Happy New Year to all fundies
Rolf
all the fundamentalist drivel might be appropriate for the new year.
Studies of the Bible have shown that far from being 'the word of God', it is
instead simply a product of the human mind. For example, comparing the Law
of Moses with the laws laid down by Hammurabi, king of Babylon hundreds of
years before Moses, reveals a similarity that hardly is coincidental.
Nor are the Gospels eyewitness accounts. The Jesus myth is nothing less than
a perennial myth told anew, with a twist. This time, it claims, it has
happened for real: The Son of God was born a man, died, and resurrected.
Just as in myths originating thousands of years earlier, like the Egyptian
myth of Osiris.
Incidentally, the timing of this 'event' is not incidental, but rather
related to the birth of the new year.
There was quite a dispute in early Christianity about whether the birth of
Christ was December 25 or January 6. These dates were not arbitrarily
chosen. Both were once the dates of the winter solstice, the shortest day,
which signals the turning point of the year and the returning of the
life-giving sun. Due to the precession of the equinoxes this date changes
slightly over time. So, although the solstice moved progressively from
January 6 to December 25, some traditions continued to celebrate it on the
familiar night. Today it falls around December 22. The annual celebration of
the nativity of the Mystery godman celebrated the death of the old year and
its miraculous rebirth as the new year on the date of the solstice.
The Pagan philosopher and satirist Celsus pointed out that "there is nothing
at all unusual about what the Christians believe, except that they believe
it to the exclusion of more comprehensive truths about God."
Early Christians were painfully aware of such criticisms. How could Pagan
myths, which predated Christianity by hundreds of years, have so much in
common with the biography of the one and only savior Jesus?
Desperate to come up with an explanation, the Church fathers resorted to one
of the most absurd theories ever advanced. From the time of Justin Martyr in
the second century onward, they declared that the Devil had plagiarized
Christianity by anticipation in order to lead people astray! Knowing that
the true Son of God was literally to come and walk the Earth, the Devil had
copied the story of his life in advance of it happening and created the
myths of Osiris-Dionysus. The Church father Tertullian writes of the Devil's
diabolical mimicry in creating the Mysteries of Mithras:
"The devil, whose business is to pervert the truth, mimics the exact
circumstances of the Divine Sacraments. He baptizes his believers and
promises forgiveness of sins from the Sacred Fount, and thereby initiates
them into the religion of Mithras. Thus he celebrates the oblation of bread,
and brings in the symbol of the resurrection. Let us therefore acknowledge
the craftiness of the devil, who copies certain things of those that be
Divine."
Justin Martyr acknowledges the similarities between Jesus' virgin birth and
Pagan mythology, writing: "In saying that the Word was born for us without
sexual union as Jesus Christ our teacher, we introduce nothing beyond what
is said of those called the Sons of Zeus."
This, then, is the problem facing Christian fundamentalism: It rests
entirely on the historicity of the Gospel. If acknowledged as the myth that
it is, Christendom as it has come to be known, falls.
This doesn't mean that the myths are meaningless or without value. What it
means is that we still have a long way to go before mankind realize what the
ancients knew. The secret of the Kingdom of Heaven, what is birth and what
is rebirth. Jesus promised the revelation of secrets - but they are not to
be found in the Bible.
In Mark, for example, we read: And he said to them, "Things are hidden only
to be revealed, and made secret only to be brought to light. If any have
ears to hear, let them hear." And he kept speaking to them in allegories,
according as they could hear, and he said nothing to them without
allegories, but privately to his own students he always gave the key.
Luke: To you it is given to know the Mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to
the rest of them it is only given in allegories!
Origen wrote:
What man of sense will agree with the statement that the first, second and
third days, in which the evening is named and the morning, were without Sun,
Moon and Stars, and the first day without a heaven? What man is found such
an idiot as to suppose that God planted trees in Paradise, in Eden, like a
husbandman? I believe that every man must hold these things for images under
which a hidden sense lies concealed.
