The thing about protestantism in Scandinavia is that it's mostly just a part of our culture. Many of us confirmate without believing anything of it, just like we're given a name and marry in church.
I think the main difference between protestantism and catholisism is that we don't confess, we don't follow the pope and we don't idolize saints. Generally though, religious people I know believe in God and Jesus, and that's it. I, like many of my friends who are confirmated, did it just to get presents and because everyone else in our families are. If I could choose now though I would never have done it.
Nowadays I'm as close to buddhist you can get without actually being one. I see it as a kind of protest. I believe most major religions like christianity are dumb, but I don't want to be put together with atheists, even if that probably is what I am, because most of those people are even more stupid. I can't say I fully believe in reincarnation and those things, but philosofically, buddhism is exactly to my taste.
And to get back on topic. Let me quote The Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy: <!--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-->The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." "But," says Man, "The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED." "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanished in a puff of logic. "Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Palmaneen+May 25 2005, 02:30 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Palmaneen @ May 25 2005, 02:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The thing about protestantism in Scandinavia is that it's mostly just a part of our culture. Many of us confirmate without believing anything of it, just like we're given a name and marry in church.
I think the main difference between protestantism and catholisism is that we don't confess, we don't follow the pope and we don't idolize saints. Generally though, religious people I know believe in God and Jesus, and that's it. I, like many of my friends who are confirmated, did it just to get presents and because everyone else in our families are. If I could choose now though I would never have done it.
Nowadays I'm as close to buddhist you can get without actually being one. I see it as a kind of protest. I believe most major religions like christianity are dumb, but I don't want to be put together with atheists, even if that probably is what I am, because most of those people are even more stupid. I can't say I fully believe in reincarnation and those things, but philosofically, buddhism is exactly to my taste.
And to get back on topic. Let me quote The Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy: <!--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-->The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." "But," says Man, "The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED." "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanished in a puff of logic. "Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> hmmm your probaly right, but as i have said before about changing religion, i dont really care what the people lists says i am.
and i fully agree with that quote, except getting killed, that kinda sux
*edit* forgot to say that the scandinavian thing is true, atleast where i live, dont really think anybody gives a damn about god...
1. You do not understand how people can believe in things larger then themselves. 2. To understand you need to educate yourself about other religions, but don't <b>have to join them.</b> 3. Using it as habitual is probably the worse thing a country can do. When you do things just because you are told they lose all meaning, and this applies to anything.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+May 25 2005, 02:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ May 25 2005, 02:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Then I re-affirm my points.
1. You do not understand how people can believe in things larger then themselves. 2. To understand you need to educate yourself about other religions, but don't <b>have to join them.</b> 3. Using it as habitual is probably the worse thing a country can do. When you do things just because you are told they lose all meaning, and this applies to anything. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> what are we discussing again? i really forgot because right now we are just stating things, anyway i have to go to bed now, school tomorrow, its 22:00 here so think about it and post ok?
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I didn't miss your post, but there is nothing wrong with believing in something higher then yourself. People do it all the time, some believe in the government o the country the live in, some people believe they are destined for better things in another life, some people believe in a god/gods/goddesses/etc.
That does NOT make them stupid in any way shape for form. Now, if they don't know enough about their own faith to make arguements for it, let alone the semantics involved with any religion, then they are simply ignorant(of how certain aspects work), and not stupid.
*edit* Metalcat, if anything you need to learn more about what you so you obiviously don't understand. Easiest way to do that is go to the library and pick up a few of the "holy" books. Give them an honest read through, if you don't understand something or a particular passage, you are more then welcome to msg me, or anyone else in your area for help. I won't claim that all the books are a quick and easy read, if I did that would be purely based on ignorance, these "holy" books are hard to read, especially when the translators have some political agenda behind their translations. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That is what we are discussing right now.
You do not understand why some people are willing to die for their beliefs whether it be religious or not it really doesn't matter. Some people are so devoted (blindly or not) to their own ideals they are willing to die for them. Just because you have never felt as such doesn't mean they are stupid in any way. Nor does it make them correct in anyway.
Fundamentalism is not the way to go, and you seem to be pouncing on all religious people as fundamentalists. Which is not the case, do not blame the minority on the majority.
I am defending religious people... *sigh* I do hope "satan" likes it "cold" down there.
You have to live here to know how it is. I don't think it's that bad. All it does is give us a different, not necessarily bad, view on religion.
Over here, most people have realized by themselves that religion is just something someone made up some thousand years ago and it's hard for us to understand how someone can take religion so seriously. I at least, feel an urge to try to enlighten people who hasn't already reached that conclusion.
The problem is that in other big seriously religious countries, like say the US, there are believers and non-believers and there is no reason behind their arguments. Most non-believers call themselves atheists because it sounds cool and don't believe in God because their parents do. The believers are used to only hearing stupid comments and when a good argument actually comes up the believers tend to shut their ears, and the atmosphere gets unfriendly quite fast. Of course we have highly religious people over here as well and it's impossible to talk to them, but not to the same extent.
I guess we'll just have to learn to live with it. There is no way everyone would give up religion just like that one day. But it bothers me that it still has such big influence. Especially on politics.
I'm sorry if I have insulted anyone with this post, and please argue with me because I need the practice <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->.
Oh, and about that site. Just look at the "Today's new reason to believe". First they state some facts which probably are correct, but then they just sum up with "... and this proves that God exists" without any connection what so ever. I mean wth?
<!--QuoteBegin-Palmaneen+May 25 2005, 03:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Palmaneen @ May 25 2005, 03:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Oh, and about that site. Just look at the "Today's new reason to believe". First they state some facts which probably are correct, but then they just sum up with "... and this proves that God exists" without any connection what so ever. I mean wth? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Heh, I had the same reaction, but I thought that was just me being stupid and missing the point. Glad to see someone else feels the same way. ;P
The religious climate over there sounds a bit like it does over here in England. Religion generally crops up in the headlines when the Church of England is busy tearing itself apart over homosexual vicars etc. Apart from that, it's just something that's <i>there</i>, and people don't talk about it, really. Maybe it's a cultural thing, but most religious people I've met keep their beliefs to themselves unless asked.
I've come to the conclusion that the US is the only place where people actualy attempt to force their views on others when it comes to religious beliefs...
Well, every now and again on the London Underground, some crazy person will be wearing a billboard about non-believers going to hell, and they'll give me an earful about my sinful existence. I just turn my mp3 player up, and hey, at least they're not asking for money.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+May 25 2005, 04:13 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ May 25 2005, 04:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I've come to the conclusion that the US is the only place where people actualy attempt to force their views on others when it comes to religious beliefs... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Jumping on the "let's hate America!" bandwagon? You may not fit, it's a tad crowded.
