Why Yahweh? (Or Allah, or Zeus, etc.)

[John V]

Either way, I see what you're saying. What about something closer to home, like Mithras who I mentioned before, who had a last supper, whose followers had a Holy Communion, who were annointed with oil on their foreheads? Justin Martyr I tell you... I swear he was a closet Mithraist!

The same issue applies to Mithraism. Who received the revelation, and what signs did they provide to support it? We don't know. Actually we know very little about Mithraism, as it was a mystery religion which was passed along orally. They didn't have texts. The description you gave of a typical bas-relief from a Mithraeum was accurate. Interpretation of its symbols are, well, interpretation. People see what they want in them. People who want to see parallels to Christianity see parallels to Christianity. Aside from Mithraeum, the only significant information on Mithraism comes from Christians who were writing against Mithraism.

[FallentoReason]

Either way, I see what you're saying. What about something closer to home, like Mithras who I mentioned before, who had a last supper, whose followers had a Holy Communion, who were annointed with oil on their foreheads? Justin Martyr I tell you... I swear he was a closet Mithraist!

The same issue applies to Mithraism. Who received the revelation, and what signs did they provide to support it? We don't know. Actually we know very little about Mithraism, as it was a mystery religion which was passed along orally. They didn't have texts. The description you gave of a typical bas-relief from a Mithraeum was accurate. Interpretation of its symbols are, well, interpretation. People see what they want in them. People who want to see parallels to Christianity see parallels to Christianity. Aside from Mithraeum, the only significant information on Mithraism comes from Christians who were writing against Mithraism.

I agree completely. Things might be different if Mithraists weren't so selective as to who could join though. I mean, going from what Justin tells us, it seems like Christianity literally borrowed from Mithraism. Of course, Justin being the Super Apologist that he is gets around it by saying "Satan was behind it in order to decieve from the true God" which then unfortunately means he lost the battle for Christianity, as he is explicitly saying Mithraist practices pre-dated Christianity, and there's good reason to believe that. Again, I point out that the bull was the central figure of it all, which not surprisingly matches the astrological age.

[Mystic]

As for option 3. I would like to answer in a yes and no manner.

I would say a lot of religions are correct about God in that he is suppose to be perfection/ultimate/greatest possible being. But just like no society ever got everything right about morals, doesn't mean there isn't a right morality, in the same way, not being right about the morality of God, doesn't mean they were wrong in believing he was the perfect moral being.

The same can be said about praise.

God is always going to be a reflection of the morals you believe in. Try as you might, you cannot not have a concept of what you believe is more greater morally or less greater. We tend not to sit on the fence for this kind of stuff, and make judgement even if we are not sure.

I would say, however, if there was no religions, and people were free to decide what God is without being dictated, people would come to near agreement on who God is.

A modern day example of how people distort what they know about God is the example of Salafis. I swear to God, they very well know God doesn't have hands, feet, a face, legs, and that would be beneath his greatness, and that the Quran is speaking metaphorically when it use hands and eyes and face, and it's obvious it's metaphorical, but they love their sect, they love their leaders, and they buy into stupid propaganda...

And Christians with trinity of course they very well know it's nothing but sophistry to justify their polytheism while wanting to remain true to the Jewish roots of their religion.

[The Grand Nudger]

@John

I still don't know why miracles feature so heavily in your justification for belief (especially considering that you excused yourself from establishing that they occur at all....and haven't explained why they would justify belief in a god in the event that they did occur). I also think you're being more than a little slippery here as well, choosing to focus on the people who wrote about the miraculous actions of gods rather than the gods themselves (not that magical little legends don't show up for greek authors and poets). There is very little about the greek narratives that -isn't- miraculous...

Line in the sand, if miraculous narratives are what it takes....there are a shitload of gods floating around....and not a one is circling any drain.

[John V]

I agree completely. Things might be different if Mithraists weren't so selective as to who could join though.

A major contrast to Christianity.

I mean, going from what Justin tells us, it seems like Christianity literally borrowed from Mithraism.

Justin said they gave initiates bread and water. Christianity gives wine and water on a continuing basis. Justin may have seen a significant parallel. I don't.

Of course, Justin being the Super Apologist that he is gets around it by saying "Satan was behind it in order to decieve from the true God" which then unfortunately means he lost the battle for Christianity, as he is explicitly saying Mithraist practices pre-dated Christianity, and there's good reason to believe that.

Mithraism in some form probably predated Christianity. The Roman form you refer to may predate Christianity, or may have come about at the same time or shortly after. There really isn't a consensus on it. Even if it predates Christianity, though, it doesn't affect Christianity. As we've noted, it was a mystery religion which was very selective about members, and those members were typically Roman soldiers, not Jewish fishermen or theologians. Justin attributes parallels to Satan. Maybe he's right, but the parallels are so weak it's more easily explained as just coincidence.

Again, I point out that the bull was the central figure of it all, which not surprisingly matches the astrological age.

Again, I find the zodiac position so ridiculous that I respond with ridicule: How was that bowl of Cocoa Puffs you had for breakfast this morning?

[FallentoReason]

I agree completely. Things might be different if Mithraists weren't so selective as to who could join though.

A major contrast to Christianity.

Christianity has its rough patches as well, like no female Apostles. I haven't worked out if that's because Jesus was sexist or gay... The latter being a theory that I've heard alot. Either way, first thing's first! Gotta prove the sucker's existence!

I mean, going from what Justin tells us, it seems like Christianity literally borrowed from Mithraism.

Justin said they gave initiates bread and water. Christianity gives wine and water on a continuing basis. Justin may have seen a significant parallel. I don't.

I'll take the contemporary's word over yours anyday.

