patrick.net

michaelsch says

So they feed one another.

When I first heard that story, it was attributed to Viet Namese mythology. Christianity has tended to adopt stories and holidays from other traditions, and philosophies from other sources, and then pass them off as if invented by Christianity. Morality and moral philosophy seem an ironic focus for Christianity, which claims credit for a largely unnatural morality that it did not invent. A comment in another thread interested me though and has got me reading more about Nietzsche, who blamed Christianity for popularizing a secondary morality based on intentions in contrast to primary morality based on consequences.

curious2 says

michaelsch says

So they feed one another.

When I first heard that story, it was attributed to Viet Namese mythology. Christianity has tended to adopt stories and holidays from other traditions, and philosophies from other sources, and then pass them off as if invented by Christianity. Morality and moral philosophy seem an ironic focus for Christianity, which claims credit for a largely unnatural morality that it did not invent. A comment in another thread interested me though and has got me reading more about Nietzsche, who blamed Christianity for popularizing a secondary morality based on intentions in contrast to primary morality based on consequences.

When I first heard it it was attributed to the eastern Nestorian tradition, later on I read that is is a known Tibetian parable. BTW, this is not neccessary a contradiction, since there were many cross-relations between them. I did not say it is a Christian parable in my post. All I've said there is an ancient parable. It indeed reflects the Orthodox believe that there is no inherent difference between the Hell and Heaven, but only the difference in how people interact with the Real world of the New Earth.

Also, I don't see anything wrong with the ability to adopt good things from other traditions. Such an ability would be very beneficial to our Western arrogance, both Christian and Atheist.

michaelsch says

I don't see anything wrong with the ability to adopt good things from other traditions. Such an ability would be very beneficial to our Western arrogance....

I agree, and I happily acknowledge learning from some of your comments, and Dan's too. If the tone of my earlier post sounded peeved, that was based on a history of certain Christians claiming credit for things they did not invent and do not own exclusively, e.g. morality, and their tendency to re-write their own history in order to take over events (e.g. Christmas) and present the revision as literal history even though it isn't. It would be perfectly honest to say, the Pagans had a winter solstice festival and that seemed like a nice time for a holiday, and Christians didn't have a specific birthday for Jesus, so it was decided to set that holiday to coincide cooperatively with the earlier Pagan tradition. Alas a great many were converted by the sword, and their history buried deliberately with them, which wasn't so agreeable.

gracer says

ok, where is the scientific proof of a God? there is no physical proof.

Correct.

gracer says

you want to see proof of something before you believe in it.

Yes.

gracer says

the proof will be what you know in your own soul when you put your faith in Jesus Christ.

Faith = belief

I can't get this "proof" without belief and I can not believe that the Christian bible is true without proof.

I remain unconvinced.

curious2 says

their tendency to re-write their own history in order to take over events (e.g. Christmas) and present the revision as literal history even though it isn't.

Well, I think it's misrepresented. The Church never claims it knew when Jesus was born. First of all, in ancient time people paid no attention to such a nuisanse as a baby birth, birthday celebration is a relatively new phenomenon. The history of fixing the Nativity of Christ date in Europe is well known.

I maybe forgot some details but it happened in Europe, where there was an old winter feast period called Yule or similarly. It happened around the winter solstice. There was an ancient Christian celebration of the Theophany/Epiphany/Baptism of Jesus celebrated on Jan 6th. So the Church tried to "chistianize" the Yule celebration by extending its own feast. Initially it was all twelve days of celebrations of Theophany = appearance of God. (Therefore the 12 days of Christmas)
Later on Western Church somehow made the Dec 25th its main Holyday and pretty much forgot about the origins of this. Armenians, for example, still have a single celebration, which fall on Jan. 19th of Gregorian calender (our common one) and it is Jan 6th Julian calendar.
There was an additional development in Europe, which incorporated st. Nikolas -- a bysantine saint known for giving to the poor in the celebration. (He used to be commemorated in December). Together with the wise men from the East it created the gifts tradition.
The next development happened in the USA, when the preparation and fasting period prior to Christmas was completely forgotten and replaced with a constant festival before Christmas.
Finally, in the USA and now it spreads thru the world we got back an old pagan Holyday with only commercial meaning.

Even better the process may be illustrated by the Halloween, which was an old Celtic thing. Western Church tried to make an all saints day out of it and now it's back to what it used to be. Well maybe still without some cruel Celtic rituals.

All this has nothing to do with re-writing any history, since there was never any history related to the date of birth of Jesus. It definitely is an attempt to incorporate other traditions. Why not? BTW, it's very American approach. :)

Also an interesting question is about what year Jesus was born. Based on the fact that it had to be during last years of Herod the Great it could only happen no later than 4bc. The most common estimate is between 7bc and 4bc.

BTW, Christmas tree came from the same Northern Europe tradition. For example, it was unknown in Russia till the 18th century.

However I think it is beautiful.

michaelsch says

The Church never claims it knew when Jesus was born.