However, it seems to me we are the only country where religious docturine actually influences politics at the executive level.(Disreguarding dictatorships that are sporatically scattered throughout the world) <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
My mistake. I got a different meaning out of your statement, in which case it's a moot point. As is the topic at hand. We've discussed the validity of Christianity far too many times, considering that there is no way to prove or disprove existance of God.
Wow, I should have just kept my mouth shut. Now I'll have to spend the next hour dealing with this 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-->If you could do your own apologetics then this comment wouldn't even be needed. Let alone all of your work with the "egyptian" religion was almost as bad as some of avengerx's retorts to various topics. You failed in every endeavor to prove they are completely seperate entities.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1) The burden of proof is on YOU, to prove that scripture that teaches that there is one and only God and that Jesus is His only son is the same as scripture that teaches there is a god that forms the clouds when he ejaculates.
All you ever showed was a few bits and peices of common verbage; some between Christianity and Egyptian religion, but mostly between the Bahgavad Gita and the Bible. Which, of course, was all out-of-context crap, where the actual <b>meaning</b> behind the verse was totally different. The only thing that was the same was a few bits common in the English translation. Not a whole lot else.
I'd not equate dismissing an argument with no case with failing to provide any proof.
2) Don't compare me to AvengerX, that's just bad form.
<!--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-->Of course, after all its ok to kill someone but murdering them is "bad". I especially like how after thousands of years suddenly it is changed to "murder" and not "kill" I quote from a apologetic site. <!--QuoteBegin-http://www.biblestudygames.com/biblestudies/ten.htm+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (http://www.biblestudygames.com/biblestudies/ten.htm)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> This was a bad translation, the word should be murder and not kill. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I especially love how the transltors have made this error for so long, yet anyone who could glance at some of the similar writtings from that time period and compare the two words it would be quite obvious, but then again kill in hebrew means quite a few things...
Kill 7523 ratsach (raw-tsakh'); a primitive root; properly, to dash in pieces, i.e. kill (a human being), <b>especially to murder [amended as of 1990] </b>. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Things are revised and amended for a reason. For instance, perhaps even that we look at the KJV, and see that ratsach is translated 'slayer' (intentional) 16 times, 'murderer' 14 times, and 'kill' only 5. Looking all of those uses in <a href='http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/7/1117058221-65.html' target='_blank'>context</a> shows that where 'slayer' or 'murderer' is used, the word refers to a hateful, premeditated, intentional killing.
Sounds kind of like murder, doesn't 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--> <!--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--> Cyndane, "Doesn't refer to homosexual behavior?" Are you daft, woman? What do you propose it does mean? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well legionaired if you had bothered to actually read the bisexuality thread and that disgusting display by comrade skulk you would know that there is not an ancient greek nor hebrew word for homosexuality. I'll let it rest that you missed that entire conversation for some reason or another. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
....
The fact that there is no explicit word for homosexuality only re-inforces the idea that the writer would use alternate language to get the point across. "Lay with a man as you would lie with a woman" seems like it fits that discussion quite nicely, doesn't it?
And I ask again, what could this passage mean, exactly, if we don't take it to mean homsexuality? Even the baseless <a href='http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh.htm' target='_blank'>religioustolerance.org</a> that you cite so much agrees with me here:
<!--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-->The passage in the ancient Hebrew is clearly talking about male-male sex acts.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--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-->Considering they do not say "KILL THE INFIDELS" yeah I could live with a enternity of "unenlightenment." You know what buddists and janists are called? They are called pacifists, that means they are peaceful, which means they have no law that says "kill those who don't follow this religion."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you're talking as accepting those that don't follow the religion, then sure. However, that's not to say that according to a Buddhist, there are no consequeces to not listening to Buddha.
<!--QuoteBegin-Legionnaired+May 25 2005, 04:04 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ May 25 2005, 04:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Wow, I should have just kept my mouth shut. Now I'll have to spend the next hour dealing with this crap. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I would agree you should have.
<!--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--> 1) The burden of proof is on YOU, to prove that scripture that teaches that there is one and only God and that Jesus is His only son is the same as scripture that teaches there is a god that forms the clouds when he ejaculates.
All you ever showed was a few bits and peices of common verbage; some between Christianity and Egyptian religion, but mostly between the Bahgavad Gita and the Bible. Which, of course, was all out-of-context crap, where the actual meaning behind the verse was totally different. The only thing that was the same was a few bits common in the English translation. Not a whole lot else.
I'd not equate dismissing an argument with no case with failing to provide any proof.
2) Don't compare me to AvengerX, that's just bad form. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually I disagree, since your bible copies its self from various other works, the burden of proof is on you to prove it is the "word of god" even though other religions pre-dating said religion have similar myths, legends, dogmas attached to them. Of course you have never argued that the bible is new in the religious docturine of older religions.
2.) I can compare when your mindsets are just as narrow. <!--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--> <!--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--> <!--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-->Of course, after all its ok to kill someone but murdering them is "bad". I especially like how after thousands of years suddenly it is changed to "murder" and not "kill" I quote from a apologetic site. [code <a href='http://www.biblestudygames.com/biblestudies/ten.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.biblestudygames.com/biblestudies/ten.htm</a>] This was a bad translation, the word should be murder and not kill. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I especially love how the transltors have made this error for so long, yet anyone who could glance at some of the similar writtings from that time period and compare the two words it would be quite obvious, but then again kill in hebrew means quite a few things...
Kill 7523 ratsach (raw-tsakh'); a primitive root; properly, to dash in pieces, i.e. kill (a human being), especially to murder [amended as of 1990]. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Things are revised and amended for a reason. For instance, perhaps even that we look at the KJV, and see that ratsach is translated 'slayer' (intentional) 16 times, 'murderer' 14 times, and 'kill' only 5. Looking all of those uses in <a href='http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/7/1117058221-65.html' target='_blank'>context</a> shows that where 'slayer' or 'murderer' is used, the word refers to a hateful, premeditated, intentional killing.
Sounds kind of like murder, doesn't it? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't disagree, murder definately fits better then kill (in a general sense) but it doesn't change the fact that for thousands of years it was misused. <!--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--> <!--QuoteBegin-cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--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--> Cyndane, "Doesn't refer to homosexual behavior?" Are you daft, woman? What do you propose it does mean? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well legionaired if you had bothered to actually read the bisexuality thread and that disgusting display by comrade skulk you would know that there is not an ancient greek nor hebrew word for homosexuality. I'll let it rest that you missed that entire conversation for some reason or another. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
....
The fact that there is no explicit word for homosexuality only re-inforces the idea that the writer would use alternate language to get the point across. "Lay with a man as you would lie with a woman" seems like it fits that discussion quite nicely, doesn't it?
