similarities between religions might result from commonalities in human nature
evolution is very close to fact, to completeness in its domain, and it does not share the gravitational theory's weakness. nor the gravitational theory's strength, for that matter - its easily grasped existence
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+Apr 3 2005, 11:10 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Apr 3 2005, 11:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Legionnaired+Apr 3 2005, 08:56 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Apr 3 2005, 08:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+Apr 3 2005, 04:15 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Apr 3 2005, 04:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> According to basic theological studies leginaired most legends actually come from exaggerated facts. Not the other way around. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You dodged the question. Again.
Is it, or is it not, possible for a fictional story to be invented long before a true story greatly resembling the false one, even almost identical? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually I didn't, I pointed out how I was taught. That is the answer you wanted.
In addition, attempting to use such a how did sky put it "pigeon-holed" question in a very... lack of mature nature to pressure one in to conceeding was rather silly.
When you do decide to go on to college, I would reccommend taking a basic theological course that covers all religions, that way you will have some appreciation for where I am coming from and perhaps a bit more understand will emerge from that.
Also, do not try to say I don't know where you are coming from, I grew up in a very strict lutheran family, which later decided catholism was better. I'm not sure how my mother picked that.. but that is neither here nor now.
How about instead you actually go out and find a document stating that your religion pre-dates all of these other ones by written record. (Keep in mind written record does pre-date all religions by around 7-8 thousand years, yes even egyptian) Oh, wait, you can't do that. I apologize legionaired, if I seem a bit sarcastic, but this is growing annoying.
All you are doing is using circular logic in a horrible attempt at proving your case correct. How about using facts instead. That is all I have asked for and I have yet to see even one fact from you, or any of your sources.
I have seen vague references to books that I can't find even using leet google hax. I have also called barnes & noble, who actually do have a quite large bookstore here in SF, and they don't even know what book your source was talking about. (Specifically the one that has all these so-called drawings from the hindu scripts, I have yet to see a single hindu script that has drawings in their religious text. The hinu people in all of my experience, have always been a very literate group they have almost never had to rely upon pictures to get their point across. Probably the easiest of the religions, other then buddism/janism to get across is besides the point.)
You find me those facts, then we can discuss this further. Untill then, stop with the circular logic and actually attempt to refute by using facts.
Also a note to sky, kudos for disassembling something forty mintues earlier so I didn't have to waste my time on it. I award you the offical accolade of tolerance.
*edited for grammar/clarity/spelling* <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> So you, the pinnacle of tolerance and logic, demand proof that my religion was first, when <b>I HAVE ALWAYS CLAIMED THAT THE NEW TESTAMENT WAS WRITTEN IN THE FIRST CENTURY CE.</b>
It's like saying that to prove that my car is red, post a picture of my car, but green.
I'm not questioning the fact that the hindu and egyptian religions predate Christianity. What I AM disputing, is if that has any relevance. You'd think after at least 10 posts, you would have gotten this by now, yet, instead, you choose the question you want to hear.
If it is possible for fiction to predate fact, then you have to <i>prove</i> conclusively enough reasonable doubt to assume that the two religions got their start from the same myths. You also have to prove that Jesus never actually existed, since predictive prophecy in the old testament gives one hell of a good argument that if he did in fact exist, that he was who he said he was.
If I recall correctly, the list you posted comparing the similarities between Jesus and other religious figures was either so general it couldn't miss, used sketchy translating techniques, or failed to present any real beef.
If you say it is NOT possible for fiction to predate parallel fact, then my above comment proves you wrong. In the above example, we have the fictional character Michel Ardan from Jules Verne's "From the Earth to the Moon," and in the second, Edwin Aldrin, who was on Apollo 11. "From the Earth to the Moon" is dated 1865.
Either you prove that the writers of the New Testament entirely made up the character of Jesus, and that they based him off of earlyer legends, or you have no case. The burden of proof is on you.
Both of you are wrong. Cyndane, now you really did misinterpret his question. Legionnaired, as I already said in my post, that example doesn't prove (or more accurately disprove) anything. Now both of you calm down, this isn't going anywhere.
HAMBoneProbably the best CommanderJoin Date: 2003-04-02Member: 15139Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
There aren't many things that take as much faith to believe in as evolution, it is completely a religion, there is nothing scientific about it, there is no factual basis for anything other than inter-species adaptation, a missing link has never been found between any two species, science is about OBSERVATION, and the theory of evolution is something that has never been observed, so it is NOT SCIENCE, it is RELIGION, the idea that a lifeless void could bring life is in fact scientifically impossible, if you have any evidence supporting evolution other than adaptation within a species then please enlighten me, because i can't find it anywhere, if you believe in evolution, you are either afraid of god or you have been misled.
<!--QuoteBegin-Sky+Apr 4 2005, 01:18 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Apr 4 2005, 01:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Both of you are wrong. Cyndane, now you really did misinterpret his question. Legionnaired, as I already said in my post, that example doesn't prove (or more accurately disprove) anything. Now both of you calm down, this isn't going anywhere. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> It does prove my point.
If possible for coincidence, burden of proof on Cyndane to show Christianity was directly influenced by egyptian/hindu scriptures.
If not possible for coincidence, above example shows such coincidences can and do occur.
<!--QuoteBegin-HAMBone+Apr 4 2005, 06:36 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (HAMBone @ Apr 4 2005, 06:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> There aren't many things that take as much faith to believe in as evolution, it is completely a religion, there is nothing scientific about it <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You didn't need to post anything after that, it reveals your ignorance of the issue sufficiently to convince all sane people to ignore the rest. But I'm sure Apos will come in here and set you straight.
Actually sky of the two of us I am quite calm. <!--QuoteBegin-legionaired+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (legionaired)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So you, the pinnacle of tolerance and logic, demand proof that my religion was first, when I HAVE ALWAYS CLAIMED THAT THE NEW TESTAMENT WAS WRITTEN IN THE FIRST CENTURY CE. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If that is the case, then I really don't have anything more to say, but I shall post the following links so that you may read them.
I have posted my "case" as you call it before and you simply dismissed it without even glancing at the links.
Specifically the three god-men. Keep in mind this is just a list of what is simliar and what is not. It doesn't say one is right or one isn't. <a href='http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jckr1.htm' target='_blank'>Hindu and Christianity (NT Era).</a>
Horus (not Osiris) and Yeshua. <a href='http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5.htm' target='_blank'>Egyptian and Christianity (NT era)</a>
Greek aka Osiris-Dionysus(Greek name copied from eyptian changed a bit it looks like to more reflect Horus then Osiris) <a href='http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa2.htm' target='_blank'>Greek and Christianity (NT Era)</a>
*edited line here* I wanted to post one more link about how christianity definately shares quite a few stories with other pagan religions. I found it interesting, and I hope anyone else does as well. <a href='http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa1.htm' target='_blank'>Christianity similarities with other pagan religions.</a> */edit*
See what I love about unbiased sites is they simply present the commonalities and then you get to make up your own mind.
A bit of a more biased book but no more so then most of the sites some have posted. <i> The Jesus Mysteries: Was the 'original Jesus' a Pagan god? </i> by, Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy
This one, you can actually find at amazon.com, or conversely your local book store, if they can order books that is.
*Addendum 2*
I have never said I was the pinnacle of logic nor tolerance. I simply stated that you really don't know what you are talking about when referring to other religions because, you have never studied them, probably for a few reasons. I don't even know what the reasons are, and I am not going to guess. You could misunderstand and it has happened before. (The misunderstanding part)
That is why I asked you for some unbiased proof for backing up the christianity claim, I know you can't make it yourself, since you have no level of detail into the other religions. So, show me the proof and we can move on to the next point of this discussion, not that I am sure where that will be.