Thank you for the very interesting history synopsis but I must ask, Which Christian church never claims it knew when Jesus was born? I remember the Christmas carols, for example, "our Savior was born upon this day." (Checking online, I find "Christ, our Saviour Was born on Christmas day.") And of course the nativity scenes that are the subject of endless political quarrels when a "moral majority" faction takes over city hall and turns it into a theater of three kings with spices and whatnot. (Somehow the presenters never get around to giving out any actual spices, only revisionist history lessons.)

One good reason I will offer for why people want to believe in a God, it can help with civility, especially online. If people make a sincere effort to see each person as having been created in the unique image and likeness of God, and consider that God is watching them as they type, it can help promote civility in personal relationships and even online. Otherwise the Internet becomes a virtual Tower of Babel, which seems nearer the literal reality.

curious2 says

I remember the Christmas carols, for example, "our Savior was born upon this day."

Come on, can't you separate poetry from historic claims? Celebrations usually associate themselves with the event they celebrate. Personally, I may celebrate the Nativity of Christ on Dec 25th, or on Jan 7th, or on any date that I attend a service of this celebration, which may be any day between Dec 25th and Jan 18th, depends on the calender of a particular community. For each one of them singing "our Savior was born upon this day." or anything similar would be perfectly valid even if in reality Jesus was born on May 14th of the 5th year BC.

curious2 says

(Somehow the presenters never get around to giving out any actual spices, only revisionist history lessons.)

LOL, they also should give out some gold.

curious2 says

One good reason I will offer for why people want to believe in a God, it can help with civility, especially online. If people make a sincere effort to see each person as having been created in the unique image and likeness of God, and consider that God is watching them as they type, it can help promote civility in personal relationships and even online. Otherwise the Internet becomes a virtual Tower of Babel, which seems nearer the literal reality.

Well, one thing is "to see each person as having been created in the unique image and likeness of God" and as the result to treat each one you would like to be treated.
But "consider that God is watching them as they type" may be interpreted as feeling a policeman constantly watching you. That would be the lowest possible sort of a discipline. I don't know, maybe sometimes better than nothing, but I do not like this approach.

Besides, it makes valid the argument I cited in another thread:

I: But you should agree, dear A, it would be horrible would there be nothing above all this (they both agree that the human race is in very bad state).
A: Dear I, it would be even more horrible would there be someone on top of all this. ( = it is so horrible, that assuming there is someone who controls all of it makes it even worse)

The argument goes on forever.

michaelsch says

LOL, they also should give out some gold - both from their followers' tithes and from the municipal treasury.

Ah, but their purpose is to collect the gold.

In Brooklyn, Rabbi Menachem Schneerson used to give out $1 bills. His followers insisted he was the Messiah, so they wouldn't spend the $1 bills that he had touched. He kept saying to spend them, to no avail. Anyway, he died at age 92, and hasn't yet been resurrected as far as I know. Maybe he's waiting for his followers to finish spending all the $1 bills he gave them.

Pascal's Wager. Enough said. It is irrational to be an atheist.

BTW, religion is not about God. It is about control of people by people.

Peter P says

Pascal's Wager. Enough said. It is irrational to be an atheist.

Pascal's Wager assumes there is no cost to believing in a god. As the Middle East has painfully demonstrated, this is clearly not so.

One could even argue that a god would be far more pissed off at a person worshiping a false god or a false image of him, then not believing in his existence. As such, it is much more rational not to believe in a god.

What if Thor is the one true god? He'll be mighty pissed that you've been worshiping some dumb ass carpenter.

Dan8267 says

Pascal's Wager assumes there is no cost to believing in a god. As the Middle East has painfully demonstrated, this is clearly not so.

There is no cost in believing in a god. There is high cost in believing in a man-made RELIGION.

You cannot receive God's grace if you reject Him.

Dan8267 says

What if Thor is the one true god? He'll be mighty pissed that you've been worshiping some dumb ass carpenter.

But I watched The Avengers. He would be fine if I worship the Iron Man instead.

And since there is only one God, any god you worship is the true god, just with different names.

Peter P says

There is no cost in believing in a god. There is high cost in believing in a man-made RELIGION.

Christianity is a religion:

Has Dogma (even the lone statement of "Whomsoever believes upon me..." is enough to qualify as Dogma)

To say nothing of having a Holy Book, that almost all have a place of worship (even if it's a gathering in a home), etc.

thunderlips11 says

Christianity is a religion

Of course.

Peter P says

There is no cost in believing in a god. There is high cost in believing in a man-made RELIGION.

Acting on any false information has a cost. For example, if one really did accept the Christian afterlife myth, one would be morally obligated to kill babies. By killing babies, you ensure that their unblemished souls go to heaven. Any baby that lives and grows up enough to sin risks losing eternal bliss and enduring eternal torture. Therefore, it is a moral duty to save these babies' souls by killing the baby before it can sin. There is nothing in a finite life that can justify risking eternal damnation or the loss of eternal bliss.

