cult survivor

Thanks for all your replies. if anyone can give me any links to sites on the old Greek and Egyptian religions and why they died out, please do. I'd like to read up on them.

Just wondering about what you wrote TD.

[QUOTE=ThinkDifferent]1) People always needed religion. They needed a super-nathural god to fill in the "gaps".

As you use past tense are you implying people don't need religion now? If anything I would say people need something to worship, if they don't have a religion then they are usually worshipping some famous person. Before everyone jumps on me I am not saying that every single human being needs to do that or is doing that. I just am always rather shocked at the kind of veneration people like David Beckham receive, when he is only a man, not that good looking and an adulterer to boot.

Joan of Bark

Good point. The book God Against the Gods: The History of the War Between Monotheism and Polytheism by Jonathan Kirsch contains more on this subject.

Columbo

We have a claim, aswell as a logical impossibility if you don't believe in the bible.

If there is no Christ, your claim, then prove this negative. I've been told by atheists at forums that if I claim a negative then I should prove it. But if they claim a negative, then I should really be proving the positive. Unfortunately I'm not going to buy into their double standard. Prove Christ doesn't exist.

Now if the OT claimed Christ was a false prophet, then are you saying the OT is correct in prophecy when it is convenient for you, but all the other vast OT evidence of the suffering servant etc... isn't relevant?

Athiests say that the bible is open to interpretation too much. So then let me test their wisdom, like they didn't think I would;

If the OT says Christ was a false prophet, then why is your interpretation correct, but not mine?

Well, atleast this is what an atheist would ask me anyway.


My brother has beat me at moto GP about a hundred times, I have 2 victories, but I am increasing..

Yes, yes, it's the good old unbelievers argument of "oh but the Muslims are catching up". A convenient distraction from the true impact Christianity has had.

French Prometheus

Here, I'm talking from a Biblical point of view. Therefore I assume, for the sake of argument, that God exists and he inspired the Bible.

That's very easy. Let's assume the OT is true and that Jesus is a historical individual. None of Ezekiel's prophesies have been fulfilled. Therefore the Messiah ("Christ" in Greek) has not come yet. Therefore Jesus is not Christ.

Before you talk about the Second Coming, let's not forget that this is a Christian invention. If Christianity is false then the theology which is derived from it is false too. So you can't use a Christian theological construct to explain away the prophecies of the OT.

What's more, Jesus made prophecies that weren't fulfilled (e.g. Matt. 16:28) and that clearly means that he was a false prophet (Deut. 18:21-22).

The "suffering servant" was Israel. Christians are fond of distorting OT prophecies, mistranslating them and quoting them out of context (the most ridiculous example is Isaah 7:14).

But the OT is very clear concerning the coming of the Messiah. If the prophesies of Ezekiel aren't fulfilled then the Messiah has not come yet. That's why the vast majority of Jews rejected Jesus.

If you want to see what OT prophecies really mean, I suggest you read Rabbi Singer's answers to Christians.

Because, your interpretation contradicts the clear literal meaning of the text. Besides, it's not just atheists who think that Jesus, if he existed, was a false prophet. That's what Jews believe too. And they should know since the OT is their Scriptures.

You mean the Inquisition, the Crusades, the wars of religion, the destruction of various cultures, the persecution of Jews and many other non-Christians,...?

Anyway, argumentum ad numeram is not a valid argument. It's a fact that that the number of Christians worldwide is stable (decreasing in industrialized countries and increasing in the Thrild World) whereas Islam is growing. But that has nothing to do with the veracity of either religion.

Enda80

Intolerance. The Biblical Jesus fanatically denounces all who do not believe him.

Also, the idea of a eternal damnation-actually propounded by the supposedly forgiving Biblical Jesus-adds to the intolerance:

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/consequence.html

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/personality.html

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/intolerant.html

When the choice is between truth which saves a person and everything else which condemns him or her to the eternal fires of hell, the source of this intolerance can be understood. Jesus knew he had found the truth and could not bring himself to believe that he could be wrong. Marcello Craveri's summary of Jesus' fundamental intolerance is apt:

The harsh reproaches that Jesus directed at the Pharisees because they persisted in their error, his fateful predictions for all those who did not accept his gospel, his specific demands on the apostles for unconditional obedience - all these clearly reveal a man who was so convinced he was the fount of sole truth that he would admit no other. All his generous insistence on charity, on harmony, on brotherhood, then, applied only within this narrow limits of those who believed in him; the rest of the world was barred. Like all the Jews of his time, his overwhelming belief in the unique nature of the national religion prevented him from even imagining a religion tolerant of other faiths. [1]

So, these monotheists have an incentive to destroy other pantheons. After all, with only one god, all other alleged gods must not exist or must serve as ruses of demons.

Enda80

Only the Kami gods of Shintoism exist for Christians and Muslims. I say this because the Third Reich has gotten described as the most Pauline country in the world at the time, and they teamed up with the Japanese State Shinto Imperialists.

