This reminds me of the creationists who argue against evolution by pointing out all the finer differences in animals, while ignoring the larger similarities.

"Look at the dog leg, totally different than ours." While over looking the one bone- two bone- lots of little bones- five fingers set up.

Back on topic.

"Why be good?"

Because it is good for the survival of the species. If everyone kills off everyone, then there will be no one to pass on the genes. Species gone. If you fuck with someone, you will get thumped. Enough thumps and you are dead or good. Just watch the animal kingdom. Most animals are good. There is that occasional bad ass, but they usually do not get to pass on their genes (translation: for the xtians; to know a mate. for the real folk; fuck.). It it seems to be an inherent quality of the gene pool.

(June 8, 2015 at 9:24 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(June 7, 2015 at 2:14 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: Unfortunately, this line of reasoning that you've embarked on works just as well for the Greek gods, the Roman gods, Mithra, Allah, Zoroaster, Ahura Mazda, Amun Ra, Isis, Thor...

In the course of my reading, I have come across some information which is relevant to the questions that you and another poster have been asking. Previously, I have said that these questions weren't really worth responding to...but I think it reasonable to explain why I feel that way.

The claim is that Jesus is a "copy cat god" and that the disciples of Jesus simply took beliefs from older religions and molded them together to create a storyline for their new religion. Since this line of argumentation is pursued by atheists on a regular basis, it will be instructive to review the type of academic scholarship that has been done on these so-called gods.

Edwin Yamauchi, is a top Mithra scholar with a doctorate in Mediterranean studies. He has studied 22 languages and written 17 books including Persia and the Bible. (The Mithras religion is said to have started in Persia before coming to the Roman Empire.) Yamauchi was also one of the scholars who attended the Second Mithraic Congress in Tehran, Iran in the 1970′s.

Dr. Yamauchi addressed each of the alleged similarities between Jesus and Mithra:

1. Mithraism did not teach that he was born of a virgin; rather, the mythical Mithra was born out of a rock. 
   
2. Furthermore, he was born an adult, not a baby as was Jesus. 
   
3. And, Jesus was, of course, not born in a cave as the second century letter of Barnabas alleges.
   
4. The birthday of Jesus Christ is not mentioned in the Bible and is not known. In fact, the earliest birth date for Jesus celebrated by Christians was January 6th. The earliest time in which Dec. 25 th was used by Christians is AD 336 when Emperor Constantine proposed this day – possibly appropriated from the sun god worship. December 25th is close to the winter solstice and was chosen by Emperor Aurelian for the dedication of his temple to the sun god.
   
5. Mithra was not a traveling teacher of disciples.
   
6. The belief of immortality may be inferred in Mithraism, but that is common to almost all religions, so is not significant.
   
7. Mithra did not sacrifice himself for anyone; he killed a bull.
   
8. After extensive study, Yamauchi knows of no references to Mithra’s death. And, consequently, there are no records of his resurrection.
   
9. Any possible sacramental meal in Mithraism is unrelated to the Lord’s Supper because it was initiated much later, in the second century. Furthermore, the Christian meal is based on the Passover, begun during the time of Moses.
   

From a Wikipedia article on the "Dying-and-rising gods" category of ancient Near East religions:

"One of the leading scholars in the deconstruction of the "dying-and-rising god" category was Jonathan Z. Smith, whose 1969 dissertation discusses Frazer's Golden Bough, and who in Mircea Eliade's 1987 Encyclopedia of Religion wrote the "Dying and rising gods" entry, where he dismisses the category as "largely a misnomer based on imaginative reconstructions and exceeding late or highly ambiguous texts", suggesting a more detailed categorization into "dying gods" and "disappearing gods", arguing that before Christianity, the two categories were distinct and gods who "died" did not return, and those who returned never truly "died"."

