Answer me this

[Coma]

What gives christianity any more validity than say Greek Mythology, Hinduism or any other religion?

They're all man made, so what gives Christianity any more integrity than any of the other religions that are practiced or have been practiced throughout time?

 

[topatoya]

What gives christianity any more validity than say Greek Mythology, Hinduism or any other religion?

They're all man made, so what gives Christianity any more integrity than any of the other religions that are practiced or have been practiced throughout time?

Woooooooowe a very good queston,,,(answer,,,,,,JESUS== BIBLE= PREACHER=CHURCH=MAMA=ME)) hehehehe.


http://www.besonic.com/BeSonic/User/0,4 ... 87,FF.html

Topatoya

 

[evanman]

Christianity of itself has no validity--It is Jesus Christ that makes the difference!

 

[Joeri]

What gives christianity any more validity than say Greek Mythology, Hinduism or any other religion?

hinduism is the ancestor of christianity at least for as long as they worship Vishnu. too bad they dont realise the 9th incarnation is JESUS and not buddha.

They're all man made, so what gives Christianity any more integrity than any of the other religions that are practiced or have been practiced throughout time?

who cares what names you call any religion. what matters is that it brings you to God.

 

[plath_fan]

What gives christianity any more validity than say Greek Mythology, Hinduism or any other religion?

They're all man made, so what gives Christianity any more integrity than any of the other religions that are practiced or have been practiced throughout time?

Has Greek mythology withstood the test of time?
Does Hinduism have the same following as Christianity?

Religions come and go. Christ is not a religion.

 

[Blazin Bones]

Christianity of itself has no validity--It is Jesus Christ that makes the difference!

Allow me to shorten your response to it's simplest form. Christ is our validity. I think this topic should be moved to Christianity vs. Other religions.

 

[quicksand]

Christianity of itself has no validity--It is Jesus Christ that makes the difference!

Irrelevant to the question.
• Krsna makes all the difference.
• Mithras makes all the difference.
• The Prophet made all the difference.

See a theme here?

They're all man made, so what gives Christianity any more integrity than any of the other religions that are practiced or have been practiced throughout time?

who cares what names you call any religion. what matters is that it brings you to God.

Define God. Each religion has it's own interpretation, a subjective positive assertion.

If by belief through faith makes God real to you, then by faith one can destroy God.

Has Greek mythology withstood the test of time?
Does Hinduism have the same following as Christianity?

Religions come and go. Christ is not a religion.

And what about the Gnostics and its later spiritual descents like the Cathars that were suppressed by your legalistic belief and mandate of faith in Jesus and the tenets of Christianity? Furthermore, Jesus is a jewish interpretation of a Greek myth. I would say that Greek mythology is alive and healthy in its present accepted form of Christianity.

Number of followers does not add to validity of belief, nor is it reality.

Take your generic Bush supporter for instance that still has a false belief that Saddam had anything to do with 911 when it has been empirically demonstrated that in fact Saddam had nothing to do with it.

Otherwise, Islam is the correct religion, at least they are dieing for "the one." I don't see you in Iraq. Since our imperialist invasion of Iraq, the USA has done nothing but fuel a new Jihad.

Good job.

Christianity of itself has no validity--It is Jesus Christ that makes the difference!

Allow me to shorten your response to it's simplest form. Christ is our validity. I think this topic should be moved to Christianity vs. Other religions.

Which Christ I wonder?
Loving Christ?
Luk 6:35 But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and [to] the evil.(KJV)
or
Vindictive Christ?
Luk 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay [them] before me. (KJV)

 

[Joeri]

Which Christ I wonder?
Loving Christ?
Luk 6:35 But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and [to] the evil.(KJV)
or
Vindictive Christ?
Luk 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay [them] before me. (KJV)

look pal, there is only 1 christ, and because that Christ knows himself anyone who would not accept him as king would be a arrogant bastard who deserves to die. simple as that. btw above quote was about God the Father, not God the Son.

 

[quicksand]

Which Christ I wonder?
Loving Christ?
Luk 6:35 But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and [to] the evil.(KJV)
or
Vindictive Christ?
Luk 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay [them] before me. (KJV)

look pal, there is only 1 christ, and because that Christ knows himself anyone who would not accept him as king would be a arrogant LOVING MAN who deserves to die. simple as that. btw above quote was about God the Father, not God the Son.

look pal,

Terms of endearment... so soon? Schucks....

there is only 1 christ,

Which means, that Jesus the Christ has to accept responsibility for saying two completely contradictory things. On one hand "love your enemies" but with the other hand, kill them. Got it. Thanks for the elucidation.

would not accept him as king

Why should I have to accept anything? Does Paul say that all men know God? But I don't accept the Bible as testimony so your God has not given me the knowledge to believe.

arrogant LOVING MAN

Which one am I? Arrogant or Loving? Or Both. Perhaps i am a Loving Arrogant man?