Origen viewed the idea that scripture was mythical allegory as a "beautiful
tradition," which could reveal the hidden meaning encoded in the stories
about Jesus. He writes:
I do not think anyone will doubt that these are figurative expressions that
indicate certain Mysteries through a semblance of history and not through
actual events.
Origen explains that to those "not altogether blind the gospels are full of
passages of this kind," which are "recorded as actual events, but which did
no happen literally." He quotes as an example the story of Jesus being
tempted by the Devil. Jesus is taken up a high mountain where he is shown
all the kingdoms of the world, which the Devil offers him if he will only
fall down and worship him. Origen pours scorn on the idea that anyone could
actually see all the kingdoms of the world from the top of a mountain and
affirms that this is meant to be understood allegorically. He tells us:
"The careful reader will detect thousands of other passages like this in the
gospels."
Rolf
FiveLongYears
Thanks
FLY
roger_...@yahoo.co.uk
> Maybe not quite 'on target', but I feel like some kind of counterpoise to
> all the fundamentalist drivel might be appropriate for the new year.
<sigh> Another bigot is about to post a whole load of lies about
someone else's religion? One can just tell...
> Studies of the Bible have shown that far from being 'the word of God', it is
> instead simply a product of the human mind.
Students of human nature will be familiar with the process whereby the
ignorant invariably attempt to claim the blessing of scholarship for
their prejudices.
(Paste snipped)
It is curious how few people will trouble to think for themselves. Why
not celebrate the new year by learning some facts, not for the purpose
of hate, but for the joy of learning?
All the best,
Roger Pearse
mvil...@gmail.com
Why don't you practice what you preach and post some facts yourself,
particularly facts that can counter the poster's assertions about the
origin and development of the Christian belief system?
Marc
And that's exactly what I'm going to do after next week
or so - get back to my study of evolution of vertebrate
immunity. At least one issue for each of a number of
journals will now be available (more for journals like
Nature, Science, J. Imm., JBC, gene, JExpMed etc.).
There are the contents pages for ~30 immunology
journals to browse through, maybe 20 genetics and
evolution journals, and all sorts of other journals that my
PubMed searches will lead me to. Give me a week
and no doubt I will have found >50 PDFs of articles
worthy of being added to my collection. I may even
find the time to read several of them immediately.
I should also have some facts to share with others,
in terms of an abstract to prepare for submission
to the World Congress of Human Genetics later this
year in Brisbane, Queensland, and of course, more
work on the manuscript on that study. Another
manuscript, on aspects of vertebrate evolution, will
be on the back burner for a couple of months yet.
For those of us who study evolution, this period
(last year.. this year .. next year!) is fantastic,
with genome after genome being added to the
various browsers to be studied by all. If you
have not done so before, visit the UCSC site and
learn to display regions of chromosomes from
various vertebrates (or whatever) for their genes.
..... http://genome.ucsc.edu/
Clicking on a gene entry will then give you the
links to things like OMIM, the Gene Card entry,
PubMed, Ensembl, microarray expression and
protein domain structure. Much of this is in the
public domain so you have little excuse NOT to
have a look at these resources and to, perhaps,
learn some things for yourself. (And about yourself.)
(signed) marc
Marc Buhler
North Parramatta,
where it is summer today.
.
roger_...@yahoo.co.uk
> > It is curious how few people will trouble to think for themselves. Why
> > not celebrate the new year by learning some facts, not for the purpose
> > of hate, but for the joy of learning?
>
Surely. Have a look at what I'm currently doing:
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/sol_invictus.htm
It's incomplete still.
Is there something you can place online that will increase the sum of
knowledge? If not, why not have a think and see if you can?
> particularly facts that can counter the poster's assertions about the
> origin and development of the Christian belief system?
Because, not being a complete saddo, I know that only fools read and
even more foolish people believe what such rants contain.