Smith also wrote:

“Some of these divine figures simply disappear, some disappear only to return again in the near or distant future, some disappear and reappear with monotonous frequency. All the deities that have been identified as belonging to the class of dying and rising deities can be subsumed under the two larger classes of disappearing deities or dying deities. In the first case, the deities return but have not died; in the second case, the gods die but do not return. There is no unambiguous instance in the history of religions of a dying and rising deity.” (volume 4, page 521-522)

If there is no credible support for a dying and rising deity in the ancient religions, then Christianity cannot possibly be indebted to them. Jesus of Nazareth is God and was before He died. He rose again as He promised, but He did not become God in the process. 

Thus, unlike the false gods of the "dying-and-rising gods" category, He is unique in history despite the claims of similarity made by non-Christians.

The only real reason why abrahamic religions are even around. For one the religion is still fairly new older religions died with their civilizations. Other religions and religious wars
caused those religions to too also stop existing. The fact being is now in the first world and here in murica people are pretty much are not believing the accounts of the bible and just
barely only believe in a god without a bible to back it up. You don't need religion to believe in a god you either do or you don't also to add onto that the bible was not written by a god or divinely inspired no magic no nothing. Its just a book well a story book of metaphors for people of a time that needed something to believe in and the bible was also a way to control people to do horrible acts to their fellow men. 

(June 8, 2015 at 9:50 pm)dyresand Wrote:

(June 8, 2015 at 9:24 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: In the course of my reading, I have come across some information which is relevant to the questions that you and another poster have been asking. Previously, I have said that these questions weren't really worth responding to...but I think it reasonable to explain why I feel that way.

The claim is that Jesus is a "copy cat god" and that the disciples of Jesus simply took beliefs from older religions and molded them together to create a storyline for their new religion. Since this line of argumentation is pursued by atheists on a regular basis, it will be instructive to review the type of academic scholarship that has been done on these so-called gods.

Edwin Yamauchi, is a top Mithra scholar with a doctorate in Mediterranean studies. He has studied 22 languages and written 17 books including Persia and the Bible. (The Mithras religion is said to have started in Persia before coming to the Roman Empire.) Yamauchi was also one of the scholars who attended the Second Mithraic Congress in Tehran, Iran in the 1970′s.

Dr. Yamauchi addressed each of the alleged similarities between Jesus and Mithra:

1. Mithraism did not teach that he was born of a virgin; rather, the mythical Mithra was born out of a rock. 
   
2. Furthermore, he was born an adult, not a baby as was Jesus. 
   
3. And, Jesus was, of course, not born in a cave as the second century letter of Barnabas alleges.
   
4. The birthday of Jesus Christ is not mentioned in the Bible and is not known. In fact, the earliest birth date for Jesus celebrated by Christians was January 6th. The earliest time in which Dec. 25 th was used by Christians is AD 336 when Emperor Constantine proposed this day – possibly appropriated from the sun god worship. December 25th is close to the winter solstice and was chosen by Emperor Aurelian for the dedication of his temple to the sun god.
   
5. Mithra was not a traveling teacher of disciples.
   
6. The belief of immortality may be inferred in Mithraism, but that is common to almost all religions, so is not significant.
   
7. Mithra did not sacrifice himself for anyone; he killed a bull.
   
8. After extensive study, Yamauchi knows of no references to Mithra’s death. And, consequently, there are no records of his resurrection.
   
9. Any possible sacramental meal in Mithraism is unrelated to the Lord’s Supper because it was initiated much later, in the second century. Furthermore, the Christian meal is based on the Passover, begun during the time of Moses.
   

From a Wikipedia article on the "Dying-and-rising gods" category of ancient Near East religions:

"One of the leading scholars in the deconstruction of the "dying-and-rising god" category was Jonathan Z. Smith, whose 1969 dissertation discusses Frazer's Golden Bough, and who in Mircea Eliade's 1987 Encyclopedia of Religion wrote the "Dying and rising gods" entry, where he dismisses the category as "largely a misnomer based on imaginative reconstructions and exceeding late or highly ambiguous texts", suggesting a more detailed categorization into "dying gods" and "disappearing gods", arguing that before Christianity, the two categories were distinct and gods who "died" did not return, and those who returned never truly "died"."