Anyway, ad homonyms are easily ignored because they show your irrationality and reactionary, emotional mindset.

who deserves to die

Christians are supposed to be imitators of Christ.

Will I now be slain before you, seeing as I "deserve to die?"

Just a bit of hyperbole. But Christianity, inspired by the Songs of Roland, did invent the concept of Holy War and inquisition.

btw above quote was about God the Father, not God the Son.

Incorrect. Jesus stated something to the effect that he was before Abraham when asked. Remember Jesus is not so much as the son of God as he is God.

What you suggest is tantamount to the Arian Controversy. I thought all you heretics were purged.

Also reflect on what CS Lewis said:

Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God.

You are a heretic. Sorry to break it to you.

 

[Blazin Bones]

Welcome to the forums, quicksand. Even though you've been here a lot longer than me.

I have nothing else to contribute to the topic, I've said it already

 

[quicksand]

Welcome to the forums, quicksand. Even though you've been here a lot longer than me.

I have nothing else to contribute to the topic, I've said it already

Thanks man.

You know, I love arguing this stuff, but I don't know how much puff I have left in me anymore. So much of I have revisted over and over again.

I think I like arguing politics better tho.

At least that does make a difference in the here and now, not the hear and later.

Cheers and thanks again.

 

[stovebolts]

What gives christianity any more validity than say Greek Mythology, Hinduism or any other religion?

They're all man made, so what gives Christianity any more integrity than any of the other religions that are practiced or have been practiced throughout time?

For starters, Jesus was the only one to come back from the grave... Ironic though when you think about it. The cross was a pagan symbol for everlasting life before the Romans started useing it. I suppose it only seems appropriate that Jesus conquer the cross for symbolic purposes huh?
Furthermore, ever wonder about the plagues that hit egypt? Almost ironic as well that each plague centered upon an egyptian God, all the way to Ra when Pharoh lost his Son... things that make ya go hmmmm :-D
There seems to be a theme here... I don't see that in any other religions. I'd agree that man has had his hand in defining Christianity... Easter, Christmas, etc... the list goes on. But in all, I'd have to say again that NO RELIGION (Not even L.Ron Hubbard) has ever claimed to be God, let alone Raised from the dead. (at least the second part)

Just me itsy .02

 

[Quath]

For starters, Jesus was the only one to come back from the grave... Ironic though when you think about it. The cross was a pagan symbol for everlasting life before the Romans started useing it. I suppose it only seems appropriate that Jesus conquer the cross for symbolic purposes huh?

Horus also came back from the grave. Also Lazarus was suppose to have come back from the grave.

Furthermore, ever wonder about the plagues that hit egypt? Almost ironic as well that each plague centered upon an egyptian God, all the way to Ra when Pharoh lost his Son... things that make ya go hmmmm :-D

History does not support the view that Israelites were slaves of Egypt. The problem is that Egypt had such good records in the times of the Israelites that none of the events could have happened.

My guess is that the Israelites were slaves of another tribe who may have been related to Egyptians.

There seems to be a theme here... I don't see that in any other religions. I'd agree that man has had his hand in defining Christianity... Easter, Christmas, etc... the list goes on. But in all, I'd have to say again that NO RELIGION (Not even L.Ron Hubbard) has ever claimed to be God, let alone Raised from the dead. (at least the second part)

Most religions have gods from Islam to Hinduism to paganism. Claiming a god does nothing. Showing the god to be real is the hard part.

Quath

 

[evanman]

Evidence of Israelites in egypt:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a027.html

http://www.explorationfilms.com/info.as ... &record=58

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/8830/exodus.html

 

[Quath]

From http://www.fsmitha.com/h1/ch04.htm:

According to the Old Testament's First Book of Kings, 6:1, Moses and his fellow Hebrews fled from Egypt 480 years before Solomon was to begin building his temple in Jerusalem. This would have placed the exodus from Egypt in 1446, around a century and a half before the rule of Ramses and during a time of no major building in Egypt. The Book of Exodus describes Moses as having come across the small kingdoms of Edom and Moab, which archaeologists believe were not settled until after 1300.13 Those believing that the Old Testament is without error cling to 1446 as the year of the exodus. Others estimate that it was under Ramses' successor, Merneptah, that the Hebrews might have managed to flee en masse from Egypt -- Merneptah having ruled from around 1224 to 1211. The mass exodus of Hebrew slaves might have occurred when Merneptah withdrew his troops from his frontier facing Canaan in preparation for a war developing on his frontier with the kingdom on his western border.

