DescentBB

Thanks Lothar. I'm sorry for always pestering you for academic answers but you and Drakona are easily the most knowledgeable posters here on the subject. And I must say the least dogmatic.
I had always thought that we did not have any actual writings of the apostles and the others in the New Testament I just wanted to confirm that before making any statement that would make me look more foolish than usual.
I think the vast bulk of the first section of the Zeitgeist film was total nonsense. A quick search of the internet found none of their claims for the Myth of Horis and as you point out they are back dating a lot of claimed crossovers.
That said I think it is reasonable to believe that there has been some mythologising of the story of the life of Jesus. A gap of some hundreds of years between events and the re-telling of events is bound to generate embellishments. The fact that there are multiple references to a myth do not make it true. Witness the multiple references to the couple in the car and the murderer with the hook you can find nowadays. So how much of what is in the New Testament is an accurate account of real events and how much is story telling to support a fledgling religion I don't suppose we will ever know.
But co-opting a couple of festival dates and using the number 12 are hardly a case for parallels between such vastly different cultures divided by such long time periods. A weak waste of time in my opinion,
And speaking of time the whole segment could have been cut by about two thirds by eliminating those annoying musical and light show intervals that did nothing for the narrative. Smoke less pot and do more fact checking dude.

Ford Prefect wrote:A weak waste of time in my opinion,
And speaking of time the whole segment could have been cut by about two thirds by eliminating those annoying musical and light show intervals that did nothing for the narrative.

A subliminal conditioning method .... hmm, I think there's a conspiracy afoot.

Subliminal messaging!! I didn't think of that! Maybe I've been contaminated by viewing them. That's it I'm off to the nearest Church of Scientology for a good brain washing to clear things out.

I can suggest several alcoholic beverages that are real good at washing out your brain!

Bettina wrote:To me the video was good. Would you rather I lie and say it wasn't?

Nope. I'd rather you applied critical thinking skills, thereby recognizing that (the first 37 minutes of) the movie is not in fact "good" in any sense of the word, but rather, total crap (Ford made some great comments about this.) I don't want you to lie to me, but I also don't want you to hold a silly view. Listen to Ford's wisdom on the subject.

You talk about "the message the movie was intended to present" as if the details are irrelevant. You talk about it as though the movie said "religions like Christianity are dangerous" and didn't spend its first thirty-seven minutes making DETAILED arguments about Jesus and Moses being derived from other figures and the Bible telling an astrological story. It's silly to say something is "good" because you agree with an abstract modification of what it says even though all of its details are wrong. (That'd be like me saying I think young-earth creationism is "good" because I agree God exists even though I think virtually every detail of YEC is bogus.)

Did you understand the meaning where the mathematical works were pushed aside by the bible?

I didn't see such claims being made in the first 37 minutes of the movie. Perhaps you can describe the claim in detail, at which point I can respond to it.

Your very skilled at pointing out biblical flaws and replacing them with what the church has taught you

What the church has taught me? HAH! If I ever find a church with that kind of teaching, I'll move across the world for it. The things I post aren't "what my church taught me", they're conclusions my wife and I came to through in-depth research and analysis (things we're both very, very good at.)

You seem to make the mistake of thinking my skills exist in a vacuum, as if I got to be "very skilled" by magic and I'm therefore an unopposeable juggernaut you have to avoid and dodge. The reality is, my skills came through hard work and study, and you're capable of doing the same. You might have a lot to contribute if you'd actually take my arguments head-on instead of ignoring or dodging them.

Ford Prefect wrote:I'm sorry for always pestering you for academic answers...

No problem... I actually really enjoy it. I love doing research and analysis, and I love having people ask me real and difficult questions that require serious thought.

I think it is reasonable to believe that there has been some mythologising of the story of the life of Jesus. A gap of some hundreds of years between events and the re-telling of events is bound to generate embellishments. The fact that there are multiple references to a myth do not make it true.

That's a reasonable and possible take, though I want to nit-pick a couple of things.

The gap isn't "hundreds of years between events and re-telling of events", it's "about a hundred years between events and the earliest still-existing documented re-telling."

One of the things the many, many references do for us is they give us a clear idea of how (and how quickly) the story actually did change over time. We can compare copies of John from 200 AD in Egypt to copies of John from 400 AD in Italy and see how many changes there were over the span of 200 years and however many miles that is. We know how far the manuscripts spread by what era, what changes different manuscripts have in common, and how many "copying generations" passed between the original and various existing copies. This strongly suggests the original authorship dates of the whole NT -- of the "truly original retelling" -- were well before 100 AD. It would be very unlikely for the writings to have been produced in, say, 160 AD and then to have spread as broadly and accumulated the number of versional differences they did by 200 AD (especially given the rate at which versional differences accumulated after 200 AD.) Possible, but highly unlikely.

One of the most date-suggestive things to me is the fact that none of the NT writings reference the actual fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. I have a hard time believing they'd write these detailed stories about Jesus and what He said about Jerusalem and the temple, and then not mention (even in passing) the destruction of the Second Temple. The Gospel writers as well as Paul thought it was very important to point out fulfilled prophecy, so I seriously doubt they'd have held back from saying "Jesus said the temple would be destroyed, and look, it was!" Again, it's possible, but unlikely.

