-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Jesus was Mithra Re-Hashed?
- Thread starter lamplighter
- Start date
I think a better and more insightful question is why you're so hell-bent on disproving something you don't believe in?
Booko
Deviled Hen
It's at times like this I wish JamesthePersian was still about. It's unfortunate when religions start thinking that sex in any form is dirty. They end up with strange rationalizations for why half brothers are not half brothers at all.
Oh, I'd still say the argument that there is no personage upon whom the mythos was based is sillier.
Booko
Deviled Hen
For the same reasons many atheists would not put up with such nonsense parading as an argument.
Go ahead, logician -- answer this one. Inquiring minds want to know.
lamplighter
Almighty Tallest
Just answering the question in general, There is no god higher than truth. So everything should be revealed to everyone for what it really is.
Popeyesays
Well-Known Member
"Therefore, the seeker must be endowed with certain qualities. First of all, he must be just and severed from all else save God; his heart must be entirely turned to the supreme horizon; he must be free from the bondage of self and passion, for all these are obstacles. Furthermore, he must be able to endure all hardships. He must be absolutely pure and sanctified, and free from the love or the hatred of the inhabitants of the world. Why? because the fact of his love for any person or thing might prevent him from recognizing the truth in another, and, in the same way, hatred for anything might be a hindrance in discerning truth. This is the condition of seeking, and the seeker must have these qualities and attributes. Until he reaches this condition, it is not possible for him to attain to the Sun of Reality."
(Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 38)
So what are you attached to?
Regards,
Scott
Well said.
lamplighter
Almighty Tallest
Rights not outweighing the wrongs, misleading organizations, corruption, the ends not justifying the means, it this, it this that oppresses my soul.
Popeyesays
Well-Known Member
So it's the human condition that opresses you?
Why blame God and religion for that?
Regards,
Scott
logician
Well-Known Member
Popeyesays
Well-Known Member
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Fewer regards than before,
Scott
lamplighter
Almighty Tallest
I'm not blaming any god(s) or religions in general, aspects of a religion yes, questioning the motives of religion yes, questioning why a religion was created in the first place yes, why there's even some decent christians like Mother Teresa, but when a religion causes too many fanatics to go around and oppress the masses at every turn, burn an almost countless number of people as heretics and witches, burn books, destroy the art of other cultures, perpetuate intolerance, (you know I have list going on in another thread) I find that religion's intentions questionable, worth looking at and seeing if the religion is even credible to begin with. Because, the way I see it, if a religion's holy book is indeed the word of a god with untold wisdom, then why would the religion end up causing so much suffering, why so much hate, why so much pain? I don't hear of taoist causing pains in the name of there ideals, buddhist seem to be rather peaceful even in the light of them creating martial arts, but they created martial arts to defend there temples not enforce there ideas upon others, I think too many except things because thats the way things have been, not for what they are. Why should a religion not be brought into question? So you have Mithraism, the way I see it the victors are the ones to write the history books and man always likes to portray himself in the best light, would you actually think early christians would say they've copied another religion? Do you know that Jesus Christ is thought to be the result of translations of Yehoshua which was shortened to Yeshua, as to avoid possibly saying Yahweh's name which is a sin. Anyway, going on blind faith and following a religion in hopes of going to heaven is like being offered a ride in a van by some stranger who promises you a million dollars if you go along and does what he says, just because there's a number of people who ride in the van doesn't make it a smart move. Christianity seems to be that ride and if it 's created by man then there is no million dollars (heaven in this case) at the end of the ride. So why should I keep mouth shut and not raise the question, and not see if everything is on the up and up like it's supposed to be.
Smoke
Done here.
In the West, the siblings of Jesus were generally explained as being his cousins; in the East, they've generally been thought of as the children of Joseph by a previous wife. Neither explanation has any dogmatic significance in any church.
However, all the historic churches -- the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian churches -- affirm the perpetual virginity of the Mother of God, and while I'm not sure about the Assyrian Church of the East, it's a point of dogma for at least the first three. A belief in her perpetual virginity was also held by the great reformers -- Luther, Calvin and Zwingli -- and by John Wesley.
Popeyesays
Well-Known Member
It's always struck me as silly to proclaim the continual virginity of Mary.
After all she was always chaste, and sex within marriage is chaste, is it not?
The physical reality of virginity is the intact hymen. A hymen might survive impregnation, of course, but it will not survive childbirth.
Regards,
Scott
logician
Well-Known Member
The Christian church associates sex with sin, thus the need for a mythical virgin.
And if that person is shown time and time again to be wrong, then what? What is the purpose of entertaining someone's apparent willful decision to remain in the dark?
lamplighter
Almighty Tallest
When has Jesus Christ/Yehoshua proven to be real?
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
There's a difference between doubting the historicity of Christ, and declaring that He was invented after the First Council of Nicea.
lamplighter
Almighty Tallest
Yeah? your point being...... For all I know there really was schizophrenic going around calling himself Yehoshua in the middle east whose good intentions of helping people and promoting social communism was distorted by others for other purposes but that still doesn't make him the son of a god. But there certainly seems a great deal of importance on Yehoshua being real as a big deal for allot Christians. Some how proving that there was a person calling himself that will somehow justify the bible further I guess, personally the existence of a real person claiming himself as the son of a god has very little significance in whether or not the Bible is the word of a god. For I have met many men claiming to personally know god like they know there mother or at least thats what they would like you to believe anyway but very little in the way of substantial evidence has come forth proving anyones claim. I've Died and been resuscitated and feel as though I've been as close to knowing whats next far more than most but nothing in that experience has led me to believe anything in the Bible, especially so since there doesn't seem to be anything about this phenomenon in the Bible anyway (the whole pearly gates comparison is shaky at best and made up at worst, as there were no precious jewels or other "gates", only one and to the back shear black void). FYI there's nobody's going to force you to watch some lame movie about your life showing you everything you've done :sorry1: (I don't care how interesting someone's life has been, to sit through the whole thing would be dreadful and boring).
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
That one is intellectually valid, and the other the willful ignorance that Mr. T was referring to.