<!--QuoteBegin-HAMBone+Apr 4 2005, 06:36 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (HAMBone @ Apr 4 2005, 06:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> There aren't many things that take as much faith to believe in as evolution, it is completely a religion, there is nothing scientific about it, there is no factual basis for anything other than inter-species adaptation, a missing link has never been found between any two species, science is about OBSERVATION, and the theory of evolution is something that has never been observed, so it is NOT SCIENCE, it is RELIGION, the idea that a lifeless void could bring life is in fact scientifically impossible, if you have any evidence supporting evolution other than adaptation within a species then please enlighten me, because i can't find it anywhere, if you believe in evolution, you are either afraid of god or you have been misled. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=89840' target='_blank'>Read. Learn. Win.</a> Sidenote: As a newcomer in the Discussion forum, insulting the vast majority of scientists from all cultures and religions in one fell swoop is probably not the best approach. Also, isn't fear of God a tenement of piety? Just wondering how fearing God and becoming a scientist were related. <!--QuoteBegin-Legionnaired+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It does prove my point.
If possible for coincidence, burden of proof on Cyndane to show Christianity was directly influenced by egyptian/hindu scriptures.
If not possible for coincidence, above example shows such coincidences can and do occur.
Either way, Cyndane has a case to make.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Undoubtedly she does have a case to make. I'm having difficulty believing this theory myself. However I <u>do</u> see that it is scientifically speaking a sound theory, one that definitely requires further research. You, however, demanded that Cyndane give up with the theory and stop arguing for it - <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Either you prove that the writers of the New Testament entirely made up the character of Jesus, and that they based him off of earlyer legends, or you have no case. The burden of proof is on you. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> simply because there is another way of thinking. That is not right. Obviously there is much to prove, and obviously Cyndane has no way of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that her theory is correct. Proving beyond any shadow of a doubt is notoriously difficult when looking into the past, but this knee-jerk reaction to new theories is what kills real science.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+Apr 3 2005, 04:15 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Apr 3 2005, 04:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Kudos KFDM, that site is partially unbiased. It took me a while to read it which is why I was so long in responding it does have some interesting articles, but then some of them are so far-fetched.. but the same can be said for any religious site that is trying to promote itself. I think I shall add it to my already large list of sites that are partially unbiased and I shall shift through the articles to find the good ones. Then I shall use them to link to. Thank you.
*edit 2* I just can't stop laughing at this one. I'm sorry if that offends anyone but I have to share this lovely story on how the bible and dinosaurs relate. (Keep in mind there is not a single scientific fact in the entire article.) <a href='http://answersingenesis.org/docs/2.asp' target='_blank'>Dinosaurs and the Bible.</a> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> No... AiG is a joke. It's simply unbelievable what lengths of denial people will go to to keep thinking that they are right.
And I see in your 2nd edit you saw that AiG was a joke, GJ <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-http://www.religioustolerance.org/credentials.htm+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (http://www.religioustolerance.org/credentials.htm)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Our site authors are identified in the copyright notice which is near the bottom of almost all essays.
Almost all of the over 2,480 essays and menus on this web site were written by our main author, Bruce A Robinson. He is a graduate of the University of Toronto, class of 1959, with a BaSc (Bachelor of Applied Science) degree in Engineering Physics. He worked for a large multi-national chemical company for 38 years before taking a "golden handshake" and early retirement during a company downsizing. During his employment, he functioned as a specialist in the development of electronic instrumentation, as a computer programmer working in process computing, and as a supervisor. Technical writing formed a major part of his work assignment.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This guy has no training and ABSOLUTELY NO CREDENTIALS WHATSOEVER.
Now that we've gotten that out of the way...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Egyptian and Christianity (NT era)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's a nice list, written by two scholars <i>in the 1700-1800's.</i> Cite the Egyptian originals, prove to me that the Egyptian religion actually did teach these things, and we'll go from the original text. None of this paraphraised Gerald Massey or Godfrey Higgins crap.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Perhaps the only pagan god for whom there is a resurrection is the Egyptian Osiris. Close examination of this story shows that it is very different from Christ's resurrection. Osiris did not rise; he ruled in the abode of the dead. As biblical scholar, Roland de Vaux, wrote, "What is meant of Osiris being 'raised to life?' Simply that, thanks to the ministrations of Isis, he is able to lead a life beyond the tomb which is an almost perfect replica of earthly existence. But he will never again come among the living and will reign only over the dead.… This revived god is in reality a 'mummy' god."... No, the mummified Osiris was hardly an inspiration for the resurrected Christ...As Yamauchi observes, "Ordinary men aspired to identification with Osiris as one who had triumphed over death." But it is a mistake to equate the Egyptian view of the afterlife with the biblical doctrine of resurrection. To achieve immortality the Egyptian had to meet three conditions: First, his body had to be preserved by mummification. Second, nourishment was provided by the actual offering of daily bread and beer. Third, magical spells were interred with him. His body did not rise from the dead; rather elements of his personality-his Ba and Ka-continued to hover over his body. ["The Resurrection of Jesus Christ: Myth, Hoax, or History?" David J. MacLeod, in The Emmaus Journal, V7 #2, Winter 98, p169]<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Notice I cited journal, chapter and page. Notice too that MacLeod is a PUBLISHED SCHOLAR, unlike our computer-programmer-turned-theologian.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Hindu and Christianity (NT Era).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
All you have here is paralell phraises. These suggest more a universal human thread behind the writers, writing from human experience, than from a rehashed myth. Don't believe me? Break out your copy of the Vedas, (You DO have one, right?) and give me book, chapter, and verse where these claims are grounded. Can't do it? Then it's crap, just like every other link you've posted from Religioustolerance.org.
The fact of the matter is, you post list-based arguments, whose works-cited page includes NONE of the original texts, but only 17-18th century rumor-mongers. And, may I re-iterate one more time, the person writing the article in the first place has no training in hermanutics, ancient history, religious studies, or anything else. He is grossly unqualified.
Oh legionaired, I do wish you would read the entire bibilographies that are listed on the pages.
I shall quote some for you.
