God? Don't be silly!

[Scouse]

Many of the Christian faiths have taken elements of pagan mythology and worship into their religion, they feel that doing so makes it okay.

The Christmas celebration is a perfect example.

I like what you're saying Turamber, but you need to go further: Christianity was developed from pagan mythology. They didn't take on elements of it, it was born out of it.

 

[old.Tohtori]

funny tidbit, vikings basically didn't care what faith you were from, you were a pagan nevertheless, but it didn't mean anything.

"He's a pagan, rob him. He's a pagan too, rob him aswell. Oh, another pagan. Who cares! Rob rob...oh...his wife is pagan for sure! Oh hi bob, mind if i rob you, evne if you're not one of those pagans."

Kind of like a "equal target"

 

[DaGaffer]

I like what you're saying Turamber, but you need to go further: Christianity was developed from pagan mythology. They didn't take on elements of it, it was born out of it.

And political expediency; Christianity would be have stayed a minor cult if people hadn't been forced to Christianise after AD380 when Constantine The Great made it the only religion of the Roman Empire (and only their version of Christianity of course, none of that Irish, or Coptic or Cathar nonsense). The problem for Constantine was that he had to sweeten the deal for all those suddenly-Christian Romans, and he did that by wholesale co-opting of pagan ceremonies and calendars; about as much to do with a Jewish carpenters son as worshipping Ganeesha.

funny tidbit, vikings basically didn't care what faith you were from, you were a pagan nevertheless, but it didn't mean anything.

"He's a pagan, rob him. He's a pagan too, rob him aswell. Oh, another pagan. Who cares! Rob rob...oh...his wife is pagan for sure! Oh hi bob, mind if i rob you, evne if you're not one of those pagans."

Kind of like a "equal target"

The Norse discriminated against Christians (understandably, they were surrounded by them) and Christians in Norse territories were taxed in a similar manner to Moslem dhimmi, and also had to pay special penalties to avoid the big sacrificial ceremonies Ǽsir worshippers carried out in Upsalla (where they did human sacrifice). Probably not as bad as Christian religious discrimination (at least it was mostly financial), but its stretching it to describe Norse behaviour as tolerant. The big difference is that the Norse weren't a proselytising religion; that seems to be a speciality of Christians and Moslems.

 

[old.Tohtori]

The Norse discriminated against Christians (understandably, they were surrounded by them) and Christians in Norse territories were taxed in a similar manner to Moslem dhimmi, and also had to pay special penalties to avoid the big sacrificial ceremonies Ǽsir worshippers carried out in Upsalla (where they did human sacrifice). Probably not as bad as Christian religious discrimination (at least it was mostly financial), but its stretching it to describe Norse behaviour as tolerant. The big difference is that the Norse weren't a proselytising religion; that seems to be a speciality of Christians and Moslems.

Oh yes, i'm not saying there was 100% tolerance. Just that every religion to the norse was equally "crap" outside their own, and all those were pagans.

Christians went o the blacklist after the first scuffles of "convert" crusaders reaching the gates of norse territory.

 

[Kryten]

Chinese whispers.

End of


For all we or anyone know, Christianity could very literally have started from someone mishearing how far you put push a hole aubergine into your bottom, after millions of mishearings later has turned into something as far fetched as.... well, you get my drift It's a satirical way of looking at it, but can anyone prove otherwise?

 

[Turamber]

Christianity was developed from pagan mythology. They didn't take on elements of it, it was born out of it.

Not at all. Christianity is born out of Judaism. There are elements of paganism in main stream religions but I'd struggle to identify any in the teachings contained in the New Testament.

 

[Turamber]

Christianity would be have stayed a minor cult if people hadn't been forced to Christianise after AD380 when Constantine The Great made it the only religion of the Roman Empire (and only their version of Christianity of course, none of that Irish, or Coptic or Cathar nonsense).

If you'd like to discuss whether Constantine was even a Christian that would probably be more interesting. Also the Romans, generally, didn't force people to become Christian -- rather social privilege was denied pagans and, slowly, pagan practices died out.

