Name That Tale The Bible Stole!

[Rhomal]

St Valintine was a lord who gave virgins to his knights on every valentines day

 

Jesus stole a pagan god's birthday.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Christians stole many pagan holidays. Christmas and Esater being the 2 biggest ones.

 

xmas was orginially called "Yule" (sound familar), and easter was "Ostra", the christians were having a difficult time converting pagans so they tought of the idea of placing their holidays on the same days as the pagan ones, to help assimilate them.

 

Most biblical scholars agree if jesus did exist he was born in the spring/summer time. But the pope made the holiday in dec on the same day as a major pagan holiday. Same with easter.

 

Also while were on the topic St. Bridget in the catholic patheon, she never existed as a real person like other saints who are based on real people. She is the same pagan goddess Bridget from the scandiniva countries. The church back then when they couldnt stop her worship decided the only way to convert the pagans was to make Bridget one of their own. And so made her a saint in the catholic church.

 

As a pagan/wiccan myself I find this on one level funny and on another disgusting.

[Darth Flatus]

the Qu'ran (also called the Final Testament by Muslims, though I would not agree yet), it was written much later than the Bible and much more advanced in its scientific facts. For example, the Qu'ran pointed out that the Earth actually revolves around the Sun way before the European scientists.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Are you sure about that? It been a looong while since i read it, can you quote the relevant books, chapter and verses please? Although I myslef woud be considered an apostate :D i still know a few who have attained the level of hafiz.

 

Arab scholars made a lot of important advancements in sciences such as maths and astronomy but remember they could not have done so without access to the work of the ancient greeks.

 

 

ANYWAY!!!! LETS GET BACK ON TOPIC!!

Eldar, give teeth benefit of the doubt, i would put his poor choice of wording down to his immaturity (strictest non-perjorative sense of the word)

 

Put aside people's interpretation of the bible and instead lets look at influences and precursors to many of the stories cointained within, not in an attempt to discredit it but just cos its fun and we all love history. OK? IS that a good suggestion?

[Cantousent]

Oh, I always give TEETH the benefit of the doubt. That doesn't mean I don't like giving him grief every now and then. I wish I weren't quick to anger, but it has had the side effect of making me quick to forgive.

 

Hell, WITHTEETH provides us with some of the most interesting debates on this board.

[julianw]

Darth Flatus - A Muslim friend pointed out this to me as I have not finished the Qu'ran yet, but maybe this can help, it is a debate between some Muslims and Christians:

 

www.answering-christianity.com/earth_rotation_challenge.htm

[Lidda-Bit]

It's really amazing how I can't visit any forums anymore without atleast one thread that debates the bible:P

[kirottu]

Christians stole many pagan holidays. Christmas and Esater being the 2 biggest ones.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not mention the whole thing with goats. Good example is finnish santa called that is still joulupukki=xmas goat. It used to be someone in grey robes and goat mask giving gifts. But since goat was such a strong part of many european pagan religions christianity devided to make it their adversary.

[metadigital]

...

Even if you're an atheist and think the Bible is nothing but fairy-tales, shouldn't it be discussed as literature?  ...

I'm just saying that we could discuss the Bible along different lines.  Christians are actually far worse in this regard, in my experience.  If I want to discuss the Bible in terms of, say, history, then I get a lot of hostility because I use a different method in assessing the Bible.  For many Christians, acknowledging any influence other than the divine is a sin.  I think that's unfortunate.  The all or nothing approach to the bible overlooks so many legitimate aspects for discussion.  Some parts of the Bible are quite beautiful in and of themselves, but atheist attack the package as a whole and Christians defend the package as a whole.

...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No argument there. The Bible repesents an amazing body of work, but the predilection of dogmatists to argue the "all or nothing" view is a tragic waste of bandwidth. A lot of christians -- especially the senior clergy -- have had to confront the historical events of the new testament and the divine nature of Jesus Christ, and they have no crucial issues with reconciling the two ... but the fact that these issues are kept completely from the laity strkies me as disingenuous -- almost like the clergy are afriad that reconciling the Bible in its historical context will be beyond their audiences ...

[metadigital]

the Qu'ran (also called the Final Testament by Muslims, though I would not agree yet), it was written much later than the Bible and much more advanced in its scientific facts. For example, the Qu'ran pointed out that the Earth actually revolves around the Sun way before the European scientists.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you sure about that? It been a looong while since i read it, can you quote the relevant books, chapter and verses please? Although I myslef woud be considered an apostate :D i still know a few who have attained the level of hafiz.