Could the stories be mythologized? Sure; such a thing can happen even within the first generation (though I don't believe it did.) Is it likely the mythologizing happened hundreds of years later? Nope; it's far more likely that what we have on paper today reasonably corresponds to writings from before 70 AD.

Lothar wrote:You might have a lot to contribute if you'd actually take my arguments head-on instead of ignoring or dodging them.

I can't go on arguing with you because you view your biblical works, studies, and skills as truth and I view them as total myth. Since we have nothing in common, whats the point?

I liked the video because of the reasons I already stated.

Bee

Bet51987 wrote:I can't go on ...

Bee

can't = won't! hmm ......

dissent wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:I can't go on ...

Bee

can't = won't! hmm ......

Nope. To say I "won't" implies I have an answer but refuse to give it. I used "can't" because scriptures, to me, are of a mythical nature so no matter what I say, I will be unable to change the outcome.

Bee

Bet51987 wrote:

Lothar wrote:You might have a lot to contribute if you'd actually take my arguments head-on instead of ignoring or dodging them.

I can't go on arguing with you because you view your biblical works, studies, and skills as truth and I view them as total myth. Since we have nothing in common, whats the point?

I understand that you believe the spiritual claims of the Bible to be myth. However, that doesn't prevent you from arguing historical and/or non-spiritual Biblically-related data (which is what the above arguments mostly involve).

Don't give up so easy, Bet.

One of the most date-suggestive things to me is the fact that none of the NT writings reference the actual fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. I have a hard time believing they'd write these detailed stories about Jesus and what He said about Jerusalem and the temple, and then not mention (even in passing) the destruction of the Second Temple. The Gospel writers as well as Paul thought it was very important to point out fulfilled prophecy, so I seriously doubt they'd have held back from saying \"Jesus said the temple would be destroyed, and look, it was!\" Again, it's possible, but unlikely.

It is also quite possible that the prophecy was back dated into the account by the author/transcriber. It may have been 2000 years ago but I think they were smart enough to understand time lines in narratives then.
All this is of course speculation. You, Lothar, approach it from a position of belief in the divinity of Jesus where others are looking for things that might support their opposing positions. This Zeitgeist segment is an example of that. If you agree with the sentiments then you enjoy the presentation if you disagree then the flaws are what you see.

Bet51987 wrote:

dissent wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:I can't go on ...

Bee

can't = won't! hmm ......

Nope. To say I "won't" implies I have an answer but refuse to give it.

Won't = "will not"
Can't = "can not"

won't is a decision, irregardless of the rational.

Can't indicates the absolute inability to "do".

when it comes to responding, it's always a matter of choice. If "can't" were the case, the circumstances would be something like you were dead or you no longer had access to a computer or the internet to post.

Duper wrote:irregardless

... is not a word

Sorry, just one of my pet peeves.

Let the banter continue!

Bet51987 wrote:I can't go on arguing with you because you view your biblical works, studies, and skills as truth and I view them as total myth.

So my view of the Bible makes you completely and utterly incapable of analyzing the claims this movie makes about astronomy and Egyptian mythology? My view of the Bible's message makes you completely incapable of looking at the physical history of the manuscripts in question? My view of the Bible makes you utterly incapable of doing research and analysis? Because I don't agree with you about the content of the Bible, we have "nothing in common" and therefore you can't pursue truth if I'm involved in the discussion?

Very little of what I've said in this thread depends on the "mythical" or "spiritual" qualities of scripture. You don't need to believe the Bible is true to be able to examine the claim that Jesus and Moses were copied from earlier myths. You don't need to believe the Bible is true to examine the claim that Sirius and Orion's belt line up in a certain way. You don't need to believe the Bible is true to recognize that the claim about the water carrier in Luke 22:10 doesn't fit with the narrative in Luke 22:7-13. You don't need to believe the Bible to recognize the weakness of the claim that it was written by the Gnostics. Look at the way Ford Prefect has approached this discussion, and compare his approach with the lame excuses you've made.

When Drakona was your age, she was busy kicking butt in discussions like this. Whether or not she had any common beliefs with the people she was discussing things with, she understood how to do research, to analyze arguments, to recognize the weakness of her own positions and others' positions, and to develop better ideas as time went on. She mastered the fine art of thinking. You've mastered the fine art of making excuses. You're capable of more, so expect me to keep pushing you. I don't want you to lie, I just want you to replace your lame excuses and lame arguments with good analysis and worthwhile ideas.

Ford Prefect wrote:

One of the most date-suggestive things to me is the fact that none of the NT writings reference the actual fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD....

It is also quite possible that the prophecy was back dated into the account by the author/transcriber.

Of course it's possible that the prophecy itself was written after the fact... but that misses the point I was making. What I find unlikely is that, if major parts of the NT were written "hundreds of years later", nobody would've written anything about the temple being destroyed other than the prophecy. Even aside from Jesus' words, the destruction of the temple would be such a significant event you'd expect it to be referenced in at least a few of the letters if they were written after 70 AD (which, by the way, would be perfectly acceptable from a Christian standpoint -- it's not as though Paul's writings would suddenly become un-cool if they'd been written 10 years later.) The number and spread of the manuscripts, and their variations, suggest an authorship date of before 100 AD; the lack of any mention of the destruction of the temple except for the prophecy suggests an authorship date of before 70 AD for virtually the entire New Testament (with a possible exception for the insertion and back-dating of the prophecy itself.) I agree, this is speculation, but I think it's reasonable speculation.