Smith also wrote:

“Some of these divine figures simply disappear, some disappear only to return again in the near or distant future, some disappear and reappear with monotonous frequency. All the deities that have been identified as belonging to the class of dying and rising deities can be subsumed under the two larger classes of disappearing deities or dying deities. In the first case, the deities return but have not died; in the second case, the gods die but do not return. There is no unambiguous instance in the history of religions of a dying and rising deity.” (volume 4, page 521-522)

If there is no credible support for a dying and rising deity in the ancient religions, then Christianity cannot possibly be indebted to them. Jesus of Nazareth is God and was before He died. He rose again as He promised, but He did not become God in the process. 

Thus, unlike the false gods of the "dying-and-rising gods" category, He is unique in history despite the claims of similarity made by non-Christians.

The only real reason why abrahamic religions are even around. For one the religion is still fairly new older religions died with their civilizations. Other religions and religious wars
caused those religions to too also stop existing. The fact being is now in the first world and here in murica people are pretty much are not believing the accounts of the bible and just
barely only believe in a god without a bible to back it up. You don't need religion to believe in a god you either do or you don't also to add onto that the bible was not written by a god or divinely inspired no magic no nothing. Its just a book well a story book of metaphors for people of a time that needed something to believe in and the bible was also a way to control people to do horrible acts to their fellow men. 

Mithraism is not extinct. It was simply a off shoot of Zoroaster, which is an alive and well religion .

(June 8, 2015 at 10:43 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote:

(June 8, 2015 at 9:50 pm)dyresand Wrote: The only real reason why abrahamic religions are even around. For one the religion is still fairly new older religions died with their civilizations. Other religions and religious wars
caused those religions to too also stop existing. The fact being is now in the first world and here in murica people are pretty much are not believing the accounts of the bible and just
barely only believe in a god without a bible to back it up. You don't need religion to believe in a god you either do or you don't also to add onto that the bible was not written by a god or divinely inspired no magic no nothing. Its just a book well a story book of metaphors for people of a time that needed something to believe in and the bible was also a way to control people to do horrible acts to their fellow men. 

Mithraism is not extinct. It was simply a off shoot of Zoroaster, which is an alive and well religion .

Huh well i learned something new i didn't know that was still around. 

(June 8, 2015 at 9:24 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: In the first case, the deities return but have not died; in the second case, the gods die but do not return.

Yes, and in your Catholic mythos, with its Trinity, the first instance seems appropriate.

Jesus cannot have died if he was simultaneously God, if God has lived eternally.

Randy,

You asked in this or another thread if I was seeking "the truth." The answer is that if by the truth you mean some vast cosmic truth that explains everything, I am not. I want to believe true things and not believe false ones. How much time I spend trying to decide what is true and false depends on the importance of the fact. China's current GDP, for example, doesn't hold much current interest for me.

What makes us want to be good is an interesting question, but your answers depend on the highly improbable, so I move along to the more probable and rather more mundane answers which have to do with physiology, culture, and evolution. I'm not sure the answers are perfect just much more probable than god.

(June 8, 2015 at 10:57 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: Jesus cannot have died if he was simultaneously God, if God has lived eternally.

It's certainly possible. He left Bruce in charge for a weekend. I've seen it in a movie so it must be true.

(June 8, 2015 at 7:47 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(June 8, 2015 at 7:16 pm)Rhythm Wrote: -and you don't have a problem with the fact that what the church "knows" is wrong?  Doesn't set off any bells for you?

Holy shit, you mean I can't just assert something us true and have it be so?  Amazing.

No way silly.  It also requires like a shit load of scripture incantations.

(June 8, 2015 at 11:41 pm)Cato Wrote:

(June 8, 2015 at 10:57 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: Jesus cannot have died if he was simultaneously God, if God has lived eternally.

It's certainly possible. He left Bruce in charge for a weekend. I've seen it in a movie so it must be true.

I heard he went on strike for shitty working conditions, and Bruce was just a scab.

At least, that was what was in the rejected script, but they couldn't sign Sally Field up for the role ... for obvious reasons.