"I don't believe in God," or "I believe there is no God?"

[Crahsystor]

Well, your definition of God is problemetic. Well, this would only cover in religion groups that includes ONE SINGLE DIETY. And se we know it, many religion groups have more than one/god/goddess/

 

Yes, I know this. The one I used is just one of many possible definitions of a God. I belive that its impossible to forge a definition of god that would adequatly and univocaly describe all and any dieties worshipped around the world. I decided to use this definition because it desribes the three major monotheistic religions that are practiced by over 50% of the worlds population.

[Darth InSidious]

:: Example of going beyond the Bible ::

If you were to consider literary history, (when one book was created versus another), you will notice that the Noah's Arch story was a complete mimic of an older one. Gilgamesh is the oldest literary ever know. Noah's story was told an estimated 1,000 years before it was rewritten into the Bible. However, the character in Gilgamesh was a mortal who was granted immortality, and he was given the job as guardian between life and death. When you read Noah and Gilgamesh, you get the sense that Noah's story may have been a rewritten copy.

It is literarily impossible to prove that the one was intentionally written into the other. As far as I'm aware, the Babylonian society that spawned the Gilgamesh legend was gone by the time of the Israelites, and the country was Zoroastrian. But I could well be horribly wrong here.

Another interesting biblical and historical debate is that: Jesus Christ's story was inspired by Pantara's; however, the debate is so contriversial that Christian groups have called it sacroligious (sp?).

"sacreligious". actually "sacrilegious" ~tk - Bah! Do you know how difficult being Incapable of Error is?

 

And I have never heard of Pantara. Are you sure this spelling is correct?

 

Another character from literary history that was written before Jesus's story was about Hercules. If you remember your mythology, Hercules was a half god and half mortal. He was the son of Zeus (the main Olympian god), and he lived amonst man. Sound familiar?

 

However,

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood;

 

truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body;

 

consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood;

 

in all things like unto us, without sin;

 

A position well backed up in scripture. So not very much like Hercules, whose tale differs drastically from Jesus' and fits into a more distinct mythological genre.

 

When it comes to believing in a Christian god or not, I believe that each individual needs to find his/her connection. Remember, I am also only looking at Christianity, for my knowledge on Budha is only through art, graves, and sculpture. I only know what I have learned from art history. Budha also has Christian themes, or Christianity has Budha themes. It depends on when the literature or religion is placed in historical context. It is rumored that Jesus, between the ages of 12 and 29, visited Budha temples to learn about how religion is made. The only conundrum is that we do not have any information, including the bible, which tells us about Jesus's life in his missing years. We can only speculate. Unless we have some solid historical proof that Jesus was here or there, we may never know the whole story about Jesus' adolesent years.

Given the distances involved and the culture of 1st century Palestine, its extremely unlikely to me. Consider, also, that this was not, in all probability a wealthy man; such a journey seems to me to be impractical. One should alaso consider his minute knowledge of the Jewish scriptures - that took time to learn. While there are similarities between Buddhism and Christianity, Jesus would have found Buddhism's atheism repellent, and there is no mention of such a concept in the gospels. The Catholic Encyclopaedia can find no historical basis for such a link. The Yavanas Greeks may simply have been Greeks closer to India than the Greeks of Greece as we now recognise it. The Alassada mentioned by Buddhist texts is more likely to be Alexandria ad Caucasum.

[Achilles]

It is literarily impossible to prove that the one was intentionally written into the other.

The larger problem here (i.e. not specific to jesus vs. gilgamesh) is the problem of themes. Yes, it may be literally impossible to "prove" that one set of myths is written into another, however it only necessary to show that such themes existed to prove that one set of myths is neither special nor unique.

 

A position well backed up in scripture.

Just so I'm clear, are you arguing that because a one set of religious interpretation is supported by another set of religious interpretation it is somehow valid?

 

So not very much like Hercules, whose tale differs drastically from Jesus' and fits into a more distinct mythological genre.

How would you define "distinct mythological genre"? Would gods fit into this genre? Demigods? How about creation stories? Flood stories? End-of-the-world stories? Every mythology I've ever studied includes all of these things...including christianity.

[Darth InSidious]

The larger problem here (i.e. not specific to jesus vs. gilgamesh) is the problem of themes. Yes, it may be literally impossible to "prove" that one set of myths is written into another, however it only necessary to show that such themes existed to prove that one set of myths is neither special nor unique.