My belief in the divinity of Jesus is irrelevant for that particular statement. I could believe in the divinity of Jesus just as easily if the gospels and the epistles were first written down in 80 AD or 150 AD as if they were written within a year of Jesus' death. And a non-Christian could just as easily believe the stories were exaggerated or mythologized if they were first written in 50 AD as if they were written in 200 AD. So let's all have the maturity to approach the issue with a degree of scholarship and reason. That's what the Zeitgeist clip was really missing.

Herculosis wrote:

Duper wrote:irregardless

... is not a word

Sorry, just one of my pet peeves.

Let the banter continue!

Then I suggest you read This

Ah. I think I see the basis of the misunderstanding Lothar. I was thinking of a situation where the events were deliberately omitted because the prophecy was included. Ensuring that no events after the supposed date of authorship were referenced would be a basic if you were trying to pass off a document as older than it really was. Sneakier things have been done in the name of promoting a religion.
Not an accusation as I have no evidence just a possibility.

Thanks for some excellent analysis Lothar, that took a LOT of work, and we appreciate the time and effort.

And in particular:

Lothar wrote:I know you want Christianity to be false, and you think ID and such are dangerous. But you do yourself a disservice by treating bad arguments against Christianity as if they were good arguments (much in the same way Christians do themselves a disservice by treating bad arguments against evolution as if they were good arguments.)

THANK YOU for pointing this out. <sigh>
Everyone KNOWS that I like ID as a theory. But one of the reasons ID gets a bad rep is because so many Christians jump behind really bad "creation science" garbage, just because it agrees with what they wanted to hear. If the same wild speculation and insanely weak arguments had been thrown up AGAINST Christianity, we would have rejected them out of hand, and rightly so. But when someone starts saying "The depth of the moon dust proves the moon is only a few thousand years old", young earth creationist jump on the band wagon and shout hurrah!. <big sigh>

You do not strengthen your cause when you support weak, or especially obviously bogus arguments, just because they support your theory. You actually get MORE respect from your opponents when you are willing to reject arguments favorable to your cause because they do not have adequate support.

Kilarin wrote:...And in particular:

Lothar wrote:I know you want Christianity to be false, and you think ID and such are dangerous. But you do yourself a disservice by treating bad arguments against Christianity as if they were good arguments (much in the same way Christians do themselves a disservice by treating bad arguments against evolution as if they were good arguments.)

THANK YOU for pointing this out. <sigh>

Drakona claims evolution is implausable, Lothar claims that God not only speaks to him but allows him to witness His miracles, and you stand on the pulpit applauding them as if I'm the one thats silly?

I'm glad I'm not wrapped to the point of blindness that I would have missed the meaning of the first part of that video.

Have a nice day...

Bettina

dbl post

kudos Bee. good to see that the ridiculously long post did not sway you...quite laughable isn't it?

You're on the right track kid.

Ford Prefect wrote:I was thinking of a situation where the events were deliberately omitted because the prophecy was included.... trying to pass off a document as older than it really was.

The difference between "this was written a few years before the fall of Jerusalem" and "this was written a few years after" is tiny if they were trying to establish a fictional age of documents that were actually written much later. It's such a tiny gain, I have trouble seeing it as worthwhile in comparison to "in a previous letter we wrote about Jesus saying the temple would be destroyed, and now we're writing to say it has come to pass." It would be incredibly sneaky, but pretty pointless sneakitude, all things considered. Pretending all but a few of the letters were written before, and then one or two were written by old-man Paul just after the fall of Jerusalem, would IMO be a much more effective deception. Again, it's possible, but it seems silly and counterproductive.

Zuruck wrote:good to see that the ridiculously long post did not sway you...quite laughable isn't it?

Bettina, getting props from Zuruck is about the worst insult I can imagine.

The simple fact is, if you accept bad arguments -- and that video was one bad argument after another -- you do yourself no favors. When you refuse to separate the good arguments on your side from the bad ones, you end up being taken about as seriously as Zuruck is.

You're just as silly as every creationist I've ever met -- you accept arguments that require just as much bad science and bad reasoning and bad logic and historical revisionism. And you dodge and avoid just as much as every creationist I've ever met -- you continue to say the movie was good while ignoring the fact that every argument it made fell apart under scrutiny, and you try to change the subject when I keep pressing you on that point. You're capable of better! Learn to be critical, not only of the arguments you disagree with, but of the ones you agree with.

Bet51987 wrote:Drakona claims evolution is implausable, Lothar claims that God not only speaks to him but allows him to witness His miracles, and you stand on the pulpit applauding them as if I'm the one thats silly?
Bettina

Nice to see that Argumentum ad hominem and Poisoning the well (see here) are alive and kicking here on the dbb.

Have a nice day.

Dis

Bettina, you LIKE science. I admire that. Part of Science is being willing to work things through logically. To figure things out in as objective a manner as possible. In the scientific arena, this means: "not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased"

Of course, NO ONE is without preconceived opinions, but when analyzing facts in a scientific manner, we attempt to set those opinions aside as much as possible and to look at just the facts. That's part of what science is about.

You are willing to embrace this video because you agree with it's general view, despite the fact that you concede much (if not almost all) of its theories are full of great big holes. We aren't talking "Difference of opinion" here, we are talking about simple factual errors. If they are wrong on so many points, why approve of them?

