Naah, that was "Christianity according to Paul". I could do a little personality formulation on him (his background gives some interesting clues) but I won't digress. Leaps of faith are not a mental illness. Otherwise we're all crazy. No, wait...
I dislike organised religion as much as anyone, but if in a debate I wouldn't insult them, I'd explain why they were wrong. Besides, who is mentally ill in a relative society. Issues are not black and white.
No, but religion can involve faith and spirituality. Don't chuck the Salvation Army on the same pire as the Spanish Inquisition.
Good stuff. To the majority of people this is going to look stupid and ridiculous, and the more people that see any religion as stupid and ridiculous the better.
Oooo, a swing and a miss! I actually I think we are capable of some significant changes on our own but, like you, I am convinced that we don't have what it takes to fix ourselves enough to reach God on our own. Some may then lay the blame for that at the feet of God. I say the big guy has shoulders broader than we can imagine and can take the blame. Then I ask if those same people can then admit that they need God if He can take that blame. The genuine military strategist point of view. Considering that Paul wrote significant portion of the New Testament I'd say that "Christianity according to Paul" is not outside the realm of what it means to be a Christian. (& for me becoming a Christian wasn't a "Leap" but simply another step on my path - more like stepping into another room than a leap)
Paul gave his own distinct take on Christianity. Earlier scrolls by e.g. Matthew paint a different picture. Interestingly, there are striking similarities between the story of Jesus, that of the Hindu god Krisha and even Buddha. Krishna was conceived by a virgin and his birth was attended by angels, wise men and shepherds. Buddha was also the result of a miraculous birth and visited by wise men bearing gifts. Some archetypal ideas persist through all cultures.
I believe there were actually quite a few saviors around that time, and of course similarities with other stories as you say. Still, I've not heard anything more awesome than a gun toting armour plated zombie jew wandering around 'judging' people.
The book of Matthew has a different focus - just as each of the other Gospels do, and indeed as most of the writings in the Bible do. I'd like to know where you got that. I saw a YouTube video once that claimed that, and a bunch of other stuff, but most of it was bogus (made up lies) as far as I could tell. You didn't see that and believe it did you? As I Christian I sometimes see badly done attempts of other Christians to prove or disprove something and I am embarrassed. (Though there are also attempts which I feel are excellent and even successful.) If I was an atheist I'd be embarrassed by that video. .oO(Perhaps that's why comments for that video were not allowed.) Here's a quick example of what my research found (from Wikipedia): "Krishna was of the royal family of Mathura, and was the eighth son born to the princess Devaki, and her husband Vasudeva." That doesn't sound like being "conceived by a virgin" to me. There had indeed been a few that claimed to be the prophesied Messiah - Israel wanted a savior - but, even though he was rejected by a large portion of the population, no one had the impact that Jesus had. The rest are footnotes in the pages of history.
It is only well documented in the bible that Jesus had a large presence, and even so, Muhammad and Buddha also made a huge difference, so much much of a proof.
Indeed many "normal" humans have had large effects on history so I agree that effect on history is not a proof of divinity (nor is founding a religion). My point was that if person's effect on history is pretty much nil, or mostly negative, then I'd say that would tilt the balance against them being anything more than human (and definitely Not the promised savior).
Actually, Jesus is one of the most recorded figures of His time outside of the bible as well. One of the few people to be written of by name, most historical figures of His type get a passing nod if that, but the works of many historians talk of the uprisings of the early church, and record such as the veracity of the death of one Jesus, often misinterpreting the term Christ as another term, Chrestus, but given the declension of the name, it's quite possible that it was a clerical goof (we know they exist, but thankfully none in any places that affect doctrinal beliefs) and in all cases the stories match. Some good reading on the subject is "The Case For Christ" and "The Case for The Real Jesus," two books written by Lee Strobel, an atheist journalist turned fierce apologist by the scientific evidence for the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Quite honestly, there's more historical evidence that Jesus rose from the dead than there is about the birth of the internet. And we all know how much we use that every day... There is real, hard science behind the book, but so few take the time to sit and actually study it. Time in my theology major has shown me that Christ and science are not incompatible, but rather inextricable. Paul's writings, by the way, clearly expound on the themes given in the Gospels. Jesus Himself stated that there is nobody good but God, which means none of us are either. Accepting that fact is the first step to making a change. As long as people foolishly insist that we are born innately good, these problems will continue. I mean, I don't ever have to teach my children to do wrong. I do, however, have to invest lots of time in making sure that they do right, and not just give an appearance of doing so. Every person here if they were honest with themselves has the propensity and often the will to do bad things, and most of the time the only mitigating factor is social stigma/fear of punishment, not a wish to be better. Nowadays we just write it off as "perfectly natural" or "kinda odd" or "part of growing up", when it ought to be handled as a behavior that should be curtailed (premarital sex, etc) but we wonder why the world goes to pot? Faith is not a mental illness. I see plenty of benefits to it, and mental illness by definition doesn't really confer that many benefits.
You'll find much of the mythology in both testaments but more so the old testament mirrors the mythology of the many of the cultures that have gone before and in a few hundred years i'm sure they will mirror again... Flood mythology for example is recorded in your Noah stories but also in mythologies from greek, roman and other cultures across the world, Roman in fact borrows from virtually every culture it enveloped right down to the enveloping of Christianity when the numbers hit critical mass and it became a case if you can't beat them. Virgin birth is another, we all know the story of Heracles, virgin birth. There really is nothing new in either of your books or in any others i suspect if you really tired you'd find cave paintings you could interpret just as judiciously. So tell me why are these stories wrong and yours correct?