When the Emperor Julian ("the Apostate") tried to restore paganism en-masse he found very little passion for it. It had had its day.

Trying to draw a dividing line between the different Churches as you are in your post is intriguing. Yet up until the 7th century the Coptic Church didn't exist as a separate body, it was only after the Muslim conquest of Egypt that the Coptic faith truly went its own way.

Not sure why people are interested in discussing this, however, as what religions believe has very little bearing on whether God exists or not.

 

[Wij]

Christianity is born out of Judaism.

Only in part. Most of the messiah bolox was retro-fitted after the fact to fit the Jewish myths.

The whole going back to Bethlehem thing is laughable

 

[Turamber]

Most of the messiah bolox was retro-fitted after the fact to fit the Jewish myths.

*shrug* It is an easy accusation to make but there were people living in the area and at the time that were willing to die for their faith in who he was. And our whole calendar is based on the supposed year of his birth.

So, whoever he was, there have been plenty of people who thought he was pretty darn important down through the years.

Explain the Bethlehem jibe to me?

 

[Wij]

For what reason would Joseph go back to Bethlehem at the command of the Romans ?

Joseph was not from Bethlehem.
There is no record of the Romans asking anyone to do this around the time and the Romans kept pretty good records. A mass movement of people like this would be recorded.

The Bethlehem thing was added to the story to fit in with the Jewish prophesy.

 

[Wij]

*shrug* It is an easy accusation to make but there were people living in the area and at the time that were willing to die for their faith in who he was. And our whole calendar is based on the supposed year of his birth.

So, whoever he was, there have been plenty of people who thought he was pretty darn important down through the years.

Most of the original cults that sprung up around Jesus did not claim he was the Son Of God. Gnostics and such.

Last I heard the best guess was that Jesus was born around 6BC. Even if it were correct though it doesn't have the slightest bearing on the truth of the Christmas story.

 

[Scouse]

If you'd like to discuss whether Constantine was even a Christian that would probably be more interesting. Also the Romans, generally, didn't force people to become Christian -- rather social privilege was denied pagans and, slowly, pagan practices died out.

That's forcing someone in my book.

Look at chequebooks now. If you want to pay by cheque and avoid all the automatic profiling that goes along with electronic transactions then fine. But what if companies slowly stop taking cheques, like, erm, now?

 

[Turamber]

There is no record of the Romans asking anyone to do this around the time and the Romans kept pretty good records.

And until the 1960's critics like yourself said that the Bible was wrong and fictional as there was no such person as Pontius Pilate. Then archeological evidence was turned up to prove that, yes, he had existed after all.

There is little reason or evidence to suggest that the Bible accounts were fabricated many years after the events they describe, rather there is evidence they were written whilst people who remembered the events, eyewitnesses if you like, were living.

That none of the many opponents of Christianity in the first century suggested that Pontius Pilate had not existed should have told the higher critics something. Similarly with accusations that the account of the Roman census is fabricated.

I remain confident that some evidence will be dug up at some stage to prove the Bible's contents correct.

It is quite amusing, though, the lengths some people will go to attempt to discredit the Bible. The New Testament is one of the very few records we have of Jewish society in the 1st century AD, even if you don't believe Jesus is the messiah it makes for fascinating reading.


As for my comments about the calendar being based around Jesus, this is not a reference to that pagan addition to Christianity now known as "Christmas". It is the reference to the fact we have two calendars, before Christ and after Christ.

Sure they may not be exact to the date of his birth (the fact it is not contained in the Bible should tell people something about Christmas) but how many people have world calendars based around their supposed date of birth?

 

[Turamber]

That's forcing someone in my book.

I didn't say it was right, I merely presented you with facts. Jesus himself said that people had to become "disciples" or "learners" in the original language.

To my mind that doesn't include children being baptised or people being forced to become a Christian to pay lower taxes or be able to hold certain jobs.