I believe that your love of science will lead you to reject poorly researched and defended topics and to support better ones. There are MUCH more reputable atheist sources.

Zuruck wrote:good to see that the ridiculously long post did not sway you...quite laughable isn't it?

How can you say his arguments were laughable if you haven't read them?

It seems that in forum debates we often try to trap people into a catch-22 situation. If they give an abbreviated "sound bite" post, we tell them that they didn't answer the points and can therefore be ignored. If they give a long detailed explanation, we tell them that their post was too long to read, and can therefore be ignored. If we are going to dismiss our opponents no matter what, its not a debate, just a series of diatribes.

There is certainly virtue in brevity, but complicated subjects can NOT always be summed up into short sound bites. You have to have more than a 30 second attention span to keep up in a serious debate.

I would like to point out that at first, Lothar had the exact same response to this vid that I and many others did. Looked like tommyrot and wasn't worth wasting any time on. BUT, several people practically insisted that he give us a reasoned review of it, and so, UNLIKE most of the rest of us, he did. He gave up precious time and effort to not only watch this drivel, but to produce a well reasoned, and well written response to it.

Now I am certainly NOT saying that anyone is obligated to read that response. If it bores you, skip it and move on to the next topic. BUT, if you are going to argue that his post was laughable, then yes, I think you should read and respond to the factual points that Lothar raised. At least, if you want the rest of us to take you seriously.

I certainly disagree with Lothar sometimes, but I NEVER dismiss him.

Haha...that is hilarious.

He's right Bee...getting a compliment from me is actually an insult. I suppose it would have to be that way. Not everyone gets to personally witness \"miracles\" from their deity. Only Lothar gets to do that...

Sorry Lothar, I see through all your crap and everything else that you bible beaters put on here. It's repetitive and quite silly indeed. I applaud Bee, at such a young age, to actually stand by her convictions and not be swayed by something as simple as a long novel with big words.

As for being taken seriously around here, I think I'll sleep just fine one way or another so I'm not really that worried. It could be worse, I could be in a dead end job with no clue what's going in life...sort of like you Lothar.

Have fun.

Zuruck, how exactly do you \"see through\" things you don't even read? Did you watch the video and magically intuit that my response to it would be a \"novel\" full of \"big words\" (despite the fact that the biggest words I used appeared in the video I was asked to respond to)? How did you come to the conclusion what I said was \"repetitive\" when I've never addressed the video's arguments before?

Forget all of that. The only question I want an answer to is, do you think the video presented good and reasoned arguments?

dissent wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:Drakona claims evolution is implausable, Lothar claims that God not only speaks to him but allows him to witness His miracles, and you stand on the pulpit applauding them as if I'm the one thats silly?
Bettina

Nice to see that Argumentum ad hominem and Poisoning the well (see here) are alive and kicking here on the dbb.

Have a nice day.

Dis

Just to clarify. I didn't mean it to be that way but I just got sick and tired of being called lame and being treated as a silly little girl because I saw something in the video that they didn't. Theists are highly protective of each other so I understand your comment.

Have a nicer day.

Bee

Bet51987 wrote:I just got sick and tired of being called lame

I didn't call you lame. I called your excuses and your arguments lame and silly, because they are. And I said you look silly when you defend this video, because the video is such garbage propaganda based on lies, falsehoods, and innuendo, there's no way to look sensible when defending it.

If you're sick and tired of me saying those things about your arguments, post better arguments. Answer the challenges put before you instead of making excuses. Ford Prefect has set a great example here; I suggest you learn from him.

Bet51987 wrote:Theists are highly protective of each other so I understand your comment.

Have a nicer day.

Bee

Bettina, you apparently still don't get it; and feel the need to make a back-handed comment implying that I was rushing to Lothar's defense, when
(a) I hardly think that Lothar needs me to defend his arguments, and
(b) what I was doing was simply pointing out the logical fallacies of your post. I'm having a great day, thanks. I hope you are too. Now bring us some real arguments that we can discuss.

dissent wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:Theists are highly protective of each other so I understand your comment.

Have a nicer day.

Bee

Bettina, you apparently still don't get it; and feel the need to make a back-handed comment implying that I was rushing to Lothar's defense, when
(a) I hardly think that Lothar needs me to defend his arguments, and
(b) what I was doing was simply pointing out the logical fallacies of your post. I'm having a great day, thanks. I hope you are too. Now bring us some real arguments that we can discuss.

If it isn't too much trouble, maybe you can point out the fallacies of my posts....

Bee

I'm sure that by even daring to touch this thread, I will incite riot, but I will do so regardless. Perhaps a fresh perspective will instead diffuse the chain reaction that this subject always fosters.

I have often, through the years, revisited the subject of my beliefs (or lack thereof) and never truly come to terms with it. A great many people would argue that billions of people following some variant of Christianity can't all be wrong. Others would explain it away (and all other religions) as something that the moral majority need to believe so that they can come to terms with the unknown. Others still would take the stance of believing in some flavor of grand conspiracy theory intended to better humanity's moral fiber and allow them to live together for a time in some measure of peace and harmony. Or perhaps they subscribe to the idea that religion is just a more well-rounded and evolved system of control derived from the ones that shamans and druids wielded upon the social structures of their respective ages?

Personally, I feel it really all boils down to two things. Truth and Faith. Not simply science versus belief, or incontrovertible logic versus mountains of scripture and historical reference. Simple Truth and Faith. Keep in mind as well that these two aspects of our own spiritual selves are not even necessarily in opposition.