<!--QuoteBegin-Pagan similarities+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pagan similarities)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> References: <b> 1. J. Goodwin, "Mystery Religions of the Ancient World," Thames & Hudson, (1981), Page 28. Quoted in Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy, "The Jesus Mysteries: Was the 'Original Jesus' a Pagan God?" Acacia Press, (1999), Page 49. Read reviews or order this book safely from Amazon.com online book store </b> <i> Note well after the "1800s" </i>
<b> 2. "Mithra," Barbara G. Walker, "The Woman's encyclopedia of myths and secrets," Harper & Row, (1996), Pages 663 to 665. Read reviews or order this book </b> <i> Again </i> 3. Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy, "The Jesus Mysteries." Cited above. 4. "Celsus the Platonist," The Catholic Encyclopedia, at: <a href='http://www.newadvent.org/' target='_blank'>http://www.newadvent.org/</a> 5. Acharya S, "The Christ conspiracy: the greatest story ever sold," Read reviews or order this book "...an enormous amount of startling evidence to demonstrate that Christianity and the story of Jesus Christ were created by members of various secret societies, mystery schools and religions in order to unify the Roman Empire under one state religion. In making such a fabrication, this multinational cabal drew upon a multitude of myths and rituals that already existed long before the Christian era, and reworked them for centuries into the story and religion passed down today." 6. Kersey Graves, "The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors," Adventures Unlimited Press, Chapter 32, Page 279. (1875; Reprinted 2001). Read reviews or order this book safely from Amazon.com online book store. <b> 7. Tom Harpur, "The Pagan Christ; Recovering the Lost Light," Thomas Allen, (2004). ARead reviews or order this book. </b> <i>And again </i> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Next article: Hindu and christianity <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Stephen Eck, "Hare Jesus: Christianity's Hindu Heritage," Skeptical Review, 1994, #3. Online at: <a href='http://www.infidels.org/' target='_blank'>http://www.infidels.org/</a> <i> Oh look, again well after the 1800s </i> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Next one: Horus and Yeshua <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> References:
1. Gerald Massey, "The Natural Genesis," Black Classic Press, (Reissued 1998). Read reviews or order this book safely from Amazon.com online book store. <b> 2. Tom Harpur, "The Pagan Christ; Recovering the Lost Light," Thomas Allen, (2004), Page 5. Read reviews or order this book. </b> 3. "Egyptian god Horus, The Louvre, Paris," at: <a href='http://ancienthistory.about.com/' target='_blank'>http://ancienthistory.about.com/</a> 4. Information taken from essays linked to "Horus - Egyptian God," at: <a href='http://ancienthistory.about.com/' target='_blank'>http://ancienthistory.about.com/</a> 5. Images copied from the web site of the Dark Forest of Ulcron, a supplier of Pagan and New Age items, from Athames to Tarot Cards. See: <a href='http://www.ulcron.com/' target='_blank'>http://www.ulcron.com/</a> Images used by permission. 6. Op Cit., Tom Harpur, Page 69. 7. Ibid, Page 85. 8. Ibid, Page 80. Items as seen in the Temple of Luxor, built by Amenhotep III, a pharaoh of the eighteenth dynasty, before 1700 BCE. 9. Ibid, Page 89. 10. Ibid, Pages 128 to 136. 11. Ibid, Page 74. From the confession that humans made in the presence of Horus at the Hall of Maat -- the place of judgment for all. 12. "The Ritual: The Egyptian Book of the Dead." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well now that we have that out of way, first off accusing people of rumor mongering really doesn't put in good favor when attempting to prove something to someone.
Secondly, the fact you started with sarcastic laugher pretty much dismisses anything you have to say from there on. When you can actually post with someone of a more mature attitude, I would suggest doing so, untill then please spare us the patronizing demeanor.
Ooo... I just wanted to point out that Tom Hapur... is a Angelican Minister, and a professor of the New Testament at Wycliff College in Toronto.
*Edit* Well since you did ask so "nicely" I did dig out my copy of the Vedas, all four books. The first time Krishna is mentioned is in Rig-Veda X. 90.1-16. There after you will find him in Bhagavad-Gita. Oh yes, I should probably post the link for you since I'm sure you do not have a copy of the Bhagavad-Gita. <a href='http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/index-english.html' target='_blank'>Bhagavad-Gita</a>
<!--QuoteBegin-HAMBone+Apr 4 2005, 06:36 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (HAMBone @ Apr 4 2005, 06:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> There aren't many things that take as much faith to believe in as evolution, it is completely a religion, there is nothing scientific about it, there is no factual basis for anything other than inter-species adaptation, a missing link has never been found between any two species, science is about OBSERVATION, and the theory of evolution is something that has never been observed, so it is NOT SCIENCE, it is RELIGION, the idea that a lifeless void could bring life is in fact scientifically impossible, if you have any evidence supporting evolution other than adaptation within a species then please enlighten me, because i can't find it anywhere, if you believe in evolution, you are either afraid of god or you have been misled. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <a href='http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#proof' target='_blank'>http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#proof</a> <a href='http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/' target='_blank'>http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/</a>
<!--QuoteBegin-NolSinkler+Mar 25 2005, 07:04 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (NolSinkler @ Mar 25 2005, 07:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> * They force us to go to church...if we refuse, we get grounded. From everything. My parents suck...
So yeah I've heard that the bible went through all this stuff. And since it's true and all, I feel better...about life. But, then again, who knows. I'm afraid <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> My parents made me do that. Not just that... they forced me to be confirmed in church... which ment i had to lie a whole lot to everyone i knew. Nothing like forcing a child to go to church to turn him/her athiest. At least it saved me the trouble of finding out how blindly these people follow their faith.
Oh it also spurred a deep resentment for my parents, which then later grew into hatred and then... well thats a whole other topic isn't it?
Gwahir: If you're not going to serriously partcipate, please dont. Trevelyan: I'm not sure that part is relavent to this discussion.
<!--QuoteBegin-Nadagast+Apr 4 2005, 11:15 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nadagast @ Apr 4 2005, 11:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It's simply unbelievable what lengths of denial people will go to to keep thinking that they are right.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I can say the exect same thing about many of the people trying to defend evolution in this thread.
<!--QuoteBegin-mr drug lord+Apr 4 2005, 04:03 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (mr drug lord @ Apr 4 2005, 04:03 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->evolution is very close to fact, to completeness in its domain..<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Somehow I have the feeling that you haven't studied either theory very well. Nor understood the differences between fact and theory.
<!--QuoteBegin-HAMBone+Apr 4 2005, 06:36 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (HAMBone @ Apr 4 2005, 06:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There aren't many things that take as much faith to believe in as evolution, it is completely a religion, there is nothing scientific about it, there is no factual basis for anything other than inter-species adaptation, a missing link has never been found between any two species, science is about OBSERVATION, and the theory of evolution is something that has never been observed, so it is NOT SCIENCE, it is RELIGION, the idea that a lifeless void could bring life is in fact scientifically impossible, if you have any evidence supporting evolution other than adaptation within a species then please enlighten me, because i can't find it anywhere, if you believe in evolution, you are either afraid of god or you have been misled.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I like the way you've phrased that.
<!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Apr 4 2005, 07:02 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Apr 4 2005, 07:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-HAMBone+Apr 4 2005, 06:36 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (HAMBone @ Apr 4 2005, 06:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> There aren't many things that take as much faith to believe in as evolution, it is completely a religion, there is nothing scientific about it <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You didn't need to post anything after that, it reveals your ignorance of the issue sufficiently to convince all sane people to ignore the rest.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> SkulkBait, from my perspective, that shows you to be the ignorant one.
I have plenty of school work to keep me busy for the time being, but I'm doing some more research and I should be back with more input in the next few days.
KFDM... I realize you are attempting to discuss evolution, but in all honesty that site you posted, the AiG one, is one of the largest jokes on the face of this planet. There is more rhetoric in one article then I have seen in tweleve years of theological study.
I can think of only two reason why you would even link to such a silly site.
1. You truly believe in it. 2. You know its a joke and are attempting to goad us.
If reason number one is true, you really need to re-examine your logical reasonings.
If reason number two is true, that has no place in this discussion forum.
<!--QuoteBegin-KFDM+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (KFDM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I can say the exect same thing about many of the people trying to defend evolution in this thread. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> No you can't, becuse yours doesn' not have any evidence behind it. Not to mention it states in many of those "articles" (I really don't even want to give them that much credit) that it is blanantly right and everyone else is wrong. Such arrogance is frowned upon by people who study ANYTHING.
