Another Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion

[Fifthfiend]

Originally Posted by MasterOfMagic

Why? I fail to see how there can be restrictions on an omnipotent being. Or, assuming there are, why they're in place.

I suppose it's more that God just decided he enjoyed this particular shape, so he decided to be that shape, and then decided he'd make people in that shape too.

I mean what the hell there's no reason an omnipotent omniscient omnipresent diety couldn't say okay sure bilaterally symetric upright-standing differentiated arms and opposable thumbs, sure, that sounds like a fun shape to be.

Personally I'd throw in some razor sharp retractable claws or multiple rows of barbed venomous fangs or like, breathing fire or something, but when you're an omnipotent omniscient omnipresent diety you probably don't see a whole lot of point in being showy.

[I_Like_Swordchucks]

Originally Posted by Fifthfiend

I suppose it's more that God just decided he enjoyed this particular shape, so he decided to be that shape, and then decided he'd make people in that shape too.

Just throwing this out there, but do you think that God making man in his image could be referring more to the ability of our mind rather than the shape of our torso? We can think, reason, choose right or wrong, manipulate the world around us, create things...

Our abilities are really like a very watered down version of God's when you think about it. Would we not then be modeled after God?

[MasterOfMagic]

Originally Posted by Fifthfiend

I suppose it's more that God just decided he enjoyed this particular shape, so he decided to be that shape, and then decided he'd make people in that shape too.

Well, that was in response to Bob saying there could only be one species modeled after god. So, yeah. I've no doubts that god just comes up with shit that makes him happy, supposing he's there.

[Ben_Fox]

Originally Posted by Content

Who cares about 'hours' and 'horus'?

More importantly are the connection between the the story of jesus and his subsequent ressurection and the exact same story told before with different characters playing the same parts before the Christianity was born.

You say much but you dont actually point at anything of substance in the video, perhaps if you were to say exactly what is outright fabrication in relation to this thread, I can make a more helpful post .

Now, the player was constantly screwing up and skipping tons of stretches for me, so maybe some of this stuff was covered. But what you generally have here is a video that shows very little signs of doing any real research into the facts of the matter, conveniently ignores facts that don't support the pattern that they're going for and treats coincidence as correlation. Here's some of the beefs I have with it:

The evidence they present linking Jesus to a line of "solar messiahs" requires some serious shoehorning to meet their preconceived notion. Where do they come up with Horus being born on December 25th much less with him dying by crucifixion as opposed to being murdered and torn into pieces as I understood that particular myth? They conveniently push December 25th as a common date all these "solar messiahs" share, but don't mention that there isn't a single Biblical reference to the date of Jesus' birth. The decision to celebrate the birth on December 25th was made to convert pagans; allowing them to celebrate the final day of the Roman holiday Saturnalia under the name of Christmas. Their astronomical "evidence" fails to take precession into account (the "Three Kings" and Sirius would form a structure that could reasonably called a "line" pointing to the sunrise on December 25th for a relatively short period of time once every 26,000 years). Jesus, of course, had 13 disciples before the Resurrection and 12 apostles after, which likewise doesn't quite square with their whole symbolism idea.

Virgin birth is a common feature in both historical and mythological figures stretching back into the dawn of human civilization; the idea of immaculate conception is a commonly used tool to represent the greatness of the person in question. Such a person has the ability to have the success they had in their lives due to the divine blood in their veins. Many of these figures begin showing their extraordinary powers quite early on in their childhood, like Hercules strangling snakes in his crib; a foreshadowing of even greater exploits to come. Some research will turn up a long line of semi-divine beings, just as many if not more who have no overt religious connection, much less a connection to this line of "solar messiahs." Likewise with the honorifics cited; the ones we use today have not changed that much from their ancient forms, so how surprising is it that many of the same honorifics would be reused over time? The conclusion that this is somehow significant is not only absurd, it's irresponsible for someone claiming to be showing "truth" to make.

Quite simply put, claiming coincidence as correlation does not a believer make of me. The fact they cherry pick facts that support their idea and carefully fail to mention others (let's face it, how many people do you think really know about the origin of Christmas?) that pretty much blow it out of the water doesn't help. The video was put together by people who carefully assembled supporting facts while neglecting ones that detracted from their point, mixed thoroughly with their own assumptions and presented it to people in the twin hopes that their assumptions would be similar and that they wouldn't check their work.