And I ask again, what could this passage mean, exactly, if we don't take it to mean homsexuality? Even the baseless <a href='http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh.htm' target='_blank'>religioustolerance.org</a> that you cite so much agrees with me here:
<!--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-->The passage in the ancient Hebrew is clearly talking about male-male sex acts.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Wow.. not even quoting the entire article ftw eh? Let me clarify since you leave it out so obviously. <!--QuoteBegin-Article Above+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Article Above)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The word "homosexual" was first used in the very late in 19th century CE. There was no Hebrew word that meant "homosexual." Thus, whenever the word is seen in an English translation of the Bible, one should be wary that the translators might be inserting their own prejudices into the text <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are missing the point entirely. There are words that describe homosexual acts in ancient greek/hebrew however they are NOT present in the bible as I demostrate below and above.
There is no recorded used of "Arsenkoites" prior to its appearance in 1 Cor 6:9. English translators traditionally have related it to Sodomites. There is a double irony to this since, as it is now generally recognized, Sodomites were not punished for homosexuality.
<b> The claim this word means homosexual, defies linguistic evidence and common sense. "Koites" generally denotes licentious sexual activities, and corresponds to the active person in intercourse. The prefix "Arsen", simply means "male". It could mean a male that has sex with lots of women. Paul made up a new word. A biblical scholar when a word is unknown, looks for similar greek words to find a possible meaning. Boswell concludes Paul writing in Koine Greek, took a word from Attic Greek combined with a word from Old Testament Greek to mean the active male prostitute. These were common in the Hellenistic world in the time of Paul. They served as prostitutes for both men and women.Remember "porneia" in the same verse that has been mistranslated fornication but was really female temple prostitutes? Guess what? Paul also is condemning the male prostitutes that also were in the temples of the sex gods.
Scroggs relates it to pederasty in the context it is used in conjunction with "malakos", the effeminate call-boy prostitute. It follows that "arsenkoites" is used to describe the adult active partner of the effeminate call-boy prostitute. Again this is a specific style of pederasty characterized by a young, passive, for-hire call boy and the adult customer. What is clear it has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality as practiced today. </b> It is a serious thing to take human bias and misrepresentations and then sanctify them by wrapping them in the robes of God's authority. That is clearly Scriptural abuse and God does warn strongly those that try and add to His Word.
The Bible is the key instruction manual for Christians, but many fail to realize that the English translations of today, often reflect the bias and history of sexual repression of the Church through the ages and may have nothing to do with what God or writers were really meaning to say. God's real opinion is found by digging beneath the surface, and doing that will lessen the danger of misunderstanding, resulting in confusing our homophobic opinion with God's. God does not call today's homosexuality sin, only you do. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--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--> <!--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-->Considering they do not say "KILL THE INFIDELS" yeah I could live with a enternity of "unenlightenment." You know what buddists and janists are called? They are called pacifists, that means they are peaceful, which means they have no law that says "kill those who don't follow this religion."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you're talking as accepting those that don't follow the religion, then sure. However, that's not to say that according to a Buddhist, there are no consequeces to not listening to Buddha. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Exactly my point, not every religion says "kill the people who not worship in this manner to this god. Most do, some do not. I'm glad that we agree on that one.
*edit* Fixing quotes.. hang on... I'll make it much easier to read.
*edit2* Borked quotes are fixed, should be fairly easy to read now. I hope.
I'd like to point out that the Bible contains numerous passages with a meaning similar to this one:
"The Lord desires not that a sinner should die, but that he should turn from his wickedness and live."
(I don't feel like looking up the exact verse I'm referring to right now, I'm sure Legionairred can find it for you if you must see the original.)
Christians are quite simply not commanded to "kill the infidels". Certainly there is a consequence for those who do not follow God, but that consequence is handed down by God himself, not us. Anyone who thinks differently must have stopped reading partway through the Old Testament.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+May 25 2005, 06:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ May 25 2005, 06:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I am referring strickly to the OT Cxwf, I have no doubt that in the NT it teaches more tolerance to a certain extent. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, I had noticed that, which was why I brought it up.
<!--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-->However, givingtree asked for examples in the bible and I gave them. :-)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which would be all well and good, except you're unintentionally giving Metalcat examples as well. Knowing that he is reading the topic, you ought to be careful enough to mention the other side of the Bibles teachings.
ok i thought about it and sice you dont know how we have it here in Denmark, why should you know that anyway? i have made my mind up to explain it in every little detail.
In Denmark when i was born, my family had a cerimony in the church where i got my name, when it was december, we celebrated chrismas and gave each others present, whitout thinking about that it was jesuses birthday (poor jesus). Each sunday some people (mostly old retired people) go to the church and hear some priest say some things, there are extremly little people that does this, mainly becuase its boring, as we have no gospel choir. Then when i was 13, i say yes to my confirmation because everybody else (or nearly) in Denmark does so, its part of my culture and i got a kickass party and presents.
When i find a lovely girl, i will then get married (i dont like marriage but maybe she does <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->) with her in a church, when we have a child we will give that child its name in a church, we will then hope that it says yes to its confirmation because we are going to have a kickass party. Then my parents will die, and we will hold a cerimony in the church and bury them in the graveyard. (the direct translation of this word to english is chuchyard)
my child will then have a child that will have his name in the chuch, and so on i think you got the idea.
we have done this in really many years in Denmark and i think we will continue to do so as its our culture and our traditions, thats the way of the protestants. (no offense to other countries)
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+May 25 2005, 06:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ May 25 2005, 06:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I am referring strickly to the OT Cxwf, I have no doubt that in the NT it teaches more tolerance to a certain extent.
However, givingtree asked for examples in the bible and I gave them. :-) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> "Say unto them, As I live," saith the Lord God, "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for, why will ye die, O house of Israel?"
- Ezekiel 33:11
The Old Testament displays God's mercy and love just the same as the new Testament. The difference was all governmental. God set up a more direct approach to dealing with sin in the Levitical law and in the government of the Hebrew People.
What about if humans were god, each in its own exsistance. And belief was the manifestation of it. There for we believe we esist, and there for we do. Consiqently if you dont believe in the existance of a higher being, you will find no evidence of one. How ever, if you do belive in one, you will find all the evidence for youself to make it true for youself. People may help open doors, or point them out, but it is up to the individual to go through that door. IE make that leap of faith or non faith.
I belive that a belief is not good for you, if it limits you in any way, thus by believe that everything is true from the non exsistance of God to the exsistance of god. is the only way to open up all posibilties of personal belief expermentation.
<!--QuoteBegin-Gecko God Of Dooom+May 26 2005, 01:39 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Gecko God Of Dooom @ May 26 2005, 01:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> What about if humans were god, each in its own exsistance. And belief was the manifestation of it. There for we believe we esist, and there for we do. Consiqently if you dont believe in the existance of a higher being, you will find no evidence of one. How ever, if you do belive in one, you will find all the evidence for youself to make it true for youself. People may help open doors, or point them out, but it is up to the individual to go through that door. IE make that leap of faith or non faith.
