So which of the religions then did Christianity steal the part where God comes down to save the people He created from themselves? Which one has a God who's willing to take His peoples' punishment for wrongdoing onto Himself so that we might be able to stand with Him pure and holy?
Actually, that type of legend is apparrent in several Greek myths. Their gods were very meddlesome, but they also intervened positively in the lives of humans as well. Christianity is a new twist on the old Faith... which is a theme throughout.
Name an episode where the Greek gods decide to punish the Greeks for a wrongdoing against them, and then decide they love the people so much they take the punishment upon themselves. I knew the Greek gods took the form of animals and men according to their myths, yet they never expressed such love as this. None of them
died for men. To them, messing with people was a hobby, something to keep them occupied when they got bored of sitting on thrones on Olympus. My God prefers my company. Is there any other system where this love is present?
Christian holidays are not derived from pagan ones, but rather adopted the overall themes and dates in an attempt to avoid persecution. Christmas celebrates the birth of Christ, not some pagan winter god. Easter is a celebration of the Resurrection, which took place just after Passover, much like easter does today. It was moved from the actual date of the resurrection of Christ to the time of the festival of Esther, who, IIRC, is the pagan god of fertility. However, what is celebrated by a Christian observing Easter is indeed the resurrection of Christ.
The original resurrection/redemption story in Christian mythos is actually Jonah and the Whale/Great Fish. Christ's story came later. Christian holidays are based upon pagan dates, essentially modifying the function of existing festivals to suit the new religion. This happened extensively in later converted countries, such as Ireland. Christianity had an ingenious method of conversion: take their old faith, add your new elements to the story, and wait. Most of the pagan religions had multiple Gods, so adding one more to the set was an easy leap for them. Establishing the primacy of one in particular also wasn't unheard of. Eventually, that primacy coupled with the rest of the Faith weeded out the old gods entirely. Christianity (and indeed all religions) used a concept called synchratism in its development, wherein exisiting symbols, dates, festivals, architecture, etc are reinvented with new meaning. Thus, it's not difficult for the populace to accept the change to the new religion as if it were a completely new Faith. Christianity in the late days of Rome was viewed as just another religious sect/cult, similar to others such as the Cult of Bacchus, and it was only when the empire began to collapse that various successive emperors began the systematic presecution of Christians. At the same time, Christianity offerred new and eternal hope to a people witnessing the destruction of their empire.
Name one such cult that has been such an unstoppable force to have endured for over two millenia. Do you have any idea how many people believed Christianity was on the decline, how many believed it was going to be gone within a short time, only to have been proven wrong by God? In addition, let me show you an example where this methodology of slow, reverse-assimilation you claim to have been conducted by Christians is shown to not be the case. It's from the Bible, yes, but seeing as that is the book we as Christians are to follow as our example of the way things ought to be done, you should be able to take it on faith regarless of what you believe about the origins of the book:
Acts 17:16-32
While Paul was waiting for [Silas and Timothy] in Athens, he was greatly distressed to see that the city was full of idols. So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there. A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to dispute with him. Some of them asked, "What is this babbler trying to say?" Others remarked, "He seems to be advocating foreign gods." They said this because Paul was preaching the good news about Jesus and the resurrection. Then they took him and brought him to a meeting of the Areopagus, where they said to him, "May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? You are bringing some strange ideas to our ears, and we want to know what they mean." (All the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there spent their time doing nothing but talking about and listening to the latest ideas.)
Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: "Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you.
"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.'
"Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by man's design and skill. In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead."
When they heard about the resurrection of the dead, some of them sneered, but others said, "We want to hear you again on this subject." At that, Paul left the Council. A few men became followers of Paul and believed. Among them was Dionysius, a member of the Areopagus, also a woman named Damaris, and a number of others.
As you can see, the people of Athens thought at first that Paul was doing just what you described. However, he was not. He was there to set them straight, all at once. Also interesting, is that this idea of resurrection seemed foreign to them. To the rest of your arguments, read the passage. Paul's words address them better than mine could.
Also, I fail to see your connection between Jonah and Christ. Jonah runs away from God's commands, and last time I checked, never comes back from the dead. According to the Bible, Jonah was alive inside of the fish.
As far as Apollo goes, Christ is "The light of the World," not the pilot of the fire chariot that drags the sun across the sky, as Apollo was said to be. Christ tells us to be the same. He tells us to be shining lights left out for the whole world to see. Do you then claim that my own image as such is stolen from Apollo? I don't claim to be God, now.
You miss my point - Christ's image is derived from Apollo because of that same association with sunlight. It wasn't hard for the Romans (and other religions) to accept a new God associated with the light, especially as Christ was originally cast as a youthful figure which bore a striking resemblence to Greek depictions of Apollo. I'm not saying he serves exactly the same role in religion as Apollo did. Once again, synchratism.
The same could be said, however, about any Greek god, because they all have qualities that are are attributed by Christians to the work of God. The Greeks even had an "unknown god!"
