Freethought & Rationalism Archive

gracebkr · 04-26-2007, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biff the unclean

So your dad liked a song on the radio. And you, listening to the same station hear them replay the same song.
That is less than coincidence, that’s pathetic.

I feel sorry for you. I understand her loss and was trying to comfort her. I understand something she went through, and you are so selfish that you could not just let someone have peace, (whether it be me or her) even if you don't understand.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...ontext=context
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...ontext=context
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...ontext=context
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...ontext=context

ziffel · 04-26-2007, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gracebkr

I can understand that doubting the whole of a tradition and what a tradition is really based on. But traditions passed down should not be *fully* discounted. Think of Santa Claus, that too is a tradition, but it holds the truth in it. There was a Saint Nikolaus, he did give to people less fortunate. This tradition has changed some, but the essence of the character whom is real, has stayed the same. The flying on sleigh, coming down the chimney etc. is obviously fake, there is still truth in it however.

This is actually a very good analogy! This is precisely the point that people have been trying to get across to you.

- Jesus in the bible was possibly loosely based on a real person.

- the story gets passed down over many decades before anything is actually written -- fables, myths, and tall tales are added. Did you know that as the gospels progressed chronologically (in the order they were actually written), the miracles and other tall tales become more & more prominent with each book.

Did you also know that most all of the tall tales written about Jesus (virgin birth, water into wine, 3 wise men from the east, being resurrected from the dead, etc) were ALL told in other god-men stories hundreds of years before Christ? These were common pagan myth stories, from which the biblical authors liberally borrowed, one might even say plagiarized.

gracebkr · 04-26-2007, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlOfLade

And many countries, including Norway were I come from, there is no Santa Claus, but julenisse. Looks the same, but has nothing to do with religion and never will have anything to do with it. In Sweden, he is called Jultomte, which also has nothing to do with religion. A tomte and a nisse, are small friendly trolls that is said to live on every farm in the country.

Read up in the history of Yule

And when it comes to prayers, does not work. And the bible says, in at least 20 different verses, that you can pray for anything, no restrictions, and you will get it. So, maybe you can explain why there is not a single amputee who has gotten a limb grown back?

Ref John 14 13-14

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_N...he_Netherlands

OldYgg · 04-26-2007, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gracebkr

Well, the disputed parts have no citations. Then after that the whole thing is un neutral so, all we can really go by is His words as we know them.

That's good point. Without a direct translation of the original text it will be hard to determine if in fact the language changed for that portion of the document.

However, there are references, and they can be researched. Plus I think there are better resources on the disputation of this that it would be hard to take as a solid reference.

It is important to note, that if Jesus was so important and if J met him - he only decided it was important to write two sentences about him.

So, I think either Jesus just didn't make much of an impression or Josephus didn't meet him in person and is going by hearsay to create his account.

Old Ygg

OldYgg · 04-26-2007, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gracebkr

They never found Genghis Khan's body either, maybe he was totally fabricated.

In either Alexander the Great or Ghengis Khan's case, there are plenty of resources contributing to the case that both existed and that neither was a god.

Old Ygg

EarlOfLade · 04-26-2007, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gracebkr

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_N...he_Netherlands

Ik houdt Sinterclaas, but what's that got to do with my post? Nothing. Just that Santa Claus is based on some traditions while other countries have different traditions and the same character but not based on religious tradition.

But, you skipped the other and more important part, why?

OldYgg · 04-26-2007, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlOfLade

And many countries, including Norway were I come from, there is no Santa Claus, but julenisse. Looks the same, but has nothing to do with religion and never will have anything to do with it. In Sweden, he is called Jultomte, which also has nothing to do with religion. A tomte and a nisse, are small friendly trolls that is said to live on every farm in the country.

Read up in the history of Yule

And when it comes to prayers, does not work. And the bible says, in at least 20 different verses, that you can pray for anything, no restrictions, and you will get it. So, maybe you can explain why there is not a single amputee who has gotten a limb grown back?

Ref John 14 13-14

I'd love to hear more about this. Can you start another thread with some links to information on this?

I went to Finland and visited Santa Village and the now defunct Santa Park (it was literally a hole in the ground. Kind of cool, but not very Christmassy (ok, I know that isn't a word.

It would be great to have other names for Santa. And other traditions to talk about with my children.

Old Ygg

OldYgg · 04-26-2007, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johann Sin

Yup! And the Yeshua of Nazareth, son of god, virgin-birth, water into wine, walk on water aka Messiah aka Christ is fake

Nah, just kidding. I don't know, but considering the current lack of evidence and the level of extraordinary of the claim, I would say that there is no good reason to believe that such a fantastic story is true.

I'd sooner admit that Harry Potter exist and that broom can fly. At least I KNOW JK Rowling wrote the book and that she exists.

This is an important point that we haven't really talked about much on this thread.

Claims in history don't have to have a lot of first person sources, as long as the result of this information isn't something that will control your life or what you do with it.

But if you are going to tell me what to do, or base some kind of authority on the basis of this historical information - that historical information has to be imminently verifiable. The clarity of the historical resources has to be abundantly clear. Otherwise you end up with fractured belief. There are people out there who are Christians that don't believe in a literal Jesus, people that believe he existed, but don't believe in any of the powers attributed to him and Christians who believe he existed, he was son of god, but that there is no Heaven or afterlife for regular people. (My wife's grandmother is in the camp of not believing in Heaven and she's old as dirt and in pain all the time).

Although I do tend to think my wife's grandmother is really agnostic, but she goes to church every Sunday, so who knows? Oh and her husband was the preacher at the local Anglican (Christian lite) church.

Old Ygg

LogDog · 04-26-2007, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gracebkr

I can understand that doubting the whole of a tradition and what a tradition is really based on. But traditions passed down should not be *fully* discounted. Think of Santa Claus, that too is a tradition, but it holds the truth in it. There was a Saint Nikolaus, he did give to people less fortunate. This tradition has changed some, but the essence of the character whom is real, has stayed the same. The flying on sleigh, coming down the chimney etc. is obviously fake, there is still truth in it however.

Try applying the same reasoning to the stories of Jesus (assuming he did in fact exist) and the "obviously fake" attributes of his character.

gracebkr · 04-26-2007, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziffel

This is actually a very good analogy! This is precisely the point that people have been trying to get across to you.

- Jesus in the bible was possibly loosely based on a real person.

- the story gets passed down over many decades before anything is actually written -- fables, myths, and tall tales are added. Did you know that as the gospels progressed chronologically (in the order they were actually written), the miracles and other tall tales become more & more prominent with each book.

Did you also know that most all of the tall tales written about Jesus (virgin birth, water into wine, 3 wise men from the east, being resurrected from the dead, etc) were ALL told in other god-men stories hundreds of years before Christ? These were common pagan myth stories, from which the biblical authors liberally borrowed, one might even say plagiarized.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistles

Do you think these could be the reason as to why these stories were told?

http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/isaiah/isaiah7.htm

Read 7:14, 25:8,

http://www.messiahrevealed.org/

This has all the mentions of that same prophecy, 25:8, all the prophecies, so it can be a reason why people told stories about things you mentioned, perhaps they read them.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.