I belive that a belief is not good for you, if it limits you in any way, thus by believe that everything is true from the non exsistance of God to the exsistance of god. is the only way to open up all posibilties of personal belief expermentation. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> 1) If that were true I could will myself to no longer exist. Yet, I must exist to will something.
-My will does not dictate reality.
2) If everything is true, depending on people's subjectiveness, then the forum skin is both blue and red at the same time. I both exist and don't; and the moon is made of both rock AND cheese. The Holocaust did happen, and it didn't.
-Truth does not contradict itself.
Ethical subjectivism fails in every way it is possible for an argument to fail; See James' Rachels <u>Elements of Moral Philosophy,</u> a 100-level ethics textbook. If Ethical subjectivism fails, then epistomological subjectivism fails even harder.
Cyndane; all work and no WoW make Lego a dull boy. I'll get back to you tomorrow.
<!--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 don't disagree, murder definately fits better then kill (in a general sense) but it doesn't change the fact that for thousands of years it was misused.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So, past generations were dumb. Lets move on.
Homosexuality in the bible isn't limited simply to those isntances where it occurs as a religious practice. Multiple times (see Lot in Sodom and Ghomorra) it occurs simply as people wanting to have sex with others.
Though you might make a decent case that because of Paul's diction he didn't mean just any homosexuality, you still haven't explained or proposed an alternate meaning for "You shall not lie with a man as you lie with a woman, for that is abomination."
I shall explain it to you in an hour, that is when I get my break at work. :-)
*edited in* I will get to what you posted below in a moment legion.
<!--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--> Homosexuality in the bible isn't limited simply to those isntances where it occurs as a religious practice. Multiple times (see Lot in Sodom and Ghomorra) it occurs simply as people wanting to have sex with others <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Sodom wasn't about homosexuality like we think of it today, which I'm sure you can agree with. Most if it, especially the two angels segment, deals with homosexual rape, which is just as bad as heterosexual rape. The people outside, didn't have any idea which gender the angels were.
From the context, it is obvious that the mood of the mob was not friendly. Lot may have assessed that they had sex on their minds, because he offered his virgin daughters as an attempt to placate the mob. Some Christian interpreters maintain that all of the men in the city were present in the mob, and that all were homosexual. Lot would certainly have know of this, for he was a resident of the city. If they were all homosexual, then he would hardly have made a gift of his daughters to be raped; the mob would have had no sexual interest in women. Instead, he would have given the mob a gift of his two future sons-in-law. His daughters were both engaged to men from Sodom. In their culture, engagement was a binding arrangement, with many of the properties of marriage. It gave Lot authority over his future sons-in-law, much as he had control of his daughters. So he would have been able to sacrifice his daughters fiancées. But he didn't. Thus, we can conclude that most or all of the men of Sodom were not homosexual.
That was fairly simple I do hope.
As for your "shalt not lie with man as woman."
<!--QuoteBegin-bible translations+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (bible translations)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> ESV: (English Standard Version): "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is abomination." KJV: (King James Version): "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination". LB: (Living Bible): "Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin" Net Bible: "You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman; it is a detestable act." 1 NIV: (New International Version) "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." NLT: (New Living Translation): "Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin. RSV: (Revised Standard Version): "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination . <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> This passage does not refer to homosexual sex generally, but only to a specific form of homosexual prostitution in Pagan temples. Much of Leviticus deals with the holiness code which outlined ways in which the ancient Hebrews were to be set apart to god. Some fertility worship practices found in nearly Pagan cultures were specifically prohibited; ritual same-sex behavior in Pagan temples was one such practice Literally(with little punucation that verse reads as such): "And with a male thou shalt not lie down in beds of a woman; it is an abomination."
So, rather then forbidding male homosexuality, it tells one where they can not have it occur. This might seem strange to the common layman, but it it is quite consistent with other laws in Leviticus which involve the improper mixing of things tha should be kept seperate. i.e. ancient Hebrews were not allowed to mix two crops in the same field, or make cloth out of two different raw materials, or plow a field with an ox and a donkey yoked together. A woman's bed was her own. Only her husband was permitted there, and then only under certain circumstances. Any other use of her bed would be a defilement
An argument against this interpretation is that it would not blend well with the next verse. Leviticus 18:23 discusses a man or a woman engaging in bestiality. The traditional translations would make a smoother text. However, in defense of the the translation, there is already a break in topic between verses 21 and 22. So a second break between 22 and 23 is not unreasonable.
Sorry for the double post, but I see you're already reading the above, so I won't edit it out and make things confusing.
On the topic of the Egyptian religions being a precursor to Christianity:
As far as I can tell, your argument is as follows:
a1) The Egyptian religion paralells Christianity. a2) The Egyptian religion preceeds Christianity. C1) Therefore, Christianity is derived from Egyptian religion.
Is that about right? If we can agree on the logical format of your argument with a structure like that above, we can go from there.
<!--QuoteBegin-Legionnaired+Jun 1 2005, 12:32 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Jun 1 2005, 12:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Sorry for the double post, but I see you're already reading the above, so I won't edit it out and make things confusing. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Tis ok, I didn't realize you were going to double post. :-)
<!--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--> On the topic of the Egyptian religions being a precursor to Christianity:
As far as I can tell, your argument is as follows:
a1) The Egyptian religion paralells Christianity. a2) The Egyptian religion preceeds Christianity. C1) Therefore, Christianity is derived from Egyptian religion <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You are quite close, but I wouldn't base it solely on the ancient Egyptian religion for example the story of noah could have been borrowed from another(Samara), long with many of the old testament stories. (The new testament is a different story entirely since there are LOTS of god-men in all religions around the world.)
Let me edit in what I am more thinking along.
A.) Christianity paralells many older religions. B.) Most of what christanity has been preaching, was preached about thousands of years before. C.)Christianity is just a re-telling of said stories to make it fit with certain politics at the time. D.) Therefore, Christianity is partially derived from the ancient Egyptian religion, along with others.
<!--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--> Is that about right? If we can agree on the logical format of your argument with a structure like that above, we can go from there. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That is how I view this particular religion, although some of the newer sects(of christianity) borrow even more from other religions, which is fairly silly, but some people don't even see that.
B is a no brainer, and also of no importance whatsoever. It is perfectly possible for a fictional story to predate a true one, even if they are strikingly similar (My Jules Verne example.)
A is the sticky wicket, as it were. We both agree that some scripture might have common verbage, fine. However, there's absolutely nothing in common between the meanings of the two peices of writing, and even less when we consider them contextually. (Krishna discussing re-incarnation and the one-ness of all things, Jesus discussing the supremacy of God the Father and death, for ex. Though they might sound similar due to the subject matter, they are talking at cross purposes. Jesus is saying don't worry because it's useless to worry, and God will sort it out, in a sense, and Krishna says don't worry because all things are really just one thing and the person who died is coming back as something else anyway. On the surface they may sound similar, however, the meaning behind it is nowhere near the same.)