Umm...yes? I fail to see how this disproves the underlying theme, or even disproves the 'myth' itself...yes, elements can be similar, but this does not mean that one story is the same story as another.

 

Just so I'm clear, are you arguing that because a one set of religious interpretation is supported by another set of religious interpretation it is somehow valid?

I am arguing that Jesus was not thought of as a demi-god.

How would you define "distinct mythological genre"? Would gods fit into this genre? Demigods? How about creation stories? Flood stories? End-of-the-world stories? Every mythology I've ever studied includes all of these things...including christianity.

I was thinking actually about "Heroic Fella Does Epic Deeds Of A Specified Number".

[Achilles]

Umm...yes? I fail to see how this disproves the underlying theme, or even disproves the 'myth' itself...yes, elements can be similar, but this does not mean that one story is the same story as another.

Well of course not. You have to change the names and places. Duh!

 

The fact is that the christian myth is neither unique nor special. If the circumstances of his life, sacrifice, death, and resurrection are what cause people to flock that that belief system, then they at least deserve to know that this isn't the only shop selling that story. It doesn't even have the honor of being the first.

 

I am arguing that Jesus was not thought of as a demi-god.

One mortal parent and one divine parent. Jesus christ had one of each, didn't he? Or are we going to accept the adoptionists doctrine of divinity?

 

I was thinking actually about "Heroic Fella Does Epic Deeds Of A Specified Number".

Like turning water into wine, walking on water, curing the sick, raising the dead, and so on?

[PoiuyWired]

To be fair, the whole Trinity mumbo jumbo is just a bunch of made up stuff done in the last 200 years or so. While I forgot the exact date of such decision being made by the church, it is indeed true that pior to that the Holy Spirit part of the thing is not included pior, and it used to be Binity:

 

Where the Galaxy is ruled by Father and Son.

 

Before that? Well, there was a time where Even Binity is not defined. So there is the Father, there is the Son, but they are not One. These are all parts of the evolution of the religion, where things like ideas and dogma changes, by mostly human hands.

 

To be fair I personally don't think that these specific detail of things would validate/invalidate the argument on the topic of Existance of a Supreme Diety though.

 

Obviously the story of any famous people, real or fictional, are to be beautified, modified and execggerated. And doing so by following some typical "themes" are often of human nature, usually to indicate the extra qualities of the said famous personality. And sometimes these "special qualities" are developed from either previous legands, or just legands that seem to re-occurr on separate groups individurally with little contact between each other.

 

1) The great diety usually send his message from the sky, quite often involve a beam of sunray/moonray. (somehow usually it is "from above" and things "from below" are usually bad)

 

2) Virgin Birth seem to be a common theme all around the world, to denote a person's lineage "not from this world" Obvious variations would be impragnation by gods/spirits/etc in a non human form. This is to denote the "Not Human" Quality of a famous person, good or bad. Usually this is used to explain his special abilities.

 

3) Exile, tests, etc. This seems to be another popular theme. The saide person usually either go on a long trip alone, or is mentally alone doing meditation/coma/etc and returns with new knowledge. Obviously the adventures of this trip bares little witness, and is usually either self-told story by the said person, or later made up by followers.

 

4) Power of curing the sick, revival, etc abilities of healing. Seems to be the most common form of ability, back in the days medical knowledge is relatively poor. So yes even some common medical practise nowadays can be seen as magical. Plus, there can be some Placebo effect in some cases. Things like asian bone connecting techniques and other mystical simple use of herbs can be seen as magical to many.

 

5) Super Human Strength. Nuff said, We are still using this power in all tales nowadays.

 

etc (to be continued)

 

Point? I am not proving/disproving any miracles, but I am saying that sometimes a miracle may not be as big as it seems in a book written by humans, and the actual event might be something much more simple than it sounds. Plus, to be fair, it would be a boring book if everything is described in extreme details since that is not the focus of the books, esp when it is probably designed to be preached to many less educated people.

 

Oh, even if you CAN understand how the miracle might be performed, would you advertise this to the whole world? Either out of fear or more practical reasons this ould not be mentioned. Plus, it does seem that some of the believers are able to perform some degree of paranormal skills.