 

Arab scholars made a lot of important advancements in sciences such as maths and astronomy but remember they could not have done so without access to the work of the ancient greeks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not sure about the Earth going around the sun, but it wasn't unknwon; the Greeks knew that, and as the Arab scholars had captured Constantinople (Byzantium, or present day Istanbul), they translated the old classical texts (Aristotle first suggested heliocentricrism; but confirmed later with Eratosthenes' experiments to measure the size of the globe, and Aristarchus proposed a formal heliocentric theory, cited by Archimedes, and explained the lack of parallax in the stars) and kept continuity with the science, whilst the Christian Western Europe fought amongtst themselves and forgot science altogether.

I do know that Book 4 of the Qur'an (Women) does include a statement that Jesus was not crucified on the cross ...

It's really amazing how I can't visit any forums anymore without atleast one thread that debates the bible:P

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's because the tentacles of the scripture reach deep into the psyche of modern culture (and wriggle around a bit and jiggle it all up) ...

[julianw]

I do know that Book 4 of the Qur'an (Women) does include a statement that Jesus was not crucified on the cross ...

 

Metadigital - The version of Qu'ran I am reading explained that line in the footnotes that of course the body of Christ was crucified on the cross, but Christ's teachings and influence lived on. With around one billion Christians today, I would say: yes, the essence of Christ did not die on the cross.

[WITHTEETH]

Don't worry about it Eldar, I'm getting use to christian fundementalist screaming out of anger and confusion. I just like the debates to learn new information and perspectives. Also for other people to learn this information more importantly.

 

My point i wanted to get to is, can anyone prove that Mithra is any less true then lets say christianity? What about islam, Hindu? no you can not. people simply pick the religion nearest to them. some fancy another juice like Buddah juice instead of jesus juice. Its all subjective because none are more truer then the next. Its just a matter of taste.

My taste leans to the Atheist juice. Its lets others worship in whoever they want as long as they were leading a good life. Also Atheism treats people equal, it does not discriminate on who one loves(Homosexuals).

Also i do not think Eternal Punishment is Justice either. if I lead a perfect life except if i grew up in the china so i beleive in something else "No Sorry your going to hell for that one." Or to push all of man kind for eating fruit.

People beleive because they want to beleive.

 

Hold on to your lottery tickt eldar, maybe your religion will be the one.

[metadigital]

I do know that Book 4 of the Qur'an (Women) does include a statement that Jesus was not crucified on the cross ...

 

Metadigital - The version of Qu'ran I am reading explained that line in the footnotes that of course the body of Christ was crucified on the cross, but Christ's teachings and influence lived on. With around one billion Christians today, I would say: yes, the essence of Christ did not die on the cross.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, that doesn't make sense.

 

Islamic teaching states that Jesus Christ was not the son of God, but just another (the penultimate) prophet before Mohammed. And they certainly don't hold the view that he went down into hell and rose again after three days.

 

The Qur'an I read did not have a neat little footnote to address the issue, it simply stated that Jesus was not crucified on the cross.

 

Other religious sects, like the Freemasons (yes, they have their own Bible, just like the Rosicrucians) don't believe Jesus died on the cross, either. One tale has it that because the crucifixion took place on Peter's private land, some other poor man was crucified instead.

[11XHooah]

My taste leans to the Atheist juice. Its lets others worship in whoever they want as long as they were leading a good life. Also Atheism treats people equal, it does not discriminate on who one loves(Homosexuals).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Are you just referring to powers in a religion like the church when you say religions do not allow people to worship who they want or treat people equally, or are you referring to the followers of those religions as well? Because just because you follow a religion, it does not mean you are like this. I used to be Christian (now I'm just a person who believes in God), but then I seceded from the church, disgusted by the corruption. But not once did I ever look down on others because they were different, and not once did I criticize what God someone worships, if they even believed in a God.

Edited June 17, 2005 by 11XHooah

[WITHTEETH]

Ten Commandments

Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

I'm talking about the religions themselves, and the handful of people that take religon to the extreme that try to impose their will on others.

 

JulienW

The christian population i read in the enyclopedia is 1.9 billion. the world poplatiopn is about 6 billion. 1/3 nearly are christians that means.

[11XHooah]

Ten Commandments

Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

I'm talking about the religions themselves, and the handful of people that take religon to the extreme that try to impose their will on others.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ok, I just wanted to make sure that's what you meant. Because I know many Christians who are very tolerant of other religions. I don't understand why religions do not just simply teach their followers how to respect those who are part of different religions.