And then C; Quite simply, no, it's not. If Christianity was invented, it was the worst idea anyone ever had. Basing your religion on someone who was killed in a disgraceful way reserved for criminals, accepting male and female, Jew and Gentile, Slave and free equally in a bigotted society, and then insisting that the people who are being preached to actively and critically think through the teaching is NO way to start a religion.
Paul, and the other apostles, were not ignorant men. If they were merely attempting to re-tell older stories, there are plenty of other ways to go about it, with far more easily acceptable conclusions.
So, A is shaky at best, B is irrelevant, and C is flat-out wrong.
With this taken into consideration, the argument is as follows:
A1) Christianity has partial similarities with Egyptian religion. D) Therefore, Christianity is partially derived from Egyptian religion.
This is where we differ with our thoughts legion, which we have gone over before.
Contextually or not, the verbage is the same, and even the meaning is the same behind it. Which is probably due to the way we were both taught while we were growing up.
A) Is quite true in so many aspects, even religions that never heard of christianity spout tales of a god-man dying for them, Lakota for example, with virgin births and trials by the devil. Just different names and places, nothing more.
B) You can not just dismiss thought B, you have no proof for it at all. Just because you think christanity is the "true" religion, does not mean it is. Especially when almost all of the tolerance lessons in the new testament were taught by the druids(ignoring the buddists/jains of the east at the same time) almost three thousand years before jesus was supposed to have been born.
C) Actually at the time it was quite a good idea. Politics around during that time era were quite.. murky to say the least. Why not start a revelution based on a supposed figure-head from the sky? After all, it would be the easiest way to get followers, even if they were persecuted since martyrs make the best patriots in the eyes of the people. Especially if they were "divinely" inspired.
D) Needs no defending as, it is the conclusion. :-)
Comments
I think the main difference between protestantism and catholisism is that we don't confess, we don't follow the pope and we don't idolize saints. Generally though, religious people I know believe in God and Jesus, and that's it.
I, like many of my friends who are confirmated, did it just to get presents and because everyone else in our families are. If I could choose now though I would never have done it.
Nowadays I'm as close to buddhist you can get without actually being one. I see it as a kind of protest. I believe most major religions like christianity are dumb, but I don't want to be put together with atheists, even if that probably is what I am, because most of those people are even more stupid. I can't say I fully believe in reincarnation and those things, but philosofically, buddhism is exactly to my taste.
And to get back on topic. Let me quote The Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy:
<!--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-->The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanished in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think the main difference between protestantism and catholisism is that we don't confess, we don't follow the pope and we don't idolize saints. Generally though, religious people I know believe in God and Jesus, and that's it.
I, like many of my friends who are confirmated, did it just to get presents and because everyone else in our families are. If I could choose now though I would never have done it.
Nowadays I'm as close to buddhist you can get without actually being one. I see it as a kind of protest. I believe most major religions like christianity are dumb, but I don't want to be put together with atheists, even if that probably is what I am, because most of those people are even more stupid. I can't say I fully believe in reincarnation and those things, but philosofically, buddhism is exactly to my taste.
And to get back on topic. Let me quote The Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy:
<!--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-->The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanished in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
hmmm your probaly right, but as i have said before about changing religion, i dont really care what the people lists says i am.
and i fully agree with that quote, except getting killed, that kinda sux
*edit*
forgot to say that the scandinavian thing is true, atleast where i live, dont really think anybody gives a damn about god...
1. You do not understand how people can believe in things larger then themselves.
2. To understand you need to educate yourself about other religions, but don't <b>have to join them.</b>
3. Using it as habitual is probably the worse thing a country can do. When you do things just because you are told they lose all meaning, and this applies to anything.
1. You do not understand how people can believe in things larger then themselves.
2. To understand you need to educate yourself about other religions, but don't <b>have to join them.</b>
3. Using it as habitual is probably the worse thing a country can do. When you do things just because you are told they lose all meaning, and this applies to anything. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
what are we discussing again? i really forgot because right now we are just stating things, anyway i have to go to bed now, school tomorrow, its 22:00 here so think about it and post ok?
I didn't miss your post, but there is nothing wrong with believing in something higher then yourself. People do it all the time, some believe in the government o the country the live in, some people believe they are destined for better things in another life, some people believe in a god/gods/goddesses/etc.
That does NOT make them stupid in any way shape for form. Now, if they don't know enough about their own faith to make arguements for it, let alone the semantics involved with any religion, then they are simply ignorant(of how certain aspects work), and not stupid.
*edit*
Metalcat, if anything you need to learn more about what you so you obiviously don't understand. Easiest way to do that is go to the library and pick up a few of the "holy" books. Give them an honest read through, if you don't understand something or a particular passage, you are more then welcome to msg me, or anyone else in your area for help. I won't claim that all the books are a quick and easy read, if I did that would be purely based on ignorance, these "holy" books are hard to read, especially when the translators have some political agenda behind their translations.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is what we are discussing right now.
You do not understand why some people are willing to die for their beliefs whether it be religious or not it really doesn't matter. Some people are so devoted (blindly or not) to their own ideals they are willing to die for them. Just because you have never felt as such doesn't mean they are stupid in any way. Nor does it make them correct in anyway.
Fundamentalism is not the way to go, and you seem to be pouncing on all religious people as fundamentalists. Which is not the case, do not blame the minority on the majority.
I am defending religious people... *sigh* I do hope "satan" likes it "cold" down there.
Over here, most people have realized by themselves that religion is just something someone made up some thousand years ago and it's hard for us to understand how someone can take religion so seriously. I at least, feel an urge to try to enlighten people who hasn't already reached that conclusion.
The problem is that in other big seriously religious countries, like say the US, there are believers and non-believers and there is no reason behind their arguments. Most non-believers call themselves atheists because it sounds cool and don't believe in God because their parents do. The believers are used to only hearing stupid comments and when a good argument actually comes up the believers tend to shut their ears, and the atmosphere gets unfriendly quite fast. Of course we have highly religious people over here as well and it's impossible to talk to them, but not to the same extent.
I guess we'll just have to learn to live with it. There is no way everyone would give up religion just like that one day. But it bothers me that it still has such big influence. Especially on politics.
I'm sorry if I have insulted anyone with this post, and please argue with me because I need the practice <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->.
Oh, and about that site. Just look at the "Today's new reason to believe". First they state some facts which probably are correct, but then they just sum up with "... and this proves that God exists" without any connection what so ever. I mean wth?
Heh, I had the same reaction, but I thought that was just me being stupid and missing the point. Glad to see someone else feels the same way. ;P
The religious climate over there sounds a bit like it does over here in England. Religion generally crops up in the headlines when the Church of England is busy tearing itself apart over homosexual vicars etc. Apart from that, it's just something that's <i>there</i>, and people don't talk about it, really. Maybe it's a cultural thing, but most religious people I've met keep their beliefs to themselves unless asked.