Of course, Justin being the Super Apologist that he is gets around it by saying "Satan was behind it in order to decieve from the true God" which then unfortunately means he lost the battle for Christianity, as he is explicitly saying Mithraist practices pre-dated Christianity, and there's good reason to believe that.

Mithraism in some form probably predated Christianity. The Roman form you refer to may predate Christianity, or may have come about at the same time or shortly after. There really isn't a consensus on it. Even if it predates Christianity, though, it doesn't affect Christianity. As we've noted, it was a mystery religion which was very selective about members, and those members were typically Roman soldiers, not Jewish fishermen or theologians. Justin attributes parallels to Satan. Maybe he's right, but the parallels are so weak it's more easily explained as just coincidence.

Sorry, but Justin has spilt the beans. There's no way to undo what he's already revealed about the cult.

Again, I point out that the bull was the central figure of it all, which not surprisingly matches the astrological age.

Again, I find the zodiac position so ridiculous that I respond with ridicule: How was that bowl of Cocoa Puffs you had for breakfast this morning?

[/quote]
Sorry but that doesn't fly. Too bad that you don't like this possibility. Give me reasons why this can't be. I'll just put this right here:

What were the people worshipping when Moses brought down the tablets? A bull, because back then it was the age of Taurus. The whole Jesus hype came about from the new age, Pisces, and now that age will end in 2160 A.D. making it the age of Aquarius, hence the "water bearer" in Luke. Crystal clear and legitimate until you prove otherwise.

[Minimalist]

So, evidence for the Greek gods is weaker than for Christianity.

And, of course, the "evidence" for xtianity is little more than the self-serving bleating of pious fanatics.

True of all religions, though.

[Darkstar]

Next in the title is Zeus.

To my knowledge, the earliest written records of substance re: Zeus were done by Homer and Hesiod. No miracles are attributed to these two. They're generally regarded as poets, not prophets. Hesiod was a writer in general, and also wrote on other topics - don't know about Homer.

Due to the time spans and other factors they obviously weren't writing as witnesses. They could have been as fiction or speculation. They could have been writing it as direct revelation from the gods. We don't really know their intent.

Even if intended as revelation, we have the same problem as Muhammed - no miracles even claimed as support.

So, evidence for the Greek gods is weaker than for Christianity.

First of all, the muslims have a counter-argument. http://darulfatwa.org.au/content/view/819/288/

Secondly, the miracles of the bible are not attributed to any of the authors. Jesus did not write any of the bible, so I do not see how miracle claims make the bible more valid. According to Islam, the very writing of the Qur'an was a miracle. (I think I've been spelling it wrong...) We know the Qur'an exists; is that proof of a miracle?

[John V]

First of all, the muslims have a counter-argument. http://darulfatwa.org.au/content/view/819/288/

Where? They agree that extraordinary miracles of healing are attributed to Jesus. They state that the greatest miracle of Muhammed is the writing of the Quran. They then list supposed miracles of Muhammed. These miracles are not found in the Quran. In the Quran, Muhammed expressly states that the doesn't have miraculous powers. These miracles came about in later tradition, which is what we would expect of a legend growing up around true but mundane events. Critics of Christianity recognize this principle and speculate that there must have been non-miraculous texts on which the gospels were built, but no such texts have been found.

Secondly, the miracles of the bible are not attributed to any of the authors.

Huh?!? Ever read Acts?

Jesus did not write any of the bible, so I do not see how miracle claims make the bible more valid. According to Islam, the very writing of the Qur'an was a miracle. (I think I've been spelling it wrong...) We know the Qur'an exists; is that proof of a miracle?

Do you find writing a book to be extraordinary? I don't. Remember, I started the line on miracles by noting the principle that extraordinary claims (such as a revelation from god) require extraordinary evidence (such as miracles). (Apparently Rhythm missed this.) Seems pretty circular to say that the revelation is evidence of itself.

---

Try looking at it this way.

Suppose we found a text that appears older than the gospels. This text has the basic mundane elements of the gospels: Jesus traveling and teaching, parables, etc. But, it has no miraculous elements. In fact, people challenge Jesus to produce a miracle, and he admits he can't.

Wouldn't you say that this text undermines the position that Jesus performed miracles?

Well, we have that text for Islam - it's called the Quran.

[Darkstar]

Secondly, the miracles of the bible are not attributed to any of the authors.

Huh?!? Ever read Acts?

Not in its entirety...
Which prompted me to find this:http://www.answering-christianity.com/je...racles.htm. What makes Jesus so special, then?

Jesus did not write any of the bible, so I do not see how miracle claims make the bible more valid. According to Islam, the very writing of the Qur'an was a miracle. (I think I've been spelling it wrong...) We know the Qur'an exists; is that proof of a miracle?

Do you find writing a book to be extraordinary? I don't. Remember, I started the line on miracles by noting the principle that extraordinary claims (such as a revelation from god) require extraordinary evidence (such as miracles). (Apparently Rhythm missed this.) Seems pretty circular to say that the revelation is evidence of itself.

---

Try looking at it this way.

Suppose we found a text that appears older than the gospels. This text has the basic mundane elements of the gospels: Jesus traveling and teaching, parables, etc. But, it has no miraculous elements. In fact, people challenge Jesus to produce a miracle, and he admits he can't.

Wouldn't you say that this text undermines the position that Jesus performed miracles?

Well, we have that text for Islam - it's called the Quran.

I'm just going by their reasoning...I don't agree that it is evidence either. Oh wait, isn't that an argument from silence to say that because we haven't found that text, it probably doesn't exist? Does that mean I can say that the Romans never wrote about Jesus performing any miracles, and because miracle claims of the time were common, that means he probably didn't perform any?