The main reason for this is that everyone, in their own way, wants the Truth. Whether it is that God exists, that a certain religion is the 'right' one, or that your own personal journey of self-discovery you've tried to share with others is too profound to ignore, each is an extension towards attaining Truth. Those that have Faith would possibly argue that they have only the measure of Truth they require, and to have all of the Truth flies in the face of religion because if you had all the answers, Faith would not be necessary. But your personal stance on what you believe (or don't believe) is a representation of how strongly you require Truth to believe, and how much Faith you already have (or are capable of having).

A rapidly-growing portion of the populous over the past 200 years have clung to logic as their control over their environment, and they wield it like a sword. Intellectual prowess has become the measure of success that insures wealth, glory, and power, whereas in ages past, might made right. It stands to reason (no pun intended) that anyone with a great degree of cognitive ability is predisposed to struggle with dogma and scripture from thousands of years ago that is contradictory to itself in some areas, difficult to discern a simple and true meaning from with a few exceptions, and leads so many people to do or say things that they might consider illogical. The rare exception to this is the scholars of theology. They are among the few that have managed to come to terms with this duality and embrace it. They are the strongest marriage of Truth and Faith that exists, and I commend them for their dedication to the pursuit of the one while maintaining the other.

Is all of this pointless? Is religion created by nothing more than human need for control, self-control, or solace against the overwhelming unknown? Nobody but you can decide that for yourself if you are exclusively focused on the Truth and are incapable of Faith (as I am). Regardless of whether they are right (as I hope they are) or wrong, I envy those that have enough Faith to persevere, even flourish, for it affords them a strength and conviction that I will never have.

Conflict over religion? Arguing over who is right or wrong? It matters not. What matters is that it betters their lives and makes the world a better place for us and our children more often than not. There are obviously exceptions, but freedom of religion is all about your personal journey and the freedom to take it. I think everyone can agree on some begrudging level, no matter their stance on the subject, that the world as we know it today would be very different indeed if Christianity had not blossomed thousands of years ago. I can't help thinking it would be a great deal more barbaric. Perhaps even concepts like democracy would never have manifested or been given life. How much personal freedom would you have, today? Would we have already destroyed ourselves?

Sadly, there is no safe ground for discussing a topic like this one, and I doubt there ever will be. But at the end of the day, what's most important is to try to remember that the guy sitting in front of that other computer isn't all that different from you. He wants some measure of Truth, just like you do.

The sad reality? There is one common thread to all beliefs - the Truth is only attainable by the dead. No matter who is right, you won't know it until your physical journey has reached its end. Your unwavering Faith, your dedication to your belief system, your intellectual misgivings if they exist - all are put to the test of Truth in the end. You may not suddenly know all the secrets of the universe, of course (or you might.. who knows?). You might cease to exist and the fact that you are now dead means that the Truth is revealed but you aren't even cognitively around to be aware of it. But that is the pivotal moment that almost everyone is scared of on some level. So until your journey is over, be respectful of your fellow travelers. They're just trying to understand it all and make it through, just like you.

Heck, what if nobody's right? Or what if God does exist, that's the only thing we did get right, and all He cares about is how you treat others while being true to yourself? Or what if all He cares about is that you wanted and tried to understand? Or seek Him in some way, regardless of the belief system you chose?

Let's side-step and use a different conundrum to illustrate how frustratingly elusive, intangible, and incomprehensible the subject of religion can be:

Have you ever stopped to think about the Big Bang? What if that really is how the universe came into being? Let's embrace that as a scientific fact and ignore all concepts and permutations of religion. How, exactly, do you explain something springing into existence from nothing? Void. BOOM! Here, have a universe! Something from nothing? How is that even remotely possible? That can't be right, so there must be another plausible explanation. Hmm.. the universe has always been here? But it can't have ALWAYS been here, could it? So something or someone created it! ....but they created it from ...nothing? And who created whoever or whatever created it? Was there a void at some point, and if there was, how did all of this cycle begin? Or how could it have always been in place? How will we ever understand or know? Does science hold the key to the Truth? Does religion? If God created the universe, then where did He come from? How did He spring into being? Who or what created Him?

Probably a humorous cliche', but honestly, you can't handle the Truth. And none of us has it to give to you.

Bet51987 wrote:If it isn't too much trouble, maybe you can point out the fallacies of my posts....

Bee

Sure. You said:

Bettina wrote:Drakona claims evolution is implausible.

Lothar claims that God not only speaks to him …etc.

From the link I posted:

Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.


Description of Poisoning the Well
This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This "argument" has the following form:
1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.
2. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.
This sort of "reasoning" is obviously fallacious. The person making such an attack is hoping that the unfavorable information will bias listeners against the person in question and hence that they will reject any claims he might make. However, merely presenting unfavorable information about a person (even if it is true) hardly counts as evidence against the claims he/she might make.

Any way you slice it, the information you stated is completely irrelevant to any of Lothar's arguments regarding the video.

dissent wrote:Any way you slice it, the information you stated is completely irrelevant to any of Lothar's arguments regarding the video.

Your right. Even though what I said was true and for the reason I gave, it was irrelevant to Lothars argument regarding the video.

Its too bad that the theists here were so busy straightening each tree that they totally missed the forest.