Jumping on the "let's hate America!" bandwagon? You may not fit, it's a tad crowded.
However, it seems to me we are the only country where religious docturine actually influences politics at the executive level.(Disreguarding dictatorships that are sporatically scattered throughout the world) <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--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-->If you could do your own apologetics then this comment wouldn't even be needed.
Let alone all of your work with the "egyptian" religion was almost as bad as some of avengerx's retorts to various topics. You failed in every endeavor to prove they are completely seperate entities.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1) The burden of proof is on YOU, to prove that scripture that teaches that there is one and only God and that Jesus is His only son is the same as scripture that teaches there is a god that forms the clouds when he ejaculates.
All you ever showed was a few bits and peices of common verbage; some between Christianity and Egyptian religion, but mostly between the Bahgavad Gita and the Bible. Which, of course, was all out-of-context crap, where the actual <b>meaning</b> behind the verse was totally different. The only thing that was the same was a few bits common in the English translation. Not a whole lot else.
I'd not equate dismissing an argument with no case with failing to provide any proof.
2) Don't compare me to AvengerX, that's just bad form.
<!--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-->Of course, after all its ok to kill someone but murdering them is "bad".
I especially like how after thousands of years suddenly it is changed to "murder" and not "kill" I quote from a apologetic site.
<!--QuoteBegin-http://www.biblestudygames.com/biblestudies/ten.htm+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (http://www.biblestudygames.com/biblestudies/ten.htm)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
This was a bad translation, the word should be murder and not kill.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I especially love how the transltors have made this error for so long, yet anyone who could glance at some of the similar writtings from that time period and compare the two words it would be quite obvious, but then again kill in hebrew means quite a few things...
Kill 7523 ratsach (raw-tsakh'); a primitive root; properly, to dash in pieces, i.e. kill (a human being), <b>especially to murder [amended as of 1990] </b>.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Things are revised and amended for a reason. For instance, perhaps even that we look at the KJV, and see that ratsach is translated 'slayer' (intentional) 16 times, 'murderer' 14 times, and 'kill' only 5. Looking all of those uses in <a href='http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/7/1117058221-65.html' target='_blank'>context</a> shows that where 'slayer' or 'murderer' is used, the word refers to a hateful, premeditated, intentional killing.
Sounds kind of like murder, doesn't 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-->
<!--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-->
Cyndane, "Doesn't refer to homosexual behavior?" Are you daft, woman? What do you propose it does mean?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well legionaired if you had bothered to actually read the bisexuality thread and that disgusting display by comrade skulk you would know that there is not an ancient greek nor hebrew word for homosexuality. I'll let it rest that you missed that entire conversation for some reason or another.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
....
The fact that there is no explicit word for homosexuality only re-inforces the idea that the writer would use alternate language to get the point across. "Lay with a man as you would lie with a woman" seems like it fits that discussion quite nicely, doesn't it?
And I ask again, what could this passage mean, exactly, if we don't take it to mean homsexuality? Even the baseless <a href='http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh.htm' target='_blank'>religioustolerance.org</a> that you cite so much agrees with me here:
<!--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-->The passage in the ancient Hebrew is clearly talking about male-male sex acts.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--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-->Considering they do not say "KILL THE INFIDELS" yeah I could live with a enternity of "unenlightenment." You know what buddists and janists are called? They are called pacifists, that means they are peaceful, which means they have no law that says "kill those who don't follow this religion."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you're talking as accepting those that don't follow the religion, then sure. However, that's not to say that according to a Buddhist, there are no consequeces to not listening to Buddha.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would agree you should have.
<!--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-->
1) The burden of proof is on YOU, to prove that scripture that teaches that there is one and only God and that Jesus is His only son is the same as scripture that teaches there is a god that forms the clouds when he ejaculates.
All you ever showed was a few bits and peices of common verbage; some between Christianity and Egyptian religion, but mostly between the Bahgavad Gita and the Bible. Which, of course, was all out-of-context crap, where the actual meaning behind the verse was totally different. The only thing that was the same was a few bits common in the English translation. Not a whole lot else.
I'd not equate dismissing an argument with no case with failing to provide any proof.
2) Don't compare me to AvengerX, that's just bad form.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually I disagree, since your bible copies its self from various other works, the burden of proof is on you to prove it is the "word of god" even though other religions pre-dating said religion have similar myths, legends, dogmas attached to them. Of course you have never argued that the bible is new in the religious docturine of older religions.
2.) I can compare when your mindsets are just as narrow.
<!--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-->
<!--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-->
<!--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-->Of course, after all its ok to kill someone but murdering them is "bad".
I especially like how after thousands of years suddenly it is changed to "murder" and not "kill" I quote from a apologetic site.
[code <a href='http://www.biblestudygames.com/biblestudies/ten.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.biblestudygames.com/biblestudies/ten.htm</a>]
This was a bad translation, the word should be murder and not kill.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I especially love how the transltors have made this error for so long, yet anyone who could glance at some of the similar writtings from that time period and compare the two words it would be quite obvious, but then again kill in hebrew means quite a few things...
Kill 7523 ratsach (raw-tsakh'); a primitive root; properly, to dash in pieces, i.e. kill (a human being), especially to murder [amended as of 1990].
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Things are revised and amended for a reason. For instance, perhaps even that we look at the KJV, and see that ratsach is translated 'slayer' (intentional) 16 times, 'murderer' 14 times, and 'kill' only 5. Looking all of those uses in <a href='http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/7/1117058221-65.html' target='_blank'>context</a> shows that where 'slayer' or 'murderer' is used, the word refers to a hateful, premeditated, intentional killing.
Sounds kind of like murder, doesn't it?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't disagree, murder definately fits better then kill (in a general sense) but it doesn't change the fact that for thousands of years it was misused.
<!--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-->
<!--QuoteBegin-cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
<!--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-->
Cyndane, "Doesn't refer to homosexual behavior?" Are you daft, woman? What do you propose it does mean?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well legionaired if you had bothered to actually read the bisexuality thread and that disgusting display by comrade skulk you would know that there is not an ancient greek nor hebrew word for homosexuality. I'll let it rest that you missed that entire conversation for some reason or another.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
....
The fact that there is no explicit word for homosexuality only re-inforces the idea that the writer would use alternate language to get the point across. "Lay with a man as you would lie with a woman" seems like it fits that discussion quite nicely, doesn't it?
And I ask again, what could this passage mean, exactly, if we don't take it to mean homsexuality? Even the baseless <a href='http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh.htm' target='_blank'>religioustolerance.org</a> that you cite so much agrees with me here:
<!--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-->The passage in the ancient Hebrew is clearly talking about male-male sex acts.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow.. not even quoting the entire article ftw eh?
Let me clarify since you leave it out so obviously.