<!--QuoteBegin-KFDM+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (KFDM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> SkulkBait, from my perspective, that shows you to be the ignorant one. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Skulkbait was correct, there is enough science behind evolution that anyone who claims it is a "religion" is not on the same playing field as the rest of us in this thread.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+Apr 4 2005, 11:38 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Apr 4 2005, 11:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> *Edit* Well since you did ask so "nicely" I did dig out my copy of the Vedas, all four books. The first time Krishna is mentioned is in Rig-Veda X. 90.1-16. There after you will find him in Bhagavad-Gita. Oh yes, I should probably post the link for you since I'm sure you do not have a copy of the Bhagavad-Gita. <a href='http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/index-english.html' target='_blank'>Bhagavad-Gita</a> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Mentioned. Oh goody, I know where he is mentioned!
Go back to that table of alleged paralells, and find the chapter and verse for each of those in the Bhagavad-Gita. Can't? Wont? Then it's a useless comparison, that isn't backed up by any real literary evidence.
Oo.. this shall be fun. If I had 8 hours of the day to sit and quote the Bhagavad-Gita I would. However I shall use a few examples and use the christian side as well just to give you an example.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I am the beginning, the middle, and the end <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <b> BG 10:20 vs. Rev. 1:8 </b> (BG of course stands for Bhagavad-Gita) <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Krishna's mission was to give directions to "the kingdom of God" , and he warned of "stumbling blocks" along the way <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <b> BG 2:72 BG 3:34; 1 Cor. 1:23 ; Rev. 2:14 </b> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Compare "those who are wise lament neither for the living nor the dead" with the sense of Jesus' advice to "let the dead bury their own dead" <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <b> BG 2:11 vs Matt. 8:22 </b> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Krishna's saying, "I envy no man, nor am I partial to anyone; I am equal to all" is a lot like the idea that God is no respecter of persons <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <b> BG 9:29 vs Rom. 2:11 & Matt. 6:45 </b> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And "one who is equal to friends and enemies... is very dear to me" is reminiscent of "love your enemies" <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <b> BG 12:18 vs Matt. 6:44 </b> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Krishna also said that "by human calculation, a thousand ages taken together is the duration of Brahma's one day" , which is very similar too. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <b> BG 8:17 vs Peter 3:8 </b>
Sigh. If you really want to claim evolution is a religion, a theory based solely on faith and completely baseless in its design, by all means, feel free to hang your reputation at the door when you leave. By all means, search through Apos' thread and find some logical fallacy in the argument. It is quite clear that the only people who would say that this: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There aren't many things that take as much faith to believe in as evolution, it is completely a religion, there is nothing scientific about it, there is no factual basis for anything other than inter-species adaptation, a missing link has never been found between any two species, science is about OBSERVATION, and the theory of evolution is something that has never been observed, so it is NOT SCIENCE, it is RELIGION, the idea that a lifeless void could bring life is in fact scientifically impossible, if you have any evidence supporting evolution other than adaptation within a species then please enlighten me, because i can't find it anywhere, if you believe in evolution, you are either afraid of god or you have been misled.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> is an accurate description of evolution are those who do not wish to learn about it before arguing against it.
<!--QuoteBegin-KungFuDiscoMonkey+Apr 5 2005, 08:29 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (KungFuDiscoMonkey @ Apr 5 2005, 08:29 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> SkulkBait, from my perspective, that shows you to be the ignorant one. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Why? Because I refuse to take seriously anyone who claims that "belief" in evolution is even equatable to religion? Thats so utterly rediculous it blows my mind. Anyone who believes such has absolutely no understanding of science whatsoever.
KFDM, if you really want to talk about evolution, then resurrect the evolution thread and we can discuss it in there. Otherwise, we'll assume you don't have any points that weren't taken care of in that thread.
<!--QuoteBegin-KungFuDiscoMonkey+Apr 5 2005, 08:29 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (KungFuDiscoMonkey @ Apr 5 2005, 08:29 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Nadagast+Apr 4 2005, 11:15 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nadagast @ Apr 4 2005, 11:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It's simply unbelievable what lengths of denial people will go to to keep thinking that they are right.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I can say the exect same thing about many of the people trying to defend evolution in this thread. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> It's easy to throw big accusations around, care to back that up?
Oh and, supposing you were right (you aren't), why would other people being closed minded make you want to be closed minded? Please, tell me.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It's easy to throw big accusations around, care to back that up?
Oh and, supposing you were right (you aren't), why would other people being closed minded make you want to be closed minded? Please, tell me.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's easy for YOU to throw big accusation around, would YOU like to back that up?
And if you were right (you aren't,) why would other people being closed minded make YOU want to be closed minded? Please, tell us.
<!--QuoteBegin-Crisqo+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Crisqo)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It's easy for YOU to throw big accusation around, would YOU like to back that up?
And if you were right (you aren't,) why would other people being closed minded make YOU want to be closed minded? Please, tell us.
...You get his point now?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I can't believe this is even still a debate on evolution. Since Nadagast is incapacitated at the moment, I shall post what HE did previously, which you can read on the previous page.
<!--QuoteBegin-Crisqo+Apr 5 2005, 07:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Crisqo @ Apr 5 2005, 07:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It's easy to throw big accusations around, care to back that up?
Oh and, supposing you were right (you aren't), why would other people being closed minded make you want to be closed minded? Please, tell me.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's easy for YOU to throw big accusation around, would YOU like to back that up?
And if you were right (you aren't,) why would other people being closed minded make YOU want to be closed minded? Please, tell us.
...You get his point now? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> ....no.
<!--QuoteBegin-HAMBone+Apr 4 2005, 07:36 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (HAMBone @ Apr 4 2005, 07:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> There aren't many things that take as much faith to believe in as evolution, it is completely a religion, there is nothing scientific about it, there is no factual basis for anything other than inter-species adaptation, a missing link has never been found between any two species, science is about OBSERVATION, and the theory of evolution is something that has never been observed, so it is NOT SCIENCE, it is RELIGION, the idea that a lifeless void could bring life is in fact scientifically impossible, if you have any evidence supporting evolution other than adaptation within a species then please enlighten me, because i can't find it anywhere, if you believe in evolution, you are either afraid of god or you have been misled. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I think if you <b>disbelieve</b> in evolution, you are either afraid of god or have been misled
in science, one can come up with working models meant to approximate the universe. it is merely indepth extension of what every person does in life: bet on what will happen next; bet on what is true. theoretically many things cannot really be known but in practical existence, they are. how do you know things are as they seem and not the Matrix, for example? you think you are really living your life. but maybe you've seen the matrix and realize, in a way, the matrix could be how things really are. however, right now let's say you have no evidence for such. then, occam's razor comes into effect: when two competing theories explain the situation <i>equally well</i>, then the simpler is the right one to espouse. After all, there is no reason to believe in the matrix, there is only reason to believe that you are experiencing what you think is reality. when evidence comes up for a matrix, then the theory that you are really living this life does not explain the circumstances as well as the matrix theory, and the matrix theory (insofar as it agrees with the evidence, theories may need adjustment) becomes the right one.
it can be said that the theories are belief; since, after all, technically they are not necessarily complete and therefore might not be correct. however, the way the theories are determined, is through attempts to discover the truth about the universe. this is where science beliefs differ from religion beliefs
those whose brains best approximate reality have the truth
now, evolution is very simple - that which better handles its environment has the advantage. that is all. that which better handles its environment has the advantage. evolution has nothing directly to do with god or the age and origin of the universe.