Of course, you and I don't believe in killing babies because deep down we know the whole heaven myth is bullshit. Our actions show our true beliefs. But believing in a god that rights all wrongs in the afterlife most certainly has negative effects. It removes the motivation to strive for social justice in this life. How many peasants toiled away in misery for unjust lords during the Middle Ages just because they had the false belief that they would be rewarded in the afterlife.

Peter P says

You cannot receive God's grace if you reject Him.

Then your god is evil. A moral god would not require unquestioning faith in him, especially when that faith is first and foremost determined by what culture you are born into. All native Americans before 1492 most certainly worshiped non-Christian gods. Today, almost a billion Hindu people worship various non-Christian gods. Only an immoral dickwad would send them all to hell for being born to the wrong parents.

I would make a far better god than your fictitious god. For one thing, I wouldn't screw people's chances for eternal bliss or risk eternal damnation simply because of being unlucky enough to be born in the wrong time or place. That's fucking sadistic.

Of course, maybe you're right and the one true god does insist you worship him and no other god or you burn in hell, but maybe that god is Asgaya Gigagei, in which case you're fucked. At least I can plead ignorance. You're the one worshiping a false competitor of his and downright disrespecting him.

Peter P says

And since there is only one God, any god you worship is the true god, just with different names.

Tell that to all the pagans like Hindus and Native Americans.

Dan8267 says

Then your god is evil. A moral god would not require unquestioning faith in him, especially when that faith is first and foremost determined by what culture you are born into.

God is beyond good and evil. But faith is all about YOU.

Today, Dec 6th used to be the st. Nicholas day.

Here is a Polish cartoon I think it's funny.

She says something like: "Which (st.) Nicholas do you (try to) depict, an idiot (you)!"

Peter P says

God is beyond good and evil.

No sentient being would be beyond good and evil. Any sentient being claiming such a thing is likely evil. If your god raped babies and clubbed old ladies, then your god would be evil.

... Or told people to kill all the women and children, except the virgins.
... or asked that a dude go through all the motions of sacrificing his son, just to stop him a the last minute.

I never got the last one. If God is omniscient, then he knows Abraham's loyalty without testing it. Job too.

thunderlips11 says

... Or told people to kill all the women and children, except the virgins.
... or asked that a dude go through all the motions of sacrificing his son, just to stop him a the last minute.

... or advocated slavery. That Christian god is such an asshole. He's not only for the Roots kind of slavery, he's also for sexual slavery of minors. Yep, the Christian god, according to the Bible, is in favor of pedo-rape.

Exodus 21:7-10
21:7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.
21:8 If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.
21:9 And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters.
21:10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.

Yep, your post also reveals the non-universal nature of the OT; "Strange Nation". I also loved the women and child killing on God's orders.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/num/31.html

What is interesting is that the Hebrew fighters spared most of the conquered people, but God and Moses were Wroth, having given clear instructions to kill everyone but the young virgins.

Some mercy!

Slavery is not condemned in the NT, either, as the Confederates pointed out to various Yankee "Mainstream" Religious groups who tried to couch their anti-slavery in the Bible and Exodus.

One of Jesus' parables is about obedient slaves working in their Master's interest when he is away. Paul also lectures slaves on obedience.

BTW, now that I read the Bible with adult eyes and the benefit of reading non-"History Channel BS" archeology of ancient Israel, I notice all the careful points about tithing and sharing the booty with the Priests therein.

thunderlips11 says

BTW, now that I read the Bible with adult eyes and the benefit of reading non-"History Channel BS" archeology of ancient Israel, I notice all the careful points about tithing and sharing the booty with the Priests therein.

Yes, human nature remains constant; religion was largely about money and faith healing all along. Read the story of Bethesda, for example. Human frailty is universal, and faith healers have always exploited it. People want to believe their condition will improve, and they will pay to hear what they want. PhRMA is only occasionally better: the goal is to make $, any benefit to patients is merely incidental. Reading both the OT and the NT is a bit like reading the history of the 20th century as told by Jim Jones, Pat Robertson, and Raymond Gilmartin.

I hear that Christanity is heavily influenced by Buddhism, which in turn is heavily influenced by Hinduism. Buddhist monks traveled up to Italy to spread the word. Also there are articles showing christ visiting India and hanging out with indian monks . Its only 800 miles (couple of months walk or boat time) where he was

Why do people confuse God with some man-made religions?

Peter P says

Why do people confuse God with some man-made religions?

That's a good question. The answer is because organized religions, almost by definition, purport to tell you what "God wants." The obvious contradiction is, if an omnipotent god wanted you to know something, you would know it; an omnipotent god wouldn't need preachers to "spread the word." As a former priest explained to me, and this took me years to understand fully, "Organized religion is fundamentally about the denial of God." As soon as man puts one stone atop another to build a church, man puts himself above God, deciding what God wants, and building something that obviously no omnipotent god had wanted to build. No omnipotent god can ever need your help, but organized religion depends on preventing donors from realizing that tautological fact.