Happy new year!
roger_...@yahoo.co.uk
> roger_...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> > It is curious how few people will trouble to think for themselves. Why
> > not celebrate the new year by learning some facts, not for the purpose
> > of hate, but for the joy of learning?
>
> And that's exactly what I'm going to do after next week
> or so - get back to my study of evolution of vertebrate
> immunity. At least one issue for each of a number of
> journals will now be available (more for journals like
> Nature, Science, J. Imm., JBC, gene, JExpMed etc.).
> There are the contents pages for ~30 immunology
> journals to browse through, maybe 20 genetics and
> evolution journals, and all sorts of other journals that my
> PubMed searches will lead me to. Give me a week
> and no doubt I will have found >50 PDFs of articles
> worthy of being added to my collection. I may even
> find the time to read several of them immediately.
Sounds good. A suggestion: why not see if you can get some of this
material online? Increase the sum of available hard knowledge online
and all that?
Rolf
<roger_...@yahoo.co.uk> skrev i
meldingsnyheter:1136635366.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Maybe not complete, but perhaps some sort of saddo, whatever that is
supposed to mean. I can't see that anything contained in your
"Sol Invictus - the imperial sun cult" - document is relevant to anything
that I wrote.
....
Rolf
Rolf
Hi Roger, Os what have yhou got to say? Nothing?
The Tertullain stuff, I have not had time to study it yet, but it doesn't
seem in any way to represent an argument against what I wrote? Why not
address some of the claims I made? What do you believe? Are you a
literalist? Are you at a loss for words? Why can't you wait until you have
an argument before posting? Is 'rant' all you've got to say? Pathetic.
Rolf
Rolf
<roger_...@yahoo.co.uk> skrev i
meldingsnyheter:1136588372.1...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Rolf wrote:
> > Maybe not quite 'on target', but I feel like some kind of counterpoise
to
> > all the fundamentalist drivel might be appropriate for the new year.
>
> <sigh> Another bigot is about to post a whole load of lies about
> someone else's religion? One can just tell...
>
So what can you 'just tell'? Even bigger lies? What about my religion? Which
is more like the true religion St. Augustine said existed long before
Christ, and from that time on began to be called Christendom?
Roger's response is so entirely off target, venomous and generally bad
tasting, it really p...es me off. How come people can be so utterly without
common sense? What does this jerk know about my bigotry? Am I bigoted? If I
am a bigot, Roger is a real big a.....le. A whole load of lies aboutr
someone else's religion? Where are the lies? For one thing, an opinion is
not a lie. Maybe it is the other way around: The Chrsitian fundamentalist's
zre full of lies, it is hust that they don't konw it, and don't want to
know.
Like when they say the Bible is the Word of God, and is more or less our
only source of truth. And still, they don't have a shred of evidence. Not
even the shroud of Turin can help them.
Look: Not a single piece of evidence have been found to prove that the Jews
ever were in Egypt, fled across the Red Sea, or wandered in the desert for
40 years! Even Isreali arcehology seems to reveal that the Bible is more
like a fairy tale.
Much more can be said, has been said by people much wiser and better
informed than me. Little, no, no evidence supporting for fundies really
exist, except in their own minds.
As for the link Roger provided - it is completely irrelevant. How is Roman
Sun-worship relevant for the arguments I make?
Rolf
> > Studies of the Bible have shown that far from being 'the word of God',
it is
> > instead simply a product of the human mind.
>
> Students of human nature will be familiar with the process whereby the
> ignorant invariably attempt to claim the blessing of scholarship for
> their prejudices.
>
> (Paste snipped)
>
> It is curious how few people will trouble to think for themselves. Why
> not celebrate the new year by learning some facts, not for the purpose
> of hate, but for the joy of learning?
>
I have already learned a lot, lots. And I can think, have been at it for 75
years. Why not address the topic, and worry less about me, my knowledge and
intellectual capacity?
