
Mithra, of Persia, born of a virgin on December 25th, he had 12 disciples and performed miracles, and upon his death was buried for 3 days and thus resurrected, he was also referred to as "The Truth," "The Light," and many others. Interestingly, the sacred day of worship of Mithra was Sunday.
This is a very shiny assertion, and, for the ignorant, probably a very convincing one. However, unless one believes that rocks can be virgins, this is an outright lie. In the story of Mithras, he is born from a rock, fully grown, naked, and holding a dagger, torch, or globe, depending on which version of the story you read.
Secondly, despite how often it is asserted that the pagan celebration of December 25th preceded the Christian use of the date, the historical evidence is not so clear. What we know about Mithraism comes from after the time of Christ, and there is good reason to believe it was the Mithra story that was borrowing from Christianity, not the other way around. Who is more likely to be willing to borrow from someone else: a mystery religion lacking any kind of bedrock theology, or the Christian faith with its very historical, dogmatic, and Jewish roots?
Thirdly, the myth of Mithras does not say that he was a teacher with disciples, but that he was a god. He would have had more than 12 followers, and "miracles" or supernatural acts are implied when referring to gods, so that being a parallel, or even an act of "plagiarism" on the Bible's part is quite a stretch...and a little shady.
As for Mithras's supposed death and resurrection, no textual evidence exists. Zeitgeist forgets that Mithraism was a secret religion that gained popularity largely in the second and third century AD. Their secret meetings were held mostly in caves and are rarely discussed without being labeled as "demonic." Richard Gordon, who received his PHD on the topic of Mithraism in the Roman Empire points out in Image and Value in the Greco-Roman Worldthat there is no record of Mithras ever dying, thus negating the possibility of resurrection.
Many scholars suggest that Mithras being referred to as "the Truth" or the "Light" would be a serious act of borrowing fromthe Christian scriptures, not the other way around.
Zeitgeist takes a great deal of time to twist the myth of Horus, the god of the sun, into the story of Jesus, pointing out that Horus exemplifies goodness and light, and his enemy, the god of the night named Set, represents darkness. The assertion is that Christianity stole this idea and created Jesus versus Satan. One may kindly suggest in response to this ridiculous idea that maybe the ancient Egyptians were pagans and had to come up with some way to explain why bad things happened, and why the sun rose and set every night. Nowhere in the story of Horus is there redemption of a special people or atonement through the sacrifice of the Son of God. If anything, the story ofHorus is a sad commentary on pagan religions and their need to create their own gods, as close to the true Creator as possible, minus the acknowledgment of His singularity and holiness.
Zeitgeist goes on to mention Attis and Dionysus:
____________
Revelation
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