Unfortunately although Constantine may have wished to make Christianity the state religion it was a twisted version of it that he made so, one fit to serve the designs of a pagan Emperor.

 

[Scouse]

I didn't say it was right

No, you said people weren't forced to follow Christianity. Not that it happened but you disagreed.

Unfortunately although Constantine may have wished to make Christianity the state religion it was a twisted version of it that he made so,.

So, which version of Christianity do you follow? What with Catholics and Protestants both pretty much following the Constantine political message....

 

[Wij]

And until the 1960's critics like yourself said that the Bible was wrong and fictional as there was no such person as Pontius Pilate. Then archeological evidence was turned up to prove that, yes, he had existed after all.

There is little reason or evidence to suggest that the Bible accounts were fabricated many years after the events they describe, rather there is evidence they were written whilst people who remembered the events, eyewitnesses if you like, were living.

That none of the many opponents of Christianity in the first century suggested that Pontius Pilate had not existed should have told the higher critics something. Similarly with accusations that the account of the Roman census is fabricated.

I remain confident that some evidence will be dug up at some stage to prove the Bible's contents correct.

It is quite amusing, though, the lengths some people will go to attempt to discredit the Bible. The New Testament is one of the very few records we have of Jewish society in the 1st century AD, even if you don't believe Jesus is the messiah it makes for fascinating reading.


As for my comments about the calendar being based around Jesus, this is not a reference to that pagan addition to Christianity now known as "Christmas". It is the reference to the fact we have two calendars, before Christ and after Christ.

Sure they may not be exact to the date of his birth (the fact it is not contained in the Bible should tell people something about Christmas) but how many people have world calendars based around their supposed date of birth?

There's no reason for those who doubt the accuracy of the Bible to doubt the existence of specific figures just because of a lack of evidence. After all there had to be some governer. I doubt anyone would have made that big a deal out of the current lack of evidence for Pilate. If they did then they were dicks.

What's more worrying is inconsistencies, both between the different gospels and between the gospels and the evidence that actually DOES exist.

 

[Turamber]

What's more worrying is inconsistencies, both between the different gospels and between the gospels and the evidence that actually DOES exist.

Please enlighten me. Most perceived differences between the Gospels can be explained by the differing viewpoints of the writers and who their target audience was.

I have no problem if people wish to deny Jesus was the Jewish messiah or that miracles have to have a rational explanation or be made up even. But I do find it pretty sad that people who claim to be objective will go to the nth degree to make the Bible look stupid when it is a very valuable book indeed.

 

[DaGaffer]

Please enlighten me. Most perceived differences between the Gospels can be explained by the differing viewpoints of the writers and who their target audience was.

I have no problem if people wish to deny Jesus was the Jewish messiah or that miracles have to have a rational explanation or be made up even. But I do find it pretty sad that people who claim to be objective will go to the nth degree to make the Bible look stupid when it is a very valuable book indeed.

Well, the Book of John is pretty different to the other three (and flat out contradicts them in places) but that's hardly the point; those four Gospels were chosen from dozens, and none of them were actually written at the time; indeed most were written 1-200 years after the event, which makes their credibility as historical documents rather suspect. As for the "value" of the Bible; the Old Testament is a bunch of myths, legends and a bit of history about one desert tribe among many; no more or less valuable than the Iliad or Toht's Ǽsir sagas. The New Testament is ultimately a political tract, edited for a purpose. Are there valuable moral lessons in there? Absolutely. Is there dangerous crap that's twisted the moral values of millions? Absolutely (although to be fair the worst stuff isn't found in the four gospels, Romans and Revelations get the bulk of my venom).

 

[Wij]

Please enlighten me. Most perceived differences between the Gospels can be explained by the differing viewpoints of the writers and who their target audience was.

I have no problem if people wish to deny Jesus was the Jewish messiah or that miracles have to have a rational explanation or be made up even. But I do find it pretty sad that people who claim to be objective will go to the nth degree to make the Bible look stupid when it is a very valuable book indeed.