is something better than another, in one of its ways? for evolution to be true, there only has to be inequality in the universe. a gun's properties, taken together, give it an overall advantage against a sword for armies to equip in the modern world. however, a sword is better for clearing vegetation, etc. were one to have need of such
<!--QuoteBegin-KungFuDiscoMonkey+Apr 5 2005, 09:29 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (KungFuDiscoMonkey @ Apr 5 2005, 09:29 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-mr drug lord+Apr 4 2005, 04:03 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (mr drug lord @ Apr 4 2005, 04:03 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->evolution is very close to fact, to completeness in its domain..<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Somehow I have the feeling that you haven't studied either theory very well. Nor understood the differences between fact and theory. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> If you cannot grasp what is actually the case, then I have doubts as to your ability to ascertain the truth and therefore it is not likely you have anything to teach me anything directly upon these matters - you have no superior knowledge, rather more likely, the other way around
btw I must say that I would probably prefer the Chinese religion to any other
the earliest known Chinese religion to my knowledge was rather monotheistic. Leave out human sacrifice and sun and rain spirits (these were abolished early on, in fact religion seems to have played a progressively lesser part in the Chinese consciousness over time until Buddhism finally hung around long enough to seem normal)
there is a philosopher of the spring and autumn period, several centuries pre empire. This is about the time of Confucius and co., as well as many other schools of philosophy. Mo tz, I believe is his title, and his followers can be termed Mohists in English. He was a proponent of universal love and of the golden rule. He was also something of a scientist <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Of course no government practically supports universal love and he had much competition, of which the environment selected for those whose ideas applied much more directly to affairs of state. Since it was not a healthy modern scientific establishment, its practical results were not much better than what was already invented and created without. Governing philosophies are the fashion and with the establishment of empire, book burning, censorship, official state endorsed and enforced ideology, his ideas fell by the leeway. The philosophy which resulted in the formation of the empire was, as you can imagine, something akin to fascism, termed legalism. Human beings are wicked and cannot be trusted. The individual cannot be trusted and must be controlled.
Apparently he and his followers did some interesting work in optics, paralleling Newton (is it? my science history is flaky). Of course later things could still be invented, mathematics and engineering still advanced, but they could never consistently advance in China without the establishment of a scientific way of thinking.
Well, the moral of the story is, I dunno EDIT Here's a moral: I'm Chinese and I was tired. The ****n end
With your consistently poor knowledge and understanding you've provided in this thread you have no right to be saying this
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Somehow I have the feeling that you haven't studied either theory very well. Nor understood the differences between fact and theory.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
to anyone. Especially after presenting the pure garbage that the likes of AiG coughs up, it certainly shows that you have NO idea what you are talking about at all.
<!--QuoteBegin-Crisqo+Apr 5 2005, 07:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Crisqo @ Apr 5 2005, 07:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It's easy to throw big accusations around, care to back that up?
Oh and, supposing you were right (you aren't), why would other people being closed minded make you want to be closed minded? Please, tell me.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's easy for YOU to throw big accusation around, would YOU like to back that up?
And if you were right (you aren't,) why would other people being closed minded make YOU want to be closed minded? Please, tell us.
...You get his point now? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> Read the links I posted. They solve all your 'problems' posted about Evolution and you still refuse to give in.
If you have any more problems with evolution, please tell me. I'll show you why you're wrong. Evolution is backed up by a VAST amount of evidence and all it takes is one negative case to prove it wrong. You can scream that Evolution is BS all day long but that doesn't change the fact that it has widespread support from people who know what they are talking about way more than you or I (scientists). And it doesn't change the huge mountain of evidence for it.
Comments
similarities between religions might result from commonalities in human nature
evolution is very close to fact, to completeness in its domain, and it does not share the gravitational theory's weakness. nor the gravitational theory's strength, for that matter - its easily grasped existence
What happened to all the fresh water fish?
You dodged the question. Again.
Is it, or is it not, possible for a fictional story to be invented long before a true story greatly resembling the false one, even almost identical? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually I didn't, I pointed out how I was taught. That is the answer you wanted.
In addition, attempting to use such a how did sky put it "pigeon-holed" question in a very... lack of mature nature to pressure one in to conceeding was rather silly.
When you do decide to go on to college, I would reccommend taking a basic theological course that covers all religions, that way you will have some appreciation for where I am coming from and perhaps a bit more understand will emerge from that.
Also, do not try to say I don't know where you are coming from, I grew up in a very strict lutheran family, which later decided catholism was better. I'm not sure how my mother picked that.. but that is neither here nor now.
How about instead you actually go out and find a document stating that your religion pre-dates all of these other ones by written record. (Keep in mind written record does pre-date all religions by around 7-8 thousand years, yes even egyptian)
Oh, wait, you can't do that.
I apologize legionaired, if I seem a bit sarcastic, but this is growing annoying.
All you are doing is using circular logic in a horrible attempt at proving your case correct. How about using facts instead. That is all I have asked for and I have yet to see even one fact from you, or any of your sources.
I have seen vague references to books that I can't find even using leet google hax. I have also called barnes & noble, who actually do have a quite large bookstore here in SF, and they don't even know what book your source was talking about. (Specifically the one that has all these so-called drawings from the hindu scripts, I have yet to see a single hindu script that has drawings in their religious text. The hinu people in all of my experience, have always been a very literate group they have almost never had to rely upon pictures to get their point across. Probably the easiest of the religions, other then buddism/janism to get across is besides the point.)
You find me those facts, then we can discuss this further. Untill then, stop with the circular logic and actually attempt to refute by using facts.
Also a note to sky, kudos for disassembling something forty mintues earlier so I didn't have to waste my time on it. I award you the offical accolade of tolerance.
*edited for grammar/clarity/spelling* <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
So you, the pinnacle of tolerance and logic, demand proof that my religion was first, when <b>I HAVE ALWAYS CLAIMED THAT THE NEW TESTAMENT WAS WRITTEN IN THE FIRST CENTURY CE.</b>
It's like saying that to prove that my car is red, post a picture of my car, but green.
I'm not questioning the fact that the hindu and egyptian religions predate Christianity. What I AM disputing, is if that has any relevance. You'd think after at least 10 posts, you would have gotten this by now, yet, instead, you choose the question you want to hear.
If it is possible for fiction to predate fact, then you have to <i>prove</i> conclusively enough reasonable doubt to assume that the two religions got their start from the same myths. You also have to prove that Jesus never actually existed, since predictive prophecy in the old testament gives one hell of a good argument that if he did in fact exist, that he was who he said he was.
If I recall correctly, the list you posted comparing the similarities between Jesus and other religious figures was either so general it couldn't miss, used sketchy translating techniques, or failed to present any real beef.
If you say it is NOT possible for fiction to predate parallel fact, then my above comment proves you wrong. In the above example, we have the fictional character Michel Ardan from Jules Verne's "From the Earth to the Moon," and in the second, Edwin Aldrin, who was on Apollo 11. "From the Earth to the Moon" is dated 1865.
Either you prove that the writers of the New Testament entirely made up the character of Jesus, and that they based him off of earlyer legends, or you have no case. The burden of proof is on you.
It does prove my point.
If possible for coincidence, burden of proof on Cyndane to show Christianity was directly influenced by egyptian/hindu scriptures.
If not possible for coincidence, above example shows such coincidences can and do occur.
Either way, Cyndane has a case to make.
You didn't need to post anything after that, it reveals your ignorance of the issue sufficiently to convince all sane people to ignore the rest. But I'm sure Apos will come in here and set you straight.
<!--QuoteBegin-legionaired+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (legionaired)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
So you, the pinnacle of tolerance and logic, demand proof that my religion was first, when I HAVE ALWAYS CLAIMED THAT THE NEW TESTAMENT WAS WRITTEN IN THE FIRST CENTURY CE. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If that is the case, then I really don't have anything more to say, but I shall post the following links so that you may read them.
I have posted my "case" as you call it before and you simply dismissed it without even glancing at the links.