You claim 1 in 100 people are related to Ghengis Khan. Where did you get this statistic? I think that's a little high.
You can think it all you like. It's 1/200 men, and it came from a genetics study not three months old. I'll dig it up for you if you want to read it yourself.
I didn't originally respond to that, but evolutionary fitness is defined by survival of your genes. Khan did pretty ****ing well, I'd say.
So then, you'd say it's the species that has the drive to survive, not the individual. Ghengis, then, at least on an evolutionary instinctual level, didn't care much for his own survival, but rather the passing on of his genes. Is that right?
In any event, you said it was because of his pride. Well, here's a statistic for you: Abram, of the Old Testament, was a humble person, who, at the ripe old age of 99, didn't have any legitimate children. Yet God insisted He would make Abram "the Father of nations." I'm sure you're aware, your genetics don't get passed down too well if you don't have any kids. Yet Abram believed in God, and fathered two kids, Ishmael and Isaac. Ishmael was illegitimate, had with his wife's servant Hagar, at his wife's insistence, because she was afraid she'd never give him any kids, despite what Abram said God had told him (Abram was 86 at this time, so it's not hard to imagine why she would be getting worried). God, keeping true to His promise, made Ishmael the father of the Arabic people, whom, as the Bible tells us, are indeed having a difficult time finding peace with their fellow men. Isaac, as I'm sure you know, fathered Esau and Jacob. Esau had his own little nation, and Jacob... well, Jacob is the father of the Jews. So basically, every single arabic person, every single semitic person, every single descendant of Edom (that's the people of Esau), are all carrying Abraham's genes. The Israelites, the majority of the population of the Arabian peninsula, Egypt, that entire region is full of Abraham's descendants. Just as God promised. Even after God told him to sacrifice his own son, which, Abraham had faith enough to do.
Marvelous. And not a solitary shred of evidence for the story outside a couple of religious texts which we know (not speculate, know, thanks to the meticulous way the Vatican has kept records) were altered for political reasons several times throughout the development of Christianity (in particular). One elderly man fathering a few kids isn't exactly a miracle either - while men's fertility is reduced with aging, it's not entirely eliminated, so it's entirely possible for a man over ahundred to father some kids... providing of course the old man can actually have intercourse with a woman, so maybe a little divine assistance (or blue pills) are necessary to the equation.
Are you kidding me? So all of the Jews alive today, and all of the Arabians who call Jacob and Ishmael their ancestors are not proof enough? That's a lot less of a feat to believe than to go so far as to say that they all came from the same primordial organism. Just because people care more to do a study on the genes of Ghengis Khan (which, btw, where did they get a sample to compare modern people to in this study?) than on the genes of Abraham doesn't make it any less of a possibility.
FYI, to believe in common ancestry on a species level is to believe in common ancestry on the level of racial and ethnic groups.
I don't know where you're getting your info, but some of it's a quite a bit off. Are you being so ignorant, then, to claim that Christ did not exist? That is a fallacy I believe to be beyond you. You still haven't answered my question: What do you believe?
None of my info is "off," my info just doesn't solely come from a political book roughly 1800 years old.
There is a remarkable amount of evidence for a carpenter living in the Roman province of Judea around the first century BCE, so I accept the existence of the person Jesus. Do I accept him as the manifestation of God on Earth? Nope. Do I think he was born to a virgin mother? THEORETICALLY speaking, parthenogenesis would be possible in humans with a really odd genetic mother, and the offspring would be visually male while genetically female (heh, I'd love to see the Christian reaction to that bit of information were testing possible), but it's unlikely (and I'm not even going to bother explaining how its theoretically possible either; it'll take too long and you won't understand it anyway). Much more likely is dear old Mary got herself knocked up either by her husband or someone else and proceeded on as normal to raise a healthy, loving son - her divinity was probably only established well after the death of Christ. Unfortunately, most of the records we have of Mary and Joseph exist solely in the Bible, a document I don't exactly trust for its historical accuracy.
That may be, but according to said Bible, Joseph at first didn't believe Mary, he thought she had had sex with some random person (they weren't even married yet, btw), and Joseph was going to call off the marriage quietly (which, btw, was opposite of the custom. Most men, when they found out their wives-to-be were messing around, embarassed and disgraced them publicly), but then had a sudden, inexplicable change of heart. IDK how much you know about Jewish culture, but from what I understand, sex sealed the deal on marriage, especially at that time. If Mary had had sex with someone else, her marriage to Joseph would then be less meaningful. Neither of them would be able to take it as true marriage, because of their cultural background.
Now, don't get me wrong, I think some of Christianity's lessons are valuable, particularly as many of them are echoed by other religions and they attempted to promote harmony and peace, but the institution of Christianity as it has developed is corrupt, closed-minded and self-serving, terribly unlike the original teachings of Christ. The same goes for Islam.