Columbo

Slothful induction.

The vast millions of peaceful Christians did not make the headline news, as people are fascinated with excitement and war.

If you lived a peaceful Christian life not bothering anyone, you would not make the news. You therefore, predictabley mention those events that did make the news.

Listen, your interpretation is that Christ was a false prophet. But you can't have it both ways. If your interpretation is not an absolute truth then neither is mine.

Israel is not the suffering servant. Israel is not literally an indicidual person who suffered as described in Isaiah. Only Christ fulfilled the the prophecy accurately.

It seems unfair that you should claim exclusively correct interpretation of scripture literally, yet not look at the suffering servant literally.

Fair enough if you believe so, but if you are arguing for the OT for argument's sake, then apparently you don't believe any OT prophecies came true anyway. So what would it matter?

This means your true motive is not to say that all the bible is true, but rather to imsist that the NT is untrue through personal motivations. i.e. Your dislike of the truth of the peaceful Gospel doctrines that make the bible viable as a whole.

Cian

It does seem that Christianity today bears little resemblance to the teachings of Christ and early Christians.

Christianity has lasted so long due to the fact that it was embraced by the Roman Empire, which came to dominate the known world. The Church practically dominated Europe for throught the medieval era and had a profound impact on Western philosophy. Perhaps it continues today through the human need for spirituality and the "fear factor" that many Christians use. Christianity also has traveled to undeveloped nations helping the citizens living in absolute poverty and making converts of these desparate humans.

French Prometheus

Yeah, killing millions of people tend not to go unnoticed (and don't worry, Christians aren't the only ones who committed atrocities, they aren't any different from other groups). Anyway, you wanted to discuss the 'true' impact of Christianity in the world. So what do you think this impact is and what evidence to you have to support your view?

It's not "my" interpretation. It's the interpretation of the OT as understood by those who wrote it: the Jews.

No, the suffering servant is Israel. This metaphor doesn't concern the Messiah. If you want to read prophecies supposed to be fulfilled by the coming of the Messiah, you should read Ezekiel. Jesus didn't fulfill these prophecies: according to the OT, he was not Christ.

Christians often take non-messianic prophecies like Isaiah 7:14 and pretend that they're messianic. And they ignore or explain away the prophecies that are really meant to be messianic (like those in Ezekiel).

What verse of the OT literally refers to the Messiah as a "suffering servant"?

I can discuss the consistency of a belief system even if I don't personally adhere to it. Besides, it's not just us atheists who make such claims. The Jews, who believe in the 'OT', also interpret their own scriptures that way.

I'm an atheist so obviously I don't believe the Bible is true. But if you came to this board (Internet Infidels), you probably expected to discuss your beliefs with unbelievers. That's what we're doing now.

This is very insulting (but quite Christ-like, I guess). It's as if I called you a liar who knows that the Gospels aren't true but still claims otherwise for personal motivations.

As for the peaceful doctrines of the Gospels, the very concept of an eternal hell is an absolute abomination. I can't think of anything that could be morally worse. In addition to that, Jesus called for the extermination of non-believers and condoned the beatings of slaves by their master.

Any book is 'viable' as a whole if you invent the necessary apologetics that explain away the literal contradictions. The Bible is no different. But the consequence is that you have thousands of Christian denominations that can't agree on the 'true' interpretation of the Bible.

David B

As to why religions last.

BTW, I think we should include all sorts of creation myths, ancester worship etc in oral traditions as well.

I suspect that it is soft wired in the developing human mind to learn, and treat with some sort of respect or credence, things past on by parents, tribal elders and so on. In many cases they would be good survival mechanisms - particularly perhaps in traditions where dissent is simply not tolerated.

Why have some grown so big and enduring, while others fade away? I've speculated about a power law behind the scenes - a few big ones, more significantly larger than average, but the bulk quite small. Such a view would, I think, view the various sects of the major religions as religions in themselves - and it seems to fit. There are a few big sects of Xianity - Orthodox, RC, CofE (Episcopalian) more smaller ones - Methodists, Baptists, Lutherian etc, and then lots of small ones. Oddly IMV, the smaller ones are generally regarded as cults whereas the large ones ain't.

And then there are other things to consider in terms of the selling points that various sects have come up with - I'd suggest that an effective selling point would lead belief systems to grow relative to others (where there is an interchange of ideas between them, anyway).

And, lets face it, 'If you believe X you will dwell in eternal bliss, whereas if you doubt it it will be eternal torment' is a humdinger of a seeling point.

As is, as someone remarked above, 'If you don't believe this you will be considered a heretic, and burned'.

However, secularism seems to be gaining ground, perhaps more in Europe than America.

Not being afraid to speak up about the evils of religion, and the benefits of adopting a spirit of sceptical enquiry, seem to me mitigating factors against the mintainance of superstition and ignorance.

I view this as a sort of moral imperative, though perhaps Wittgenstein was right in claiming that morals is a branch of aesthetics.

David B