 

Edited: Argh, grammatical errors :D

Edited June 17, 2005 by 11XHooah

[WITHTEETH]

I just love to debate, and sometimes i have to put my gloves on. I beleive in relativism. You can have your beleifs, i can have my beleifs, it doesn't mean either of them are wrong. we can still be friends

[11XHooah]

I just love to debate, and sometimes i have to put my gloves on. I beleive in relativism. You can have your beleifs, i can have my beleifs, it doesn't mean either of them are wrong. we can still be friends 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Exactly

[metadigital]

I just love to debate, and sometimes i have to put my gloves on. I beleive in relativism. You can have your beleifs, i can have my beleifs, it doesn't mean either of them are wrong. we can still be friends 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Execpt if one of us is an evangelist, and is totally convinced that they are right and must save the poor heathens from their own, stupid logic ... "

[Jellybelly]

Withteeth:

I think you are out of line in answering to Eldar's post. He doesn't fit the image of an enraged, spluttering fundamentalist, but answers to your post in a lucid, educated way. Your heading of the topic was unacademical, and might have seemed very provocative, depending on one's perspective, of course.

It might be informative, and probably useful for the ongoing discussion if you actually answered the questions he posed.

 

Dialogue is impossible when debaters brush each other off in the way you did in this discussion. I mean, you did intend for the topic to be discussed, right? Then why don't you discuss? Eldar brought several objects to the discussion, and pointed out flaws (and lack of academic dignity/etiquette) in your argument. As far as I can see, you mean to "prove" that the Bible can't "be true", because of its obvious references and inspirations. Why don't you respond to Eldar's answers related to this?

 

Also, when discussing hermeneutics (and especially in studies related to the Bible), I feel it is important to distinguish between the center and the periphery. I mean, I certainly wouldn't put as much stock in what was supposedly said by Paulus as in what was said by Christ.

[Cantousent]

You know, fundamentalism isn't so bad. It's a vast source of strength in a world that increasingly calls you a sucker if you look out for anyone other than yourself. It's the bedrock upon which to build beliefs in an age that increasingly calls you stupid for believing in anything.

 

Nevertheless, while I don't like the downward slope of "relativism," I hope to act with good manners. Good manners, to me, mean taking another person at his word. Good manners means understanding their arguments with charity, and that I convey my own arguments as calmly and rationally as I can. As you know very well, sometimes my temper is at odds with my manners. So be it. I won't let some failure be an excuse for even greater failure.

 

The problem I have with relativism is that it doesn't recognize that humans do have an innate sense of values. That virtually every culture abhors murder. Virtually every culture seeks a higher purpose for its members. There are boundaries of behavior beyond which there no relativity. The questions revolve around the specifics, not the generalities.

 

The problem I have with fundamentalism is that it doesn't recognize the value of compromise. Every fundamentalist must recognize the fundamental beliefs of others, even if they don't agree with them. To do otherwise is to clasp deperately to a belief out of nothing but fear. For me, that cannot be the foundation of my faith. Hold the Lord not only in awe, but also in love. Why else would we have the capacity, sometimes the compulsion, for introspection?

[Jellybelly]

On a personal level, fundamentalism might not be so bad. As you say, it may be a tremendous source of personal strength.

 

However, I've found it renders you nearly incapable of interacting with people who have different perspectives and opinions. Fundamentalism renders you incapable of looking at the sources, and doing creative thinking. Again, I must stress the point of recognising the difference between the center and the periphery in hermeneutics.

[WITHTEETH]

You know, fundamentalism isn't so bad.  It's a vast source of strength in a world that increasingly calls you a sucker if you look out for anyone other than yourself.  It's the bedrock upon which to build beliefs in an age that increasingly calls you stupid for believing in anything.

 

Nevertheless, while I don't like the downward slope of "relativism," I hope to act with good manners.  Good manners, to me, mean taking another person at his word.  Good manners means understanding their arguments with charity, and that I convey my own arguments as calmly and rationally as I can.  As you know very well, sometimes my temper is at odds with my manners.  So be it.  I won't let some failure be an excuse for even greater failure.

 

The problem I have with relativism is that it doesn't recognize that humans do have an innate sense of values.  That virtually every culture abhors murder.  Virtually every culture seeks a higher purpose for its members.  There are boundaries of behavior beyond which there no relativity.  The questions revolve around the specifics, not the generalities.