Specifically the three god-men. Keep in mind this is just a list of what is simliar and what is not. It doesn't say one is right or one isn't.
<a href='http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jckr1.htm' target='_blank'>Hindu and Christianity (NT Era).</a>
Horus (not Osiris) and Yeshua.
<a href='http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5.htm' target='_blank'>Egyptian and Christianity (NT era)</a>
Greek aka Osiris-Dionysus(Greek name copied from eyptian changed a bit it looks like to more reflect Horus then Osiris)
<a href='http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa2.htm' target='_blank'>Greek and Christianity (NT Era)</a>
*edited line here* I wanted to post one more link about how christianity definately shares quite a few stories with other pagan religions. I found it interesting, and I hope anyone else does as well.
<a href='http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa1.htm' target='_blank'>Christianity similarities with other pagan religions.</a>
*/edit*
See what I love about unbiased sites is they simply present the commonalities and then you get to make up your own mind.
A bit of a more biased book but no more so then most of the sites some have posted.
<i> The Jesus Mysteries: Was the 'original Jesus' a Pagan god? </i>
by, Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy
This one, you can actually find at amazon.com, or conversely your local book store, if they can order books that is.
*Addendum 2*
I have never said I was the pinnacle of logic nor tolerance. I simply stated that you really don't know what you are talking about when referring to other religions because, you have never studied them, probably for a few reasons. I don't even know what the reasons are, and I am not going to guess. You could misunderstand and it has happened before. (The misunderstanding part)
That is why I asked you for some unbiased proof for backing up the christianity claim, I know you can't make it yourself, since you have no level of detail into the other religions. So, show me the proof and we can move on to the next point of this discussion, not that I am sure where that will be.
<a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=89840' target='_blank'>Read. Learn. Win.</a>
Sidenote: As a newcomer in the Discussion forum, insulting the vast majority of scientists from all cultures and religions in one fell swoop is probably not the best approach. Also, isn't fear of God a tenement of piety? Just wondering how fearing God and becoming a scientist were related.
<!--QuoteBegin-Legionnaired+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It does prove my point.
If possible for coincidence, burden of proof on Cyndane to show Christianity was directly influenced by egyptian/hindu scriptures.
If not possible for coincidence, above example shows such coincidences can and do occur.
Either way, Cyndane has a case to make.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Undoubtedly she does have a case to make. I'm having difficulty believing this theory myself. However I <u>do</u> see that it is scientifically speaking a sound theory, one that definitely requires further research. You, however, demanded that Cyndane give up with the theory and stop arguing for it -
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Either you prove that the writers of the New Testament entirely made up the character of Jesus, and that they based him off of earlyer legends, or you have no case. The burden of proof is on you. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
simply because there is another way of thinking. That is not right. Obviously there is much to prove, and obviously Cyndane has no way of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that her theory is correct. Proving beyond any shadow of a doubt is notoriously difficult when looking into the past, but this knee-jerk reaction to new theories is what kills real science.
*edit 2* I just can't stop laughing at this one. I'm sorry if that offends anyone but I have to share this lovely story on how the bible and dinosaurs relate.
(Keep in mind there is not a single scientific fact in the entire article.)
<a href='http://answersingenesis.org/docs/2.asp' target='_blank'>Dinosaurs and the Bible.</a> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
No... AiG is a joke. It's simply unbelievable what lengths of denial people will go to to keep thinking that they are right.
And I see in your 2nd edit you saw that AiG was a joke, GJ <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Our site authors are identified in the copyright notice which is near the bottom of almost all essays.
Almost all of the over 2,480 essays and menus on this web site were written by our main author, Bruce A Robinson. He is a graduate of the University of Toronto, class of 1959, with a BaSc (Bachelor of Applied Science) degree in Engineering Physics. He worked for a large multi-national chemical company for 38 years before taking a "golden handshake" and early retirement during a company downsizing. During his employment, he functioned as a specialist in the development of electronic instrumentation, as a computer programmer working in process computing, and as a supervisor. Technical writing formed a major part of his work assignment.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....... HAHAHAHAHAHAA.. hehhe... ahem...
This guy has no training and ABSOLUTELY NO CREDENTIALS WHATSOEVER.
Now that we've gotten that out of the way...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Egyptian and Christianity (NT era)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's a nice list, written by two scholars <i>in the 1700-1800's.</i> Cite the Egyptian originals, prove to me that the Egyptian religion actually did teach these things, and we'll go from the original text. None of this paraphraised Gerald Massey or Godfrey Higgins crap.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Perhaps the only pagan god for whom there is a resurrection is the Egyptian Osiris. Close examination of this story shows that it is very different from Christ's resurrection. Osiris did not rise; he ruled in the abode of the dead. As biblical scholar, Roland de Vaux, wrote, "What is meant of Osiris being 'raised to life?' Simply that, thanks to the ministrations of Isis, he is able to lead a life beyond the tomb which is an almost perfect replica of earthly existence. But he will never again come among the living and will reign only over the dead.… This revived god is in reality a 'mummy' god."... No, the mummified Osiris was hardly an inspiration for the resurrected Christ...As Yamauchi observes, "Ordinary men aspired to identification with Osiris as one who had triumphed over death." But it is a mistake to equate the Egyptian view of the afterlife with the biblical doctrine of resurrection. To achieve immortality the Egyptian had to meet three conditions: First, his body had to be preserved by mummification. Second, nourishment was provided by the actual offering of daily bread and beer. Third, magical spells were interred with him. His body did not rise from the dead; rather elements of his personality-his Ba and Ka-continued to hover over his body. ["The Resurrection of Jesus Christ: Myth, Hoax, or History?" David J. MacLeod, in The Emmaus Journal, V7 #2, Winter 98, p169]<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Notice I cited journal, chapter and page. Notice too that MacLeod is a PUBLISHED SCHOLAR, unlike our computer-programmer-turned-theologian.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Hindu and Christianity (NT Era).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
All you have here is paralell phraises. These suggest more a universal human thread behind the writers, writing from human experience, than from a rehashed myth. Don't believe me? Break out your copy of the Vedas, (You DO have one, right?) and give me book, chapter, and verse where these claims are grounded. Can't do it? Then it's crap, just like every other link you've posted from Religioustolerance.org.
The fact of the matter is, you post list-based arguments, whose works-cited page includes NONE of the original texts, but only 17-18th century rumor-mongers. And, may I re-iterate one more time, the person writing the article in the first place has no training in hermanutics, ancient history, religious studies, or anything else. He is grossly unqualified.
I shall quote some for you.
<!--QuoteBegin-Pagan similarities+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pagan similarities)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
References:
<b> 1. J. Goodwin, "Mystery Religions of the Ancient World," Thames & Hudson, (1981), Page 28. Quoted in Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy, "The Jesus Mysteries: Was the 'Original Jesus' a Pagan God?" Acacia Press, (1999), Page 49. Read reviews or order this book safely from Amazon.com online book store </b> <i> Note well after the "1800s" </i>
<b> 2. "Mithra," Barbara G. Walker, "The Woman's encyclopedia of myths and secrets," Harper & Row, (1996), Pages 663 to 665. Read reviews or order this book
</b> <i> Again </i>
3. Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy, "The Jesus Mysteries." Cited above.
4. "Celsus the Platonist," The Catholic Encyclopedia, at: <a href='http://www.newadvent.org/' target='_blank'>http://www.newadvent.org/</a>
5. Acharya S, "The Christ conspiracy: the greatest story ever sold," Read reviews or order this book "...an enormous amount of startling evidence to demonstrate that Christianity and the story of Jesus Christ were created by members of various secret societies, mystery schools and religions in order to unify the Roman Empire under one state religion. In making such a fabrication, this multinational cabal drew upon a multitude of myths and rituals that already existed long before the Christian era, and reworked them for centuries into the story and religion passed down today."