Bettina

Nice post Sllik. No thumbs up emoticon available so imagine it posted here.

Sllik, good writeup. I might have to disagree with you on one point though, depending on what you mean by faith. There's a weak conception, and there's a strong conception. The weak conception says that faith is the virtue of assenting to something that you should already assent to--a faithful person is somebody who believes in things that he has good reason to believe. To contrast that, the strong conception of faith says that faith can act in lieu of evidence, as evidence. A lot of the theists on this board actually embrace something closer to the weaker conception, and for good reason. Putting the strong conception under close inspection, believing in something even though there's little or no evidence is really a vice, not a virtue. It's really absurd, and putting a label like \"faith\" on it and selling it as a virtue is, what shall we call it, a white-washed tomb? However, embracing the weak conception can be a challenging position for theists in another respect. They can no longer pull out the f word to magically justify their religious beliefs; they lose that ace in the hole. They now have to justify them on the same grounds that anything else is justified in this world. This seems perfectly reasonable to me, so I reject the strong conception of faith, as it's a vice, not a virtue.

Well said, J.

Bettina, you give the analogy of straightening each tree and missing the forest. But I see it more like... the movie tried to present a forest. I walked into the forest and found all the trees were cardboard cutouts, so I knocked them over. It's not like I broke off a few leaves from otherwise sturdy trees; it's not as though I nitpicked tangential points while ignoring the substantial ones. I looked at the main arguments the movie presented, analyzed the evidence put forth for each of them, and every single one of them fell apart with only a minimum of pushing. As far as I can tell, there are no trees left. So when you keep referencing "the forest", I want you to show me the trees; don't just tell me there is a forest and complain that I'm missing it. Tell me the details of "the mathematical works [that] were pushed aside by the bible". Tell me what points you think the video made, when it made them, and why you think those points were great.

Thus far, I feel like you're telling me I'm missing "the forest" but you can't show me any actual trees within it. You've presented a string of logical fallacies (as dissent pointed out) and made accusations to the effect that Theists can't be reasoned with... but you simply haven't presented anything of substance that's worth reasoning with. Ford Prefect has, and you can see the back-and-forth between us. I'd appreciate if you'd show the same level of respect to those you're debating with -- respect me enough to make real arguments I can actually respond to, instead of just taking cheap shots and telling me I'm missing the point.

Sllik wrote:Those that have Faith would possibly argue that they have only the measure of Truth they require, and to have all of the Truth flies in the face of religion because if you had all the answers, Faith would not be necessary.

You may want to check out this thread on faith.

In short, there are two definitions of faith.
- "blind faith", or what Jeff250* calls the "strong" conception. This is believing just because, for no other reason. This is believing in something you have no evidence for. This is the opposite of reason.

- "faith as trust", or what Jeff250* calls the "weak" conception. This is believing because someone or something has proven themself. It's acting according to what you know is true, even when your emotions make you want to act some other way. This is the opposite of forgetfulness.

The first sort of "faith" is a bad thing, and it's that sort of faith that "having the answers" conflicts with. The second sort of "faith" is a good thing, and it remains necessary. Even when you have all the answers, acting on them is sometimes difficult. Sometimes you're scared and don't want to act even though you know you should, and you need to be faithful by responding as you know you should in spite of your emotions.



* I dislike the strong/weak categorization because it clashes with the common usage of "weak" and "strong" faith. The dichotomy is good, but the terminology is misleading. Perhaps "blind" vs "unwavering" would be better?

Lothar wrote:Argument 3: On Astrological Ages

One of the major claims of the movie is about the astrological ages. The age of Taurus the Bull lasts from 4300-2150 BC; the age of Ares the Ram from 2150 BC - 1 AD, the age of Pisces the Fish from 1 AD to 2150 AD, and the age of Aquarius the water-bearer will begin in 2150 AD (well, at least according to some interpretations of the ages; other interpretations shift those dates by about 500 years, but the movie doesn't bother to let you know this.) The movie claims that Moses' smashing the golden calf/bull in Exodus 32 is because Moses represents the start of the age of Ares the Ram (as evidenced by the modern Jews blowing a Ram's horn), and he's upset about the people are returning to the previous age. It further claims that Jesus ushers in the Age of Pisces (often symbolized by TWO fish), which is why he calls two fishermen to be His disciples, and feeds people with bread and fish. It also claims that Jesus is telling people about a "future passover" in Luke 22:10, involving a man carrying water, which is a reference to Aquarius.

As mentioned on the Astrological Ages wikipedia page above, the precession of the equinoxes was not discovered until about 127 BC by Hipparchus. Moses was around about 1400 years before that -- so how exactly did he know it was the age of the ram, if the concept hadn't even been invented yet? Also note that Moses is born about 700 years into the age of Ares, not any time near its start. Furthermore, Moses never gave any indication that ram worship was to replace bull worship. In the "golden calf" story, the issue is not that the people made a BULL, but that they made an IDOL -- he doesn't get angry and order them to build a ram; he gets angry and destroys the calf and tells them to turn back to a God who is never given any animal representation.

Greetings. This is my first post on this forum and I wish to address the above post. I was referred here by another forum thread and found these comments interesting/odd.

The above information provided by "Lothar" is not accurate. Hipparchus did discover THE MATH involved in precession, but not the changing of the ages. It was known LONG before the story of Moses appeared. The link Lothar provided himself discusses the monuments built to welcome the age of Leo over 10 000 years BC.