I believe the history of the internet is well documented, plus we have the proof connected to our computers. The presence of a zombie Jew is not as great as that of the internet.
Great, so itll be like middle ages when Catholics went around killing people and generally causing havoc, fantastic.
Well, let's ask a Hindu, shall we? Oh, look: God says: "I am the beginning and the end". Krishna is God incarnated on Earth. Where have we heard all this before? Krisha's birth is prophesied. Again an evil king goes slaughtering babies to prevent the prophecy from coming true. As for the virgin birth: the virginal state of Mary when she conceived Jesus is a matter of debate. Paul and the author(s) of the Gospel of John appear to directly reject the concept. The author of the Gospel of Mark appears to have been unaware of it. The authors of Matthew and Luke accepted the belief. The virginal state of Devaki is also a matter of debate. One tradition states that Krishna was her eighth child. Another states that it was a virgin birth: the divine Vishnu himself descended into the womb of Devaki and was born as her son Krishna. Other similarities reported: - Yeshua and Krishna were called both a God and the Son of God. - Both was sent from heaven to earth in the form of a man. - Both were called Savior, and the second person of the Trinity. - The adoptive human father was a carpenter. - A deity was their actual father. - Both were visited at birth by wise men and shepherds, guided by a star. - ngels in both cases issued a warning that the local dictator planned to kill the baby and had issued a decree for his assassination. The parents fled. Mary and Joseph stayed in Muturea; Krishna's parents stayed in Mathura. - Both Yeshua and Krishna withdrew to the wilderness as adults, and fasted. - Both were identified as "the seed of the woman bruising the serpent's head." - Jesus was called "the lion of the tribe of Judah." Krishna was called "the lion of the tribe of Saki." - Both claimed: "I am the Resurrection." - Both referred to themselves having existed before their birth on earth. - Both were "without sin." - Both were god-men: being considered both human and divine. - They were both considered omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. - Both performed many miracles, including the healing of disease. One of the first miracles that both performed was to make a leper whole. Each cured "all manner of diseases." - Both cast out indwelling demons, and raised the dead. - Both selected disciples to spread his teachings. - Both were meek, and merciful. Both were criticized for associating with sinners. - Both encountered a Gentile woman at a well. - Both celebrated a last supper. Both forgave his enemies. - Both descended into Hell, and were resurrected. Many people witnessed their ascensions into heaven. True. Islam is the fastest growing religion, Hinduism and Buddhism have been widespread for centuries. Apples are not the only fruit. Careful now. The historical impact of Christianity, as Jesus' "effect on history", so to speak, has been a mixed bag to say the least. Not his fault, of course, but the point remains. And how do you feel about Ghandi? Now there's a recent prophet who made a positive impact on history. What about Martin Luther King? Flawed being, for sure, definitely not another Jesus. But his positive contribution to history and humanity cannot be denied. Exactly. One of the problems in debating these issues is that any religious person treats their scriptures as "facts", and other scriptures as just "stories". One Christian went as far as to submit as fact that Jesus had died and resurrected that the scriptures said so. I'm sorry, but that is not the basis for a sound debate.
I only had time to give this a quick glance but a search of that page gives no result on the word virgin (which is the specific claim you quoted). I'll have to get back to the rest when I more time. That's a long list of claims and I find it interesting that you quote it. I suspect that you don't believe most (or any) of those claims anyway. Besides that: simply proving that someone else has made a similar claim in no way disproves the claim of another.
It doesn't disprove it, but when you have at least three stories all very similar indeed yes all seperate from each other then it doesn't exactly corroborate the story of Jesus, hell, we don't even know he existed.
I don't believe them any more or less than the story of Jesus. I'm not saying there wasn't a Jesus --there have been many prophets in history (one of the most recent being Ghandi). But stories get embellished over time, because we want to believe, and like good memes do, they start taking on a life of their own. They are archetypal stories. We have thousands of them, in every culture. Since the dawn of time people all over the world have had the same dreams, needs and desires. They all want to believe in benign, all-powerful beings looking out for them in a cold, harsh universe (hell, who doesn't?). They all want to believe in a saviour who will come and make it All Alright. They all imagine what such a saviour would be like. He (or she) would embody all the characteristics and values that we project on our parents, and aspire to for ourselves. Wisdom, stength, love, courage, compassion, unselfishness, integrity. Of course, this has to be reflected in their very origins. They are a bridge between God and man --a bit of both. They are the personification of Good battling with and triumphing over Evil. People are not born saints. We declare them saints because we need to believe in saints. It is hero/idol worship. Mother Theresa or Ghandi, Wonder Woman or Superman. Their lives and deeds inpire us, and give us faith, hope and meaning. We tell their stories and dream of being a bit like them. It's not a bad ideal to aspire to. To me, the question of whether Jesus (or Buddha, or Krishna, or Mohammed) actually existed is beside the point. Don't need the miracles, don't need the relics. What is more significant to me is that people all over the world appear to have this shared ideal that is an example and inspiration, of a kind, wise, noble being, the best of all things human. And in pursuing that ideal, perhaps we become a little bit better ourselves.