6. Kersey Graves, "The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors," Adventures Unlimited Press, Chapter 32, Page 279. (1875; Reprinted 2001). Read reviews or order this book safely from Amazon.com online book store.
<b> 7. Tom Harpur, "The Pagan Christ; Recovering the Lost Light," Thomas Allen, (2004). ARead reviews or order this book. </b> <i>And again </i>
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Next article: Hindu and christianity
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Stephen Eck, "Hare Jesus: Christianity's Hindu Heritage," Skeptical Review, 1994, #3. Online at: <a href='http://www.infidels.org/' target='_blank'>http://www.infidels.org/</a> <i> Oh look, again well after the 1800s </i>
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Next one: Horus and Yeshua
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
References:
1. Gerald Massey, "The Natural Genesis," Black Classic Press, (Reissued 1998). Read reviews or order this book safely from Amazon.com online book store.
<b> 2. Tom Harpur, "The Pagan Christ; Recovering the Lost Light," Thomas Allen, (2004), Page 5. Read reviews or order this book. </b>
3. "Egyptian god Horus, The Louvre, Paris," at: <a href='http://ancienthistory.about.com/' target='_blank'>http://ancienthistory.about.com/</a>
4. Information taken from essays linked to "Horus - Egyptian God," at: <a href='http://ancienthistory.about.com/' target='_blank'>http://ancienthistory.about.com/</a>
5. Images copied from the web site of the Dark Forest of Ulcron, a supplier of Pagan and New Age items, from Athames to Tarot Cards. See: <a href='http://www.ulcron.com/' target='_blank'>http://www.ulcron.com/</a> Images used by permission.
6. Op Cit., Tom Harpur, Page 69.
7. Ibid, Page 85.
8. Ibid, Page 80. Items as seen in the Temple of Luxor, built by Amenhotep III, a pharaoh of the eighteenth dynasty, before 1700 BCE.
9. Ibid, Page 89.
10. Ibid, Pages 128 to 136.
11. Ibid, Page 74. From the confession that humans made in the presence of Horus at the Hall of Maat -- the place of judgment for all.
12. "The Ritual: The Egyptian Book of the Dead."
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well now that we have that out of way, first off accusing people of rumor mongering really doesn't put in good favor when attempting to prove something to someone.
Secondly, the fact you started with sarcastic laugher pretty much dismisses anything you have to say from there on. When you can actually post with someone of a more mature attitude, I would suggest doing so, untill then please spare us the patronizing demeanor.
Ooo... I just wanted to point out that Tom Hapur... is a Angelican Minister, and a professor of the New Testament at Wycliff College in Toronto.
*Edit* Well since you did ask so "nicely" I did dig out my copy of the Vedas, all four books. The first time Krishna is mentioned is in Rig-Veda X. 90.1-16. There after you will find him in Bhagavad-Gita. Oh yes, I should probably post the link for you since I'm sure you do not have a copy of the Bhagavad-Gita.
<a href='http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/index-english.html' target='_blank'>Bhagavad-Gita</a>
<a href='http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#proof' target='_blank'>http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#proof</a>
<a href='http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/' target='_blank'>http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/</a>
::rolleyes::
So yeah I've heard that the bible went through all this stuff. And since it's true and all, I feel better...about life. But, then again, who knows. I'm afraid <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
My parents made me do that. Not just that... they forced me to be confirmed in church... which ment i had to lie a whole lot to everyone i knew. Nothing like forcing a child to go to church to turn him/her athiest. At least it saved me the trouble of finding out how blindly these people follow their faith.
Oh it also spurred a deep resentment for my parents, which then later grew into hatred and then... well thats a whole other topic isn't it?
Trevelyan: I'm not sure that part is relavent to this discussion.
<!--QuoteBegin-Nadagast+Apr 4 2005, 11:15 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nadagast @ Apr 4 2005, 11:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It's simply unbelievable what lengths of denial people will go to to keep thinking that they are right.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can say the exect same thing about many of the people trying to defend evolution in this thread.
<!--QuoteBegin-mr drug lord+Apr 4 2005, 04:03 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (mr drug lord @ Apr 4 2005, 04:03 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->evolution is very close to fact, to completeness in its domain..<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Somehow I have the feeling that you haven't studied either theory very well. Nor understood the differences between fact and theory.
<!--QuoteBegin-HAMBone+Apr 4 2005, 06:36 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (HAMBone @ Apr 4 2005, 06:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There aren't many things that take as much faith to believe in as evolution, it is completely a religion, there is nothing scientific about it, there is no factual basis for anything other than inter-species adaptation, a missing link has never been found between any two species, science is about OBSERVATION, and the theory of evolution is something that has never been observed, so it is NOT SCIENCE, it is RELIGION, the idea that a lifeless void could bring life is in fact scientifically impossible, if you have any evidence supporting evolution other than adaptation within a species then please enlighten me, because i can't find it anywhere, if you believe in evolution, you are either afraid of god or you have been misled.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I like the way you've phrased that.
<!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Apr 4 2005, 07:02 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Apr 4 2005, 07:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-HAMBone+Apr 4 2005, 06:36 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (HAMBone @ Apr 4 2005, 06:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> There aren't many things that take as much faith to believe in as evolution, it is completely a religion, there is nothing scientific about it <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You didn't need to post anything after that, it reveals your ignorance of the issue sufficiently to convince all sane people to ignore the rest.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
SkulkBait, from my perspective, that shows you to be the ignorant one.
I have plenty of school work to keep me busy for the time being, but I'm doing some more research and I should be back with more input in the next few days.
I can think of only two reason why you would even link to such a silly site.
1. You truly believe in it.
2. You know its a joke and are attempting to goad us.
If reason number one is true, you really need to re-examine your logical reasonings.
If reason number two is true, that has no place in this discussion forum.
<!--QuoteBegin-KFDM+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (KFDM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
I can say the exect same thing about many of the people trying to defend evolution in this thread.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No you can't, becuse yours doesn' not have any evidence behind it. Not to mention it states in many of those "articles" (I really don't even want to give them that much credit) that it is blanantly right and everyone else is wrong. Such arrogance is frowned upon by people who study ANYTHING.
<!--QuoteBegin-KFDM+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (KFDM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
SkulkBait, from my perspective, that shows you to be the ignorant one.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Skulkbait was correct, there is enough science behind evolution that anyone who claims it is a "religion" is not on the same playing field as the rest of us in this thread.
<a href='http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/index-english.html' target='_blank'>Bhagavad-Gita</a> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Mentioned. Oh goody, I know where he is mentioned!