Rolf
Grandbank
roger_...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>
> <sigh> Another bigot is about to post a whole load of lies about
> someone else's religion? One can just tell...
>
Why do fundies claim intellectual ownership of their belief system, and
imply that criticism from non-believers is somehow illegitimate or from
"the outside"?
Most critics and unbelievers of my acquaintance were raised in the
Christian church. It is very much *our* church. How does the often
painfully arrived at realization that Christian scripture does not
represent literal reality or cosmic history disqualify us from being
critics of a belief system that we arguably know better and see with a
broader perspective than those who remain believers?
Who do you think has the more accurate picture of a cult like
scientology: someone who has thought their way out of it, or a believer
like Tom Cruise?
Your use of the phrase "someone else's religion" betrays the emotional
and egocentric (as opposed to critical content) based core of your
views, and the true root of your objections to criticism.
KP
-----------------------------------
"It is impossible to reason someone out of something
that he did not reason himself into in the first place."
- Jonathan Swift
Grandbank
roger_...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>
> <sigh> Another bigot is about to post a whole load of lies about
> someone else's religion? One can just tell...
>
Why do fundies claim intellectual ownership of their belief system, and
imply that criticism from non-believers is somehow illegitimate or from
"the outside"?
Most critics and unbelievers of my acquaintance were raised in the
Christian church. It is very much *our* church. How does the often
painfully arrived at realization that Christian scripture does not
represent literal reality or cosmic history disqualify us from being
critics of a belief system that we arguably know better and see with a
broader perspective than those who remain believers?
Who do you think has the more accurate picture of a cult like
scientology: someone who has thought their way out of it, or an
intellectual zombie like Tom Cruise?
Marc
That's the thing - much of it is, but much more
is only available by subscription. From home I
can happily read from PLoS (Public Library of
Science), use UCSC and other genome browsers
and of course PubMed. From work, using the
University of Sydney as an ISP, I get all the
electronic journals they have subscribed to,
which is a far greater share. Copyright and
such would not allow my putting things on the
web just to share them, of course.
(signed) marc
M. Buhler
Parramatta
.
Marc
Rolf
Rolf <rolf.a...@c2i.net> skrev i
meldingsnyheter:gpsvf.9871$qE.22...@juliett.dax.net...
> Maybe not quite 'on target', but I feel like some kind of counterpoise to
> all the fundamentalist drivel might be appropriate for the new year.
>
What is most striking is that none of the otherwise very visible and eager
creationist fundies posting here are absent.
Now, when some arguments are put forward directly addressing their pet
subject, their god - the Bible, they are silent. The silence is
ear-deafening. So what is it with these people? I think they are incapable
of debate, they can only repeat the same tired litany over and over again,
and are unable or unwilling, to think.
Rolf
muldoon
The plus side of all this is that you'll have eternity in hell to
continue this discussion - amongst yourselves.
Phil Roberts
news:1136970697....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
If I believed in such a puerile concept I'm sure I'd be shitting my pants
right now.
--
Ernest Major
muldoon <bria...@dslextreme.com> writes
--
alias Ernest Major
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/226 - Release Date: 10/01/2006
roger_...@yahoo.co.uk
> roger_...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> > Marc wrote:
> > > roger_...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> > > > It is curious how few people will trouble to think for themselves. Why
> > > > not celebrate the new year by learning some facts, not for the purpose
> > > > of hate, but for the joy of learning?
> > >
> > > And that's exactly what I'm going to do after next week
> > > or so - get back to my study of evolution of vertebrate
> >
> > Sounds good. A suggestion: why not see if you can get some of this
> > material online? Increase the sum of available hard knowledge online
> > and all that?
>
> such would not allow my putting things on the
> web just to share them, of course.
I understand. It's remarkable to consider that the whole education
industry is state-funded, when you see their enthusiasm for restricting
access.