<!--QuoteBegin-Article Above+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Article Above)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
The word "homosexual" was first used in the very late in 19th century CE. There was no Hebrew word that meant "homosexual." Thus, whenever the word is seen in an English translation of the Bible, one should be wary that the translators might be inserting their own prejudices into the text
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are missing the point entirely. There are words that describe homosexual acts in ancient greek/hebrew however they are NOT present in the bible as I demostrate below and above.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Arsenkoites
There is no recorded used of "Arsenkoites" prior to its appearance in 1 Cor 6:9. English translators traditionally have related it to Sodomites. There is a double irony to this since, as it is now generally recognized, Sodomites were not punished for homosexuality.
<b> The claim this word means homosexual, defies linguistic evidence and common sense. "Koites" generally denotes licentious sexual activities, and corresponds to the active person in intercourse. The prefix "Arsen", simply means "male". It could mean a male that has sex with lots of women. Paul made up a new word. A biblical scholar when a word is unknown, looks for similar greek words to find a possible meaning. Boswell concludes Paul writing in Koine Greek, took a word from Attic Greek combined with a word from Old Testament Greek to mean the active male prostitute. These were common in the Hellenistic world in the time of Paul. They served as prostitutes for both men and women.Remember "porneia" in the same verse that has been mistranslated fornication but was really female temple prostitutes? Guess what? Paul also is condemning the male prostitutes that also were in the temples of the sex gods.
Scroggs relates it to pederasty in the context it is used in conjunction with "malakos", the effeminate call-boy prostitute. It follows that "arsenkoites" is used to describe the adult active partner of the effeminate call-boy prostitute. Again this is a specific style of pederasty characterized by a young, passive, for-hire call boy and the adult customer. What is clear it has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality as practiced today.
</b>
It is a serious thing to take human bias and misrepresentations and then sanctify them by wrapping them in the robes of God's authority. That is clearly Scriptural abuse and God does warn strongly those that try and add to His Word.
The Bible is the key instruction manual for Christians, but many fail to realize that the English translations of today, often reflect the bias and history of sexual repression of the Church through the ages and may have nothing to do with what God or writers were really meaning to say. God's real opinion is found by digging beneath the surface, and doing that will lessen the danger of misunderstanding, resulting in confusing our homophobic opinion with God's. God does not call today's homosexuality sin, only you do.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--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-->
<!--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-->Considering they do not say "KILL THE INFIDELS" yeah I could live with a enternity of "unenlightenment." You know what buddists and janists are called? They are called pacifists, that means they are peaceful, which means they have no law that says "kill those who don't follow this religion."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you're talking as accepting those that don't follow the religion, then sure. However, that's not to say that according to a Buddhist, there are no consequeces to not listening to Buddha.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly my point, not every religion says "kill the people who not worship in this manner to this god. Most do, some do not. I'm glad that we agree on that one.
*edit* Fixing quotes.. hang on... I'll make it much easier to read.
*edit2* Borked quotes are fixed, should be fairly easy to read now. I hope.
"The Lord desires not that a sinner should die, but that he should turn from his wickedness and live."
(I don't feel like looking up the exact verse I'm referring to right now, I'm sure Legionairred can find it for you if you must see the original.)
Christians are quite simply not commanded to "kill the infidels". Certainly there is a consequence for those who do not follow God, but that consequence is handed down by God himself, not us. Anyone who thinks differently must have stopped reading partway through the Old Testament.
However, givingtree asked for examples in the bible and I gave them. :-)
Yes, I had noticed that, which was why I brought it up.
<!--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-->However, givingtree asked for examples in the bible and I gave them. :-)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which would be all well and good, except you're unintentionally giving Metalcat examples as well. Knowing that he is reading the topic, you ought to be careful enough to mention the other side of the Bibles teachings.
In Denmark when i was born, my family had a cerimony in the church where i got my name, when it was december, we celebrated chrismas and gave each others present, whitout thinking about that it was jesuses birthday (poor jesus).
Each sunday some people (mostly old retired people) go to the church and hear some priest say some things, there are extremly little people that does this, mainly becuase its boring, as we have no gospel choir.
Then when i was 13, i say yes to my confirmation because everybody else (or nearly) in Denmark does so, its part of my culture and i got a kickass party and presents.
When i find a lovely girl, i will then get married (i dont like marriage but maybe she does <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->) with her in a church, when we have a child we will give that child its name in a church, we will then hope that it says yes to its confirmation because we are going to have a kickass party.
Then my parents will die, and we will hold a cerimony in the church and bury them in the graveyard. (the direct translation of this word to english is chuchyard)
my child will then have a child that will have his name in the chuch, and so on i think you got the idea.
we have done this in really many years in Denmark and i think we will continue to do so as its our culture and our traditions, thats the way of the protestants. (no offense to other countries)
However, givingtree asked for examples in the bible and I gave them. :-) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
"Say unto them, As I live," saith the Lord God, "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for, why will ye die, O house of Israel?"
- Ezekiel 33:11
The Old Testament displays God's mercy and love just the same as the new Testament. The difference was all governmental. God set up a more direct approach to dealing with sin in the Levitical law and in the government of the Hebrew People.
<i>see also Ezekiel 18:32</i>
~ DarkATi
I belive that a belief is not good for you, if it limits you in any way, thus by believe that everything is true from the non exsistance of God to the exsistance of god. is the only way to open up all posibilties of personal belief expermentation.
I belive that a belief is not good for you, if it limits you in any way, thus by believe that everything is true from the non exsistance of God to the exsistance of god. is the only way to open up all posibilties of personal belief expermentation. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
1) If that were true I could will myself to no longer exist. Yet, I must exist to will something.
-My will does not dictate reality.
2) If everything is true, depending on people's subjectiveness, then the forum skin is both blue and red at the same time. I both exist and don't; and the moon is made of both rock AND cheese. The Holocaust did happen, and it didn't.
-Truth does not contradict itself.
Ethical subjectivism fails in every way it is possible for an argument to fail; See James' Rachels <u>Elements of Moral Philosophy,</u> a 100-level ethics textbook. If Ethical subjectivism fails, then epistomological subjectivism fails even harder.
Cyndane; all work and no WoW make Lego a dull boy. I'll get back to you tomorrow.
<!--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 don't disagree, murder definately fits better then kill (in a general sense) but it doesn't change the fact that for thousands of years it was misused.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So, past generations were dumb. Lets move on.
Homosexuality in the bible isn't limited simply to those isntances where it occurs as a religious practice. Multiple times (see Lot in Sodom and Ghomorra) it occurs simply as people wanting to have sex with others.
Though you might make a decent case that because of Paul's diction he didn't mean just any homosexuality, you still haven't explained or proposed an alternate meaning for "You shall not lie with a man as you lie with a woman, for that is abomination."
*edited in* I will get to what you posted below in a moment legion.