There's acres of stuff you could look up on the internet which points out inconsistencies in the Gospels. I can't be arsed quoting it tbh. As Gaff points out John is radically different to Mark, Matthew and Luke and was probably written much later. It portrays Jesus as a bit of a big-headed dick.

 

[Scouse]

But I do find it pretty sad that people who claim to be objective will go to the nth degree to make the Bible look stupid when it is a very valuable book indeed.

Depends on how you define valuable. I mean, Mein Kampf is valuable, and more truthful...

 

[Turamber]

Well, the Book of John is pretty different to the other three

Accounts of accidents written by multiple parties can read very differently. It doesn't mean that the event is made up, but people always write from their own perspective.

Please don't just tell me there are contradictions, tell me what they are or, tbh, they don't exist. I know you won't accept my take on the apparent contradictions but don't do me the disservice of not even offering examples.

According to Christian tradition the Gospel of John was the last one to be written and it is supposedly filling in the gaps from the other accounts. You do realise that there is an extant version of the Gospel of John dated to around the year 100?

Is there dangerous crap that's twisted the moral values of millions? Absolutely (although to be fair the worst stuff isn't found in the four gospels, Romans and Revelations get the bulk of my venom).

For people who claim to have the intellectual and moral high ground and such a dim view of "superstition" you get mightily worked up about that "superstition". Revelation is written in symbolic language, there isn't much teaching in there that could upset anyone -- unless you have problems with Jesus criticising the 1st century congregations for how they imitated his life?

And I can't see what would be so upsetting to anyone in the book of Romans, it deals with issues of sin and salvation.

 

[rynnor]

You do realise that there is an extant version of the Gospel of John dated to around the year 100?

No there isnt. The oldest thing there is on John is a fragment which is generally dated to the early part of the 2nd century and thats a piece the size of a business card with parts of a couple of verses - not exactly an extant version.

 

[Turamber]

Extant: "Still in existence; not destroyed, lost, or extinct"

I didn't intend to suggest that the whole of the Gospel was complete. That there would be a complete copy of the Gospel of John, 1900 years old and copied within 30-40 years of the writing of the original would be pretty darn amazing.

Christianity was persecuted by both the Jews and the Romans, its followers were stoned, burned, thrown to animals etc and their possessions were seized or destroyed. That even part of the Gospel (which has been translated and been found to be very similar to later copies) is available is very strong proof that the Gospels were in circulation during a time period when eye witnesses of Jesus life would have been alive.

 

[Panda On Smack]

Do you guys ever wonder about death?

Do you think we are designed to live longer?

 

[nath]

Do you guys ever wonder about death?

Do you think we are designed to live longer?

Yes and no respectively.

 

[rynnor]

I didn't intend to suggest that the whole of the Gospel was complete.

Well I hate to be knit-picking but the Gospel of St John refers to the whole thing - so what you said was literally incorrect.

And where do you get this copied 30-40 years after the event when if your lucky it was created a century later - a more conservative dating might show 150 years between the 'events' and the fragment?

 

[rynnor]

Do you guys ever wonder about death?

Do you think we are designed to live longer?

No - we are designed to maybe make 30 years prob mid 20s but society and decent diet/shelter has changed that.

I dont know what happens after death but then neither does anyone else despite many claims to the contrary but I do not fear it, its just a natural part of living.

Incrementally you have been die'ing since before birth and many cells of your body die and are replaced constantly.

 

[Wij]

We aren't designed at all

But that's a whole different argument involving why God thinks blind-spots are useful and cancer has a purpose

 

[Panda On Smack]

Heh, if evolution can be so amazing as to create the world we live in and our bodies don't you think it would have sussed out living longer?

 

[rynnor]

Heh, if evolution can be so amazing as to create the world we live in and our bodies don't you think it would have sussed out living longer?

Evolution is about genetic change though - it is best served by short lives and lots of breeding - immortality would = total stagnation of evolution.