Quote…we have demonstrated with a substantial body of evidence that the pattern of stars that is “frozen” on the ground at Giza in the form of the three pyramids and the Sphinx represents the disposition of the constellations of Orion and Leo as they looked at the moment of sunrise on the spring equinox during the astronomical “Age of Leo” (i.e., the epoch in which the Sun was “housed” by Leo on the spring equinox.) Like all precessional ages this was a 2,160-year period. It is generally calculated to have fallen between the Gregorian calendar dates of 10,970 and 8810 BC. - end quote.

Also, Lothar points out that the story of Moses happens 700 years out of the age of Aries. The link also mentions a 720 year period when the age begins to make visible influence. Wouldn't that put the time of the story in that period?

I did not go further with this post as I must assume it is more of the same, as Lothar did with the movie in question. I did check a bit about the "end times" reference and there is so much contradiction and debate on this issue it is not worth it. Early biblical scholars themselves originally deduced it was to be within their lifetime and dismissed it as they grew old and nothing happened.

JohnG, where did you originally find this referenced? I'm curious to see what was said about it.

Thank you for the correction on the discovery of the precession of the equinoxes. It's not really within my area of expertise, but I'll acknowledge that it could have been known long, long before the time of Moses. (It happens to be an insignificant detail, but still, I like to learn.)

JohnG wrote:Lothar points out that the story of Moses happens 700 years out of the age of Aries. The link also mentions a 720 year period when the age begins to make visible influence. Wouldn't that put the time of the story in that period?

The article says that "some astrologers consider the last ca. 10 degrees of a given age (ca. 720 years) as the time period during which the new age starts to make visible its influences". This misses Moses by about 700 years in the other direction, putting us in the time of Hezekiah.

Also, if we use the "last 720 years" criteria that "some astrologers" suggest, Jesus, who definitely had visible influence, no longer fits.

The movie tries to show the Bible matches a particular astrological pattern. But it only ends up matching a few scattered details, and even then, only by applying different criteria to different details. The vast majority of details don't match -- there's no systematic replacement of bulls with rams, Moses doesn't complain the idol should have been a ram, both animals play large parts in the Law given through Moses in the following pages.

You know how, when you hear the answer to a riddle, you "get it"? You hear the answer and you understand how each detail fits with it. A good pattern match is like that. Once you're aware of the pattern, details just fall into place. Once you know the answer, there's depth in the details that wasn't there before. The argument the movie presents doesn't have any of that depth, power, or robustness. It is, to put it mildly, garbage.

I must assume it is more of the same, as Lothar did with the movie in question.

I watched the movie until it changed to a topic that no longer interested me. Despite its lack of credibility, I took the time to give a complete and coherent response to its entire "Part I", showing how its errors were systematic (as stated in the paragraph above.) I took the time to address the core points the movie made, not merely tangential details. I'd appreciate if you did the same with my post.

Of the two points you addressed, I was in error on one (which was insignificant to my argument as a whole.) You were in error on the other. Let's not use those errors as an excuse to ignore each other. If you have more to say, I'll be glad to listen. I only ask that you show enough respect to listen in response.

MONSTER POST WARNING

Thanks for the reply Lothar. In regards to the movie (I got around to watching it) I found it interesting although I agree that it is presented in a propoganda-esque style.

I am not an authority on religion by any means and also a non-believer, however, I have always been fascinated by the sociological effects it has on society and pass no judgment on those who believe, unless it is being used to hurt or take from somebody. The historical relevance alone is fascinating.

Anyway, to answer your query about the link referenced, it was
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrological_age
in the section regarding the great month of Leo. I don’t think it’s an insignificant detail as a good portion of the information provided in the movie is based on the relationship between the passing of the ages and the references used in the bible stories.

Upon seeing the context of the movie, my own logic tells me any inaccuracies to the actual passing of the ages is more a representation on the liberties taken with the adaptations used in the bible stories. They are ancient stories and the more I research the stories the more I stumble upon similar plot lines dating back 1000’s of years BC.

Here is an interesting read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sargon_of_Akkad

The Sargon/Moses stories were touched on in the zeitgeist movie as well. The stories from the temple of Luxor, regarding the birth of Ra, are too close to the story of the birth of Jesus to be ignored.

Some interesting info here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ra

In regards to Jesus and his symbolism using fish, it would seem upon further research that there is a significant amount of references to them. At least four of Jesus disciples were fisherman (James, brothers Peter and Andrew and John). In the text that you linked - “I will make you fishers of men” he says. In the gospels of John, 21:11 the disciples fished all night to no avail, until Jesus told them to cast to the other side of the boat and they caught 153 fish. The number 153 is the vertical ratio of the vesica piscis.

Here is what that means http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vesica_piscis

In Matthew 13:47-50, Jesus relates God deciding who goes to heaven or hell to fisherman sorting their catch.

These points are aside from the points made in the movie. Considering that fish are more tied in with Jesus than any other character in the bible, I would say there is symbolic reference, considering the text is very heavy on symbolism.

Also, where you claim the movie “explicitly lied” about the far future passover at the end of the age of pisces – the movie actually states that the quote is actually from Matthew 28:20, not Luke 22:10. I checked – it’s there.