As for the more subtle point that the central events in the Christian tradition are played out again and again over history with different characters in the roles, that's true of all religions, to a point. To be satisfying as a religion, you must provide the ability to give comfort in the face of the horrors of death. In many cases, this is by teaching of an afterlife; that death is not the end, merely a transition. A very common symbol to represent this is, of course, a resurrection. The resurrection story; the descent into the underworld of death and a return to the light of life, has been around since Sumerian times, and it resonates with people even today. It should not be surprising, nor disturbing, to find that other traditions have evolved their own resurrection figures, nor should it be automatically be used as "evidence" to "discredit" one or another religions' claims.

[Fifthfiend]

On a completely different note:

WTF?

[I_Like_Swordchucks]

Originally Posted by Fifthfiend

On a completely different note:

WTF?

Man, we're uncreative...

[Ryanderman]

The whole modern Christian obsession with having our own version of everything really annoys me. Why is it necessary? The command is to be part of yet separate from the world. Not imitate but suck.

[Exit18]

This is a little off topic but, have you ever heard Christian heavy metal? DAMN I hate that stuff. Where I live, tons of people are addicted to it. It's sickening. I'm not an atheist,(not that I'm saying I hate atheists, just to be clear) I'm Roman Catholic, but I've heard some of it, and I find it extremly offensive, and all-around moronic. Anybody else got an opinion they'd like to share on this stuff?

[Lady Cygnet]

Originally Posted by I_Like_Swordchucks

Just throwing this out there, but do you think that God making man in his image could be referring more to the ability of our mind rather than the shape of our torso? We can think, reason, choose right or wrong, manipulate the world around us, create things...

Our abilities are really like a very watered down version of God's when you think about it. Would we not then be modeled after God?

From a Christian standpoint, your theory is pretty sound. "Let us make man in Our own image" could certainly refer to God giving humans similar but weaker versions of His power, especially since God rarely appeared physically on earth. Being made in the intellectual and spiritual image of God would account for the human race's ability to advance so quickly over time, regardless of whether we were created in the forms that we have now or evolved from something else.

Originally Posted by Fifthfiend

On a completely different note:

WTF?

Rather than reaching out to non-believers on YouTube and other video hosting sites, it seems that some Christians want to isolate themselves and their videos. I think they could have picked a better name than GodTube, but I can understand the cheesy reasoning behind it.

Way to reach out to people who don't know Him, boys and girls! *mock thumbs up*

Originally Posted by Exit18

This is a little off topic but, have you ever heard Christian heavy metal? DAMN I hate that stuff. Where I live, tons of people are addicted to it. It's sickening. I'm not an atheist,(not that I'm saying I hate atheists, just to be clear) I'm Roman Catholic, but I've heard some of it, and I find it extremly offensive, and all-around moronic. Anybody else got an opinion they'd like to share on this stuff?

What do you find so offensive about it?

[TheSpacePope]

It should not be surprising, nor disturbing, to find that other traditions have evolved their own resurrection figures, nor should it be automatically be used as "evidence" to "discredit" one or another religions' claims.

The habbit of trying to discredit other religious belifs has killed more men than God did when he sent the flood.

Just throwing this out there, but do you think that God making man in his image could be referring more to the ability of our mind rather than the shape of our torso? We can think, reason, choose right or wrong, manipulate the world around us, create things...

Our abilities are really like a very watered down version of God's when you think about it. Would we not then be modeled after God?

Well, where do you draw the line for literal translation.

For example, back to the flood. That is a direct refrence to when the mesopotamian tributaries flooded and covered sumeria in water, killing many, the character Noah, were in fact sumerian merchants that floated their goods along the floodwaters with rafts. Sumer would have been, quite literally, the whole world, and this is further backed up by the presence of meso-american cultures around the same time. (olmec, inca, I am not sure which.)

We are created in His image most probably refers to the fact that He was created from ours. (when they wrote the bible, would it have read very well to say that God is an amorphous blob of light?) Or for that matter, the sumerians have documented alien encounters, which could explain why all refrences to speaking directly with God, or his angels, are preceded by the being "comming down on a cloud," possibly referential to a spaceship.

Ignorance and apathy are destroying us.

I know it's from your sig, but could you please add intolerance?
That is what is destroying us. XD