 

The problem I have with fundamentalism is that it doesn't recognize the value of compromise.  Every fundamentalist must recognize the fundamental beliefs of others, even if they don't agree with them.  To do otherwise is to clasp deperately to a belief out of nothing but fear.  For me, that cannot be the foundation of my faith.  Hold the Lord not only in awe, but also in love.  Why else would we have the capacity, sometimes the compulsion, for introspection?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Why must you take relativism to extremes? lets take christianity to the extremes, ok 4.1 billion people arent christian out of 6 billion. so you 4.1 bilion all go to hell.

 

Times the holocost by 683 literally. How do you justify that, the same way the nazi's did? oh thats right you hide behind the invisible guy. atleast you can sleep better now knowing we're all gone.

[nightcleaver]

I suppose those natural disasters that keep happening in India are "stolen" and "unoriginal" as well.

 

Not to say I believe either way about biblical legend.

 

Although I do find it strangely un-wise of "god" to start wars and strife with "his teachings".

 

Many christian's don't believe in those particular teachings, mind you.

[Cantousent]

I am content to agree that there is an extreme to relativism just as there is to fundamentalism. I honestly did not understand, at the first, that we were using the term in two different ways.

 

Relativism is to you what manners are to me. When I read the word "relativism" I think of it as extreme by definition. Of course, I see the word "fundamentalism" in the same way.

 

At any rate, TEETH, I fear I've created animosity. That was not my intention. From now on, I will use your definition of "relativism" for the sake of discussion. Since relativism to you translates to tolerance, respect, and urbanity, then we'll have to find other sources of argument.

 

As for the Bible? I'm glad that it has enjoyed outside influences. For one thing, it has saved information that might otherwise have been lost. It has also provided an extremely important historical document, and we owe a fair share of that to those outside influences.

 

I would like to make a point, however, and I believe this to be true. You appear hostile to Christianity. That

[Commissar]

Commissar is hostile to Christianity. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's not true. I split my history major between Eastern European studies and topics in Christian history, actually. Mostly because the pair of professors who did the Reformation, the Inquisition, and classes along those lines were a blast to study under.

 

Looking at Christianity as a historian, I can't help but marvel at the fact that the modern religion still takes its direction from points of doctrine laid down by guys three hundred, five hundred, a thousand, fifteen hundred years ago, guys who interpreted Scripture one way and declared it canon, very often to their own particular ends. It's a sordid history, and I think that a modern, wholly objective observer - one who has never been exposed to Christianity, so a purely hypothetical being - looking over the Bible today would come to vastly different conclusions about the nature of the faith.

 

Glossing over the enormously different tones of the Old and New Testaments, there are numerous contradictions, and even literary quarrels within the Gospels themselves. Just what statements take precedence over other statements was decided by people who've been dead for at least a couple of centuries, and yet the modern Christian religion still holds those particular views to be perfectly valid. To me, that's the exact same as holding, for example, the Malleus maleficarum, a 15th century treatise on witchcraft, written by a pair of German inquisitors, to be absolute truth. It just doesn't make sense.

 

If we want to look at the Bible as a literary achievement, I'd conclude it's a remarkably flawed, incoherent work, as a whole, allowing the candid reader to interpret pretty much whatever the hell he wants from it.

 

All that said, I'm not hostile to Christianity. My personal view on all religions, from ancient Egypt to modern Protestantism, is that they're all very much false. If there is such a thing as a God (which I highly doubt), I consider it the height of human arrogance to assume that we can so perfectly understand what he'd want us to do that we can instruct others. I still attend Mass from time to time, however, simply because I enjoy it. There's value in the ethics that Christianity has to offer, even if I don't agree with all - or even most - of them.

 

But religious authority should most certainly be confined to the religious. Everyone is more than welcome to put control into the hands of a modern-day Torquemada, just so long as I don't have to.

[julianw]

If we want to look at the Bible as a literary achievement, I'd conclude it's a remarkably flawed, incoherent work, as a whole, allowing the candid reader to interpret pretty much whatever the hell he wants from it.

 

I see your point. If the Bible can tell us exactly what to do about everything, what is the use for our consciousness? We would simply be robots programmed by the Bible. I think just because you declare God to be your lord does not save you from evils in your heart. Those priests who teaches ethics in public but molest children in privacy are not true Christians or truly religious. It is not the Bible that taught them evil. In fact, without having learned the ethics from the Bible, they might even be more evil.