In regards to your question, “If Moses and Jesus signified changing astrological ages, why would they be copied from other figures like Sargon, Minos, or Horus”?. The idea is that the characters are derived from these predecessors:

• Horus is the Father seen in the son...Jesus said he was the way, the truth and the life.
• Horus claims to be the light of the world represented by the symbolic eye, the sign of salvation. Jesus stated that he is the light of the world.
• Horus said that he was the way, the truth, the life. Jesus said he was the way, the truth and the life.
• Horus was the plant, the shoot. Jesus says \"I am the true vine.\"
• Horus says It is I who traverse the heavens, I go round the Elysian Fields. Eternity has been assigned to me without end, Lo! I am heir to endless time and my attribute is eternity. Jesus says I am come down from heaven, for this is the will of the Father, that everyone who beholdeth the Son and believeth in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
• Horus...I open the Tuat ( http://altreligion.about.com/library/gl ... eftuat.htm ) that I may drive away the darkness. Jesus says I am come a light unto the world.
• Horus says I am equipped with thy words O Ra [Father in Heaven] and repeat them to those who are deprived of breath. These were the words of the Father in heaven. Jesus says The Father which sent me, he hath given me a commandment, what I should say and what I should speak. Whatsoever I speak therefore even as the Father said unto me, so I speak. The word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.\"
• Horus baptized with water by Anup. Jesus baptized with water by John the Baptist.
• Horus-Aan, the name of the divine scribe. Jesus-John the divine scribe.
• Horus born in Annu, the place of bread. Jesus Born in Bethlehem, the house of bread.
• Horus The good shepherd with the crook on his shoulders. Jesus The good shepherd with a lamb on his shoulders.
• Horus Seven on board the boat with him. Jesus Seven fishermen on board the boat with Jesus.
• Horus Depicted as the Lamb Jesus depicted as the lamb.
• Horus as the Lion. Jesus as the lion.
• Horus identified with the Tat or cross. Jesus identified with the cross.
• Horus of 12 years. Jesus of 12 years.
• Horus A man of 30 years. Jesus a man of 30 years at his baptism.
• Horus the KRST. Jesus the Christ.
• Horus the manifesting son of God. Jesus the manifesting son of God.
• Horus The trinity...Atum the Father, Horus the son, Ra the Holy Spirit. Jesus...God the Father, Jesus the son, and the Holy Spirit.
• Horus The first Horus as a child of the virgin, the second as son of Ra. Jesus as a child of the virgin, Christ as the son of the Father in heaven.
• Horus...Horus the sender and Set the destroyer in the harvest field. Jesus...Jesus the sender or the good seed, Satan the sender of tares.
• Horus carried off by Set to the summit of Mount Hetep. Jesus carried by Satan to an exceedingly high mountain.
• Horus and Set contending on the Mount. Jesus and Satan contending on the Mount.
• Horus...The star was the announcer of the child Horus. Jesus...The Star in the East indicated the birth-place of Jesus.
• Horus...the avenger. Jesus who brings the sword.
• Horus...as Iu-em-hetep comes with peace...Jesus...the bringer of peace.
• Horus...the afflicted one. Jesus...the afflicted one.
• Horus...as the type of life eternal.
• Jesus...as the type of life eternal.
• Horus as Iu-em-hetep the child teacher in the temple. Jesus as the child teacher in the temple.
• Horus The mummy bandage was woven without seam. Jesus The vesture of the Christ was without seam.
• Horus As Har-Khutti has twelve followers... Jesus has twelve disciples.
• Horus The revelation written down by divine scribe Aan (Tehuti). Jesus the Revelation written down by John the Divine.
• Horus_Aani bears witness to the word of Ra. Jesus...John bears witness to the word of God and testimony of Jesus Christ.
• Horus The secret mysteries revealed by That-Aan. Jesus The secret mysteries made known by John.
• Horus The morning star. Jesus The morning star.
• Horus Who gives the morning star to his followers. Jesus who gives the morning star to his followers.
• Horus The name of Ra on the head of the deceased. Jesus The name of the father written on the forehead.
• Horus The paradise of the Pole star...Am-Khemen. Jesus The Holy City lighted by one luminary that is neither the sun nor the moon.
• Horus Har-Seshu or servants of Horus. Jesus The servants of Jesus Christ.

…and so forth. As far as the references to the passing of the ages, it has already been noted that this has been a major part of religious culture for sometime, so tying it in with the bible stories is a natural thing for an all encompassing scripture. It should be noted that the Mithraic religion which was born at the same time as Christianity, (noted for copying Christianity) had pronounced astrological elements.

Quote from wiki “The centerpiece of analysis is the tauroctony - an image of Mithras sacrificing a bull. The tauroctony is a star chart. Mithras is the constellation Perseus, and the bull is Taurus, a constellation of the zodiac. In an earlier astrological age, the vernal equinox had taken place when the Sun was in Taurus. The tauroctony, by this reasoning, commemorated Mithras-Perseus ending the \"Age of Taurus\" about 2000 BC.” - again, this religion was said to be a direct copy of Christianity at the time of their conceptions.

Astrology was “pop culture” during at the time.

I’m tired, off to bed and I hope to continue this discussion, Lothar!

Horus the KRST. Jesus the Christ.

roflmao. ooohkay.

Duper wrote:

Horus the KRST. Jesus the Christ.

roflmao. ooohkay.

LOTS of info regarding that very point from the egyptian book of the dead. Take a minute yourself and research it.