<!--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-->
Homosexuality in the bible isn't limited simply to those isntances where it occurs as a religious practice. Multiple times (see Lot in Sodom and Ghomorra) it occurs simply as people wanting to have sex with others
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sodom wasn't about homosexuality like we think of it today, which I'm sure you can agree with. Most if it, especially the two angels segment, deals with homosexual rape, which is just as bad as heterosexual rape. The people outside, didn't have any idea which gender the angels were.
From the context, it is obvious that the mood of the mob was not friendly. Lot may have assessed that they had sex on their minds, because he offered his virgin daughters as an attempt to placate the mob. Some Christian interpreters maintain that all of the men in the city were present in the mob, and that all were homosexual. Lot would certainly have know of this, for he was a resident of the city. If they were all homosexual, then he would hardly have made a gift of his daughters to be raped; the mob would have had no sexual interest in women. Instead, he would have given the mob a gift of his two future sons-in-law. His daughters were both engaged to men from Sodom. In their culture, engagement was a binding arrangement, with many of the properties of marriage. It gave Lot authority over his future sons-in-law, much as he had control of his daughters. So he would have been able to sacrifice his daughters fiancées. But he didn't. Thus, we can conclude that most or all of the men of Sodom were not homosexual.
That was fairly simple I do hope.
As for your "shalt not lie with man as woman."
<!--QuoteBegin-bible translations+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (bible translations)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
ESV: (English Standard Version): "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is abomination."
KJV: (King James Version): "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination".
LB: (Living Bible): "Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin"
Net Bible: "You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman; it is a detestable act." 1
NIV: (New International Version) "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."
NLT: (New Living Translation): "Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin.
RSV: (Revised Standard Version): "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination .
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This passage does not refer to homosexual sex generally, but only to a specific form of homosexual prostitution in Pagan temples. Much of Leviticus deals with the holiness code which outlined ways in which the ancient Hebrews were to be set apart to god. Some fertility worship practices found in nearly Pagan cultures were specifically prohibited; ritual same-sex behavior in Pagan temples was one such practice
Literally(with little punucation that verse reads as such):
"And with a male thou shalt not lie down in beds of a woman; it is an abomination."
So, rather then forbidding male homosexuality, it tells one where they can not have it occur. This might seem strange to the common layman, but it it is quite consistent with other laws in Leviticus which involve the improper mixing of things tha should be kept seperate. i.e. ancient Hebrews were not allowed to mix two crops in the same field, or make cloth out of two different raw materials, or plow a field with an ox and a donkey yoked together. A woman's bed was her own. Only her husband was permitted there, and then only under certain circumstances. Any other use of her bed would be a defilement
An argument against this interpretation is that it would not blend well with the next verse. Leviticus 18:23 discusses a man or a woman engaging in bestiality. The traditional translations would make a smoother text. However, in defense of the the translation, there is already a break in topic between verses 21 and 22. So a second break between 22 and 23 is not unreasonable.
On the topic of the Egyptian religions being a precursor to Christianity:
As far as I can tell, your argument is as follows:
a1) The Egyptian religion paralells Christianity.
a2) The Egyptian religion preceeds Christianity.
C1) Therefore, Christianity is derived from Egyptian religion.
Is that about right? If we can agree on the logical format of your argument with a structure like that above, we can go from there.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Tis ok, I didn't realize you were going to double post. :-)
<!--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-->
On the topic of the Egyptian religions being a precursor to Christianity:
As far as I can tell, your argument is as follows:
a1) The Egyptian religion paralells Christianity.
a2) The Egyptian religion preceeds Christianity.
C1) Therefore, Christianity is derived from Egyptian religion
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are quite close, but I wouldn't base it solely on the ancient Egyptian religion for example the story of noah could have been borrowed from another(Samara), long with many of the old testament stories. (The new testament is a different story entirely since there are LOTS of god-men in all religions around the world.)
Let me edit in what I am more thinking along.
A.) Christianity paralells many older religions.
B.) Most of what christanity has been preaching, was preached about thousands of years before.
C.)Christianity is just a re-telling of said stories to make it fit with certain politics at the time.
D.) Therefore, Christianity is partially derived from the ancient Egyptian religion, along with others.
<!--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-->
Is that about right? If we can agree on the logical format of your argument with a structure like that above, we can go from there.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is how I view this particular religion, although some of the newer sects(of christianity) borrow even more from other religions, which is fairly silly, but some people don't even see that.
B is a no brainer, and also of no importance whatsoever. It is perfectly possible for a fictional story to predate a true one, even if they are strikingly similar (My Jules Verne example.)
A is the sticky wicket, as it were. We both agree that some scripture might have common verbage, fine. However, there's absolutely nothing in common between the meanings of the two peices of writing, and even less when we consider them contextually. (Krishna discussing re-incarnation and the one-ness of all things, Jesus discussing the supremacy of God the Father and death, for ex. Though they might sound similar due to the subject matter, they are talking at cross purposes. Jesus is saying don't worry because it's useless to worry, and God will sort it out, in a sense, and Krishna says don't worry because all things are really just one thing and the person who died is coming back as something else anyway. On the surface they may sound similar, however, the meaning behind it is nowhere near the same.)
And then C; Quite simply, no, it's not. If Christianity was invented, it was the worst idea anyone ever had. Basing your religion on someone who was killed in a disgraceful way reserved for criminals, accepting male and female, Jew and Gentile, Slave and free equally in a bigotted society, and then insisting that the people who are being preached to actively and critically think through the teaching is NO way to start a religion.
Paul, and the other apostles, were not ignorant men. If they were merely attempting to re-tell older stories, there are plenty of other ways to go about it, with far more easily acceptable conclusions.
So, A is shaky at best, B is irrelevant, and C is flat-out wrong.
With this taken into consideration, the argument is as follows:
A1) Christianity has partial similarities with Egyptian religion.
D) Therefore, Christianity is partially derived from Egyptian religion.
As you can see, the conclusion does not follow.
Contextually or not, the verbage is the same, and even the meaning is the same behind it. Which is probably due to the way we were both taught while we were growing up.
A) Is quite true in so many aspects, even religions that never heard of christianity spout tales of a god-man dying for them, Lakota for example, with virgin births and trials by the devil. Just different names and places, nothing more.
B) You can not just dismiss thought B, you have no proof for it at all. Just because you think christanity is the "true" religion, does not mean it is. Especially when almost all of the tolerance lessons in the new testament were taught by the druids(ignoring the buddists/jains of the east at the same time) almost three thousand years before jesus was supposed to have been born.
C) Actually at the time it was quite a good idea. Politics around during that time era were quite.. murky to say the least. Why not start a revelution based on a supposed figure-head from the sky? After all, it would be the easiest way to get followers, even if they were persecuted since martyrs make the best patriots in the eyes of the people. Especially if they were "divinely" inspired.
D) Needs no defending as, it is the conclusion. :-)