This is, to a point, what I believe, too. FYI, I serve Christ, not the Church. However, Christ was not simply a good moral teacher. He claimed to be God. If he were lying about that, we can't take him as a good moral teacher, because he would be a liar. He claimed to forgive sins. How asinine would it be of me to forgive, say, Karajorma for emptying your bank account? That's what Christ claimed to be able to do. By this claim, he implied that he was the chief person harmed by such acts. That was the basis of His entire method of teaching, as well as what He taught, thus making every bit of it void if He were not, in fact, God. Christ can be a lunatic (in which case, we shouldn't listen to a word He says), a demon (even more so!), or God. He did not simply seek to create harmony between men, but between men and God.
I'm agnostic. I believe there are higher powers in the universe which we do not understand and are not, at our current evolutionary and intellectual level, capable of understanding (this is one of the fundamental problems I have with religions: if there are Gods, who the hell are we to presume we understand their wishes, beliefs, or abilities?). I do not refer to those powers as Gods because I have no evidence that they are thinking or willfull beings; those powers may be merely the fundamental laws of the universe itself and may just exist, not actually be. At any rate, I certainly do not believe in any organized religion because most of them are so concerned with masking the truth for their own political ends (the Catholic Church is primarily a political organization, and has been since at least the 5th century CE) that they miss the big picture, and that saddens me.
The Biblical tales are great metaphors and contain important lessons for living what anyone could call a relatively good life, but the political baggage accompanying it has twisted the message so far that its almost unrecognizable. What should it matter to Christians if the story of Eden is a metaphor for the creation and fall of mankind, rather than an exact historical recollection? It shouldn't - but religion is now doctrine and for some stupid reason some people feel that the Bible must be literal and precise in order for its lessons to be valid. That isn't the case.
I'm sure even some of the most strict atheists around here will agree with me that religions contain valuable messages for a good life at their very core, but it's all the other crap that comes with them which turns them off. It certainly does for me. That said, I have nothing against the people who participate in organized religions unless they deem it necessary to intervene with factual understanding for the political purposes of doctrine. As far as belief, I don't give a flying **** what people believe, so long as it doesn't harm others.
You touch upon one of the greatest and saddest deceptions of Satan to date. I suppose we have a few corrupt popes to thank for that. I would agree with you that these powers might not even be thinking, willful beings, that they are entirely impersonal, the likes of which we cannot begin to comprehend in our present state, except for the fact that one called "God" became one of us.
You say you have no evidence that they are willful beings, but do you have any evidence to the contrary? You say we can't begin to understand them. Then why is one easier to believe than the other?
The Catholic Church in general has definitely gone way outside of what's true. There are many things the RCC puts out that I vehemently disagree with. It makes many claims which are contrary to what they claim to be their central foundational texts. They don't see it, and most of their followers don't care enough to open their eyes to it. Paying for penance, for example, is a disgusting practice in my eyes. They take this place, called Purgatory, which is only ever talked about in one book of the Apocryphal writings, whose very inspirations are highly questionable, and they tell people that their souls and the souls of their loved ones who believe in Christ can stay there for an indefinite amount of time, suffering. This time can be shortened by their prayers and by paying penance to the Church. Christ Himself denounced this practice in the NT.
Believe me, if I could, I would rewrite the organization called the RCC based on what God tells us. It's as much, if not moreso, of a tragedy for me as it is for you.
I've also said it's of little importance how we came to be (like what you said about Genesis being a metaphorical or literal account). I really don't care. The greatest purpose it serves is to show us our fall, and the entire Old Testament shows us why we need to "wash in the Blood of the Lamb." It all sets up a beautiful picture that shows us why we need Christ. You don't go to Hell for not accepting Christ. You go to Hell because you fail to live up to God's standards. Christ is our way out of that punishment. Whether you choose to accept it or not is up to you, but the reason you go to jail is not because you don't take the get-out-of-jail-free card.
I do disagree with you on ther importance of the Bible. It's not a collection of things meant to show people how to live better lives. It's meant to show people that they need grace, and then offer it to them.
I'm sure even some of the most strict atheists around here will agree with me that religions contain valuable messages for a good life at their very core, but it's all the other crap that comes with them which turns them off.
I'd be surprised if there were any who wouldn't say that.
I was once an atheist. It's because of that "other stuff" that the valuable message even exists, at least in the case of Christianity. Also, that other stuff didn't turn me off to it, it rather wouldn't let me go. I was a rather reluctant convert. I was in a sermon at a camp when the person preaching asked if their was anyone who was ready to put their faith in God. I wasn't. I didn't stand up, I didn't go up to the front, I sat there. Then I thought to myself, "Why not?" And for three days, I didn't have an answer, besides the fact that I didn't want to give up the atheism I'd held onto for 14 years, simply because it was familiar. I knew it was worthless compared to eternity with a God who loved me, but even so, I was reluctant to give up that part of me. So I didn't. But I couldn't stop asking myself, "why not?" I talked to some people about what I did believe, realized truly how imcomparably worthless it was, and got rid of it for something better. But for three days, all I could think about was "why not live forever? Why not be loved? Why should death be the end of it all? Why shouldn't there be a point to life?" I didn't have an answer. I still don't. Do you?