Go back to that table of alleged paralells, and find the chapter and verse for each of those in the Bhagavad-Gita. Can't? Wont? Then it's a useless comparison, that isn't backed up by any real literary evidence.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
I am the beginning, the middle, and the end
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b> BG 10:20 vs. Rev. 1:8 </b> (BG of course stands for Bhagavad-Gita)
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Krishna's mission was to give directions to "the kingdom of God" , and he warned of "stumbling blocks" along the way <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b> BG 2:72 BG 3:34; 1 Cor. 1:23 ; Rev. 2:14 </b>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Compare "those who are wise lament neither for the living nor the dead" with the sense of Jesus' advice to "let the dead bury their own dead"
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b> BG 2:11 vs Matt. 8:22 </b>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Krishna's saying, "I envy no man, nor am I partial to anyone; I am equal to all" is a lot like the idea that God is no respecter of persons
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b> BG 9:29 vs Rom. 2:11 & Matt. 6:45 </b>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
And "one who is equal to friends and enemies... is very dear to me" is reminiscent of "love your enemies"
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b> BG 12:18 vs Matt. 6:44 </b>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Krishna also said that "by human calculation, a thousand ages taken together is the duration of Brahma's one day" , which is very similar too.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b> BG 8:17 vs Peter 3:8
</b>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There aren't many things that take as much faith to believe in as evolution, it is completely a religion, there is nothing scientific about it, there is no factual basis for anything other than inter-species adaptation, a missing link has never been found between any two species, science is about OBSERVATION, and the theory of evolution is something that has never been observed, so it is NOT SCIENCE, it is RELIGION, the idea that a lifeless void could bring life is in fact scientifically impossible, if you have any evidence supporting evolution other than adaptation within a species then please enlighten me, because i can't find it anywhere, if you believe in evolution, you are either afraid of god or you have been misled.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
is an accurate description of evolution are those who do not wish to learn about it before arguing against it.
Why? Because I refuse to take seriously anyone who claims that "belief" in evolution is even equatable to religion? Thats so utterly rediculous it blows my mind. Anyone who believes such has absolutely no understanding of science whatsoever.
I can say the exect same thing about many of the people trying to defend evolution in this thread. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's easy to throw big accusations around, care to back that up?
Oh and, supposing you were right (you aren't), why would other people being closed minded make you want to be closed minded? Please, tell me.
It's easy to throw big accusations around, care to back that up?
Oh and, supposing you were right (you aren't), why would other people being closed minded make you want to be closed minded? Please, tell me.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's easy for YOU to throw big accusation around, would YOU like to back that up?
And if you were right (you aren't,) why would other people being closed minded make YOU want to be closed minded? Please, tell us.
...You get his point now?
It's easy for YOU to throw big accusation around, would YOU like to back that up?
And if you were right (you aren't,) why would other people being closed minded make YOU want to be closed minded? Please, tell us.
...You get his point now?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can't believe this is even still a debate on evolution.
Since Nadagast is incapacitated at the moment, I shall post what HE did previously, which you can read on the previous page.
<a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=89840' target='_blank'>http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index....showtopic=89840</a>
<a href='http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#proof' target='_blank'>http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#proof</a>
<a href='http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/' target='_blank'>http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/</a>
That was his proof and it is still there. Go look, read, and learn. (Stolen from Sky's post)
It's easy to throw big accusations around, care to back that up?
Oh and, supposing you were right (you aren't), why would other people being closed minded make you want to be closed minded? Please, tell me.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's easy for YOU to throw big accusation around, would YOU like to back that up?
And if you were right (you aren't,) why would other people being closed minded make YOU want to be closed minded? Please, tell us.
...You get his point now? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
....no.
I think if you <b>disbelieve</b> in evolution, you are either afraid of god or have been misled
in science, one can come up with working models meant to approximate the universe. it is merely indepth extension of what every person does in life: bet on what will happen next; bet on what is true. theoretically many things cannot really be known but in practical existence, they are. how do you know things are as they seem and not the Matrix, for example? you think you are really living your life. but maybe you've seen the matrix and realize, in a way, the matrix could be how things really are. however, right now let's say you have no evidence for such. then, occam's razor comes into effect: when two competing theories explain the situation <i>equally well</i>, then the simpler is the right one to espouse. After all, there is no reason to believe in the matrix, there is only reason to believe that you are experiencing what you think is reality. when evidence comes up for a matrix, then the theory that you are really living this life does not explain the circumstances as well as the matrix theory, and the matrix theory (insofar as it agrees with the evidence, theories may need adjustment) becomes the right one.
it can be said that the theories are belief; since, after all, technically they are not necessarily complete and therefore might not be correct. however, the way the theories are determined, is through attempts to discover the truth about the universe. this is where science beliefs differ from religion beliefs
those whose brains best approximate reality have the truth
now, evolution is very simple - that which better handles its environment has the advantage. that is all. that which better handles its environment has the advantage.
evolution has nothing directly to do with god or the age and origin of the universe.
is something better than another, in one of its ways? for evolution to be true, there only has to be inequality in the universe. a gun's properties, taken together, give it an overall advantage against a sword for armies to equip in the modern world. however, a sword is better for clearing vegetation, etc. were one to have need of such
Somehow I have the feeling that you haven't studied either theory very well. Nor understood the differences between fact and theory.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you cannot grasp what is actually the case, then I have doubts as to your ability to ascertain the truth and therefore it is not likely you have anything to teach me anything directly upon these matters - you have no superior knowledge, rather more likely, the other way around
btw I must say that I would probably prefer the Chinese religion to any other
the earliest known Chinese religion to my knowledge was rather monotheistic. Leave out human sacrifice and sun and rain spirits (these were abolished early on, in fact religion seems to have played a progressively lesser part in the Chinese consciousness over time until Buddhism finally hung around long enough to seem normal)
there is a philosopher of the spring and autumn period, several centuries pre empire. This is about the time of Confucius and co., as well as many other schools of philosophy. Mo tz, I believe is his title, and his followers can be termed Mohists in English. He was a proponent of universal love and of the golden rule. He was also something of a scientist <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Of course no government practically supports universal love and he had much competition, of which the environment selected for those whose ideas applied much more directly to affairs of state. Since it was not a healthy modern scientific establishment, its practical results were not much better than what was already invented and created without. Governing philosophies are the fashion and with the establishment of empire, book burning, censorship, official state endorsed and enforced ideology, his ideas fell by the leeway. The philosophy which resulted in the formation of the empire was, as you can imagine, something akin to fascism, termed legalism. Human beings are wicked and cannot be trusted. The individual cannot be trusted and must be controlled.
Apparently he and his followers did some interesting work in optics, paralleling Newton (is it? my science history is flaky). Of course later things could still be invented, mathematics and engineering still advanced, but they could never consistently advance in China without the establishment of a scientific way of thinking.
Well, the moral of the story is, I dunno EDIT Here's a moral: I'm Chinese and I was tired. The ****n end
With your consistently poor knowledge and understanding you've provided in this thread you have no right to be saying this
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Somehow I have the feeling that you haven't studied either theory very well. Nor understood the differences between fact and theory.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
to anyone. Especially after presenting the pure garbage that the likes of AiG coughs up, it certainly shows that you have NO idea what you are talking about at all.
It's easy to throw big accusations around, care to back that up?
Oh and, supposing you were right (you aren't), why would other people being closed minded make you want to be closed minded? Please, tell me.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's easy for YOU to throw big accusation around, would YOU like to back that up?
And if you were right (you aren't,) why would other people being closed minded make YOU want to be closed minded? Please, tell us.
...You get his point now? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> Read the links I posted. They solve all your 'problems' posted about Evolution and you still refuse to give in.
If you have any more problems with evolution, please tell me. I'll show you why you're wrong. Evolution is backed up by a VAST amount of evidence and all it takes is one negative case to prove it wrong. You can scream that Evolution is BS all day long but that doesn't change the fact that it has widespread support from people who know what they are talking about way more than you or I (scientists). And it doesn't change the huge mountain of evidence for it.
Edit: <a href='http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=116447' target='_blank'>http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=116447</a>
<a href='http://sciam-editor.typepad.com/weblog1/2005/04/cowardice_creat.html' target='_blank'>http://sciam-editor.typepad.com/weblog1/20...dice_creat.html</a>
Please, disprove Evolution. You will be famous.