From http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/otarch2.html:
The answer, simply put, is that archaeological evidence for the early events of the Old Testament is non-existent. Without facts to tie their explanations down to, biblical scholars have had free rein to speculate, and the door has been opened to all sorts of conjecture whose only common feature is that it all begins with the assumption that the text is true.

However, when this assumption is set aside, the heretofore fuzzy and blurred picture snaps into clear focus. When evidence is lacking where evidence should be, the simplest explanation is because the event in question never happened, and that is the position this section of the essay will take. Given the evidence we both have and do not have, by far the best conclusion is that the Exodus never happened as depicted in the Old Testament. There was no enslavement of an entire people, no ten plagues, no large-scale escape, and no mass wandering in the desert. This position will be defended in the sections that follow.

From http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_035b.html:
Tries to be a little more diplomatic to suggest that all is not known well enough but also adds

Of course, the fact that there is no historical evidence for the existence of Moses or the ten plagues doesn't necessarily mean they were purely mythical. There's little historical evidence to establish the existence of anybody from the period, except for those who happened to be head honcho at some point.

On the other hand, it seems likely that much of the detail of the biblical account was borrowed from Egyptian sources. The name "Moses" apparently derives from the common Egyptian suffix -mose, "born of," as in Thut-mose, "born of the god Thut." The Old Testament claim that the name comes from the Hebrew mashah is thought to be wishful thinking. The story of the infant Moses's rescue from the canebrake, interestingly, parallels the Egyptian legend of the goddess Isis, who hid her son Horus in a delta papyrus thicket to protect him from some nasty fate.

The ten plagues described in the biblical account--lice, pestilence, locusts, boils, and so on--are all commonplace features of Egyptian life. The first plague, for instance, when Moses turns the waters of the Nile to blood, most likely recalls the fact that the Nile turns red during the spring floods due to floating microorganisms. A simple explanation of the plagues, then, is Moses' willingness to take credit for the routine disasters of the day. No wonder the Israelites wanted out.

I know that Christians want this to be true. After all if this is false, then other stories could be false as well. However, the Pharoah killed is not named and his identity can not be determined even though the Egyptian pharoahs are known. Any attempt at agreement with the Bible shows the Bible to be wrong somewhere else.

Quath

 

[stovebolts]

Taken from http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/otarch2.html

Why is this? The answer, simply put, is that archaeological evidence for the early events of the Old Testament is non-existent. Without facts to tie their explanations down to, biblical scholars have had free rein to speculate, and the door has been opened to all sorts of conjecture whose only common feature is that it all begins with the assumption that the text is true....

The next paragraph...

Given the evidence we both have and do not have, by far the best conclusion is that the Exodus never happened as depicted in the Old Testament

From: http://www.explorationfilms.com/info.asp?action=display&record=58

This expedition yielded compelling new evidence to suggest that Aqaba is the crossing point for the Exodus route, and that Mount Jabal al Lawz is the real Mount Sinai. The significance lies in the fact that the Bible is again shown to be true and accurate. Critics who claim that the Bible does not coincide with known history and geography are again shown to be wrong - once the facts surface. The Bible story is real.

You can come up with any debate you want and you will find in yourself the answer you are looking for. However, you are currently working off a pretense in the direction you wish to perceive this subject, as am I.
That being said, I am confident that as archeology progresses, there will be more evidence uncovered that supports biblical history.

In the meantime, I am assured with John chapter 29, verses 25-31

25.The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.
26. And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: [then] came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace [be] unto you.
27. Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust [it] into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
28. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
29. Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed [are] they that have not seen, and [yet] have believed.
30. And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
31. But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

The choice is yours. Faith in Man and yourself, or Faith in God. Either way, your still relying on faith.

 

[Quath]

The choice is yours. Faith in Man and yourself, or Faith in God. Either way, your still relying on faith.

There is less faith required to believe the seen as opposed to the unknown. I know you feel you know God, so your choice is clear. But I have no experience nor feeling of God.

Quath

 

[stovebolts]

The choice is yours. Faith in Man and yourself, or Faith in God. Either way, your still relying on faith.

There is less faith required to believe the seen as opposed to the unknown. I know you feel you know God, so your choice is clear. But I have no experience nor feeling of God.

Quath

That's not entirely true Quath. You have experienced God, you just havn't accepted it yet.

 

[evanman]

All men experience God, you Quath, like most others, reject what you know of God.

 

[Quath]

All men experience God, you Quath, like most others, reject what you know of God.

The feelings I had for God felt the same as the feelings I had for Santa Claus. So when I realize that I can have feelings for something that does not exist, I doubted. So I would need some experience with God that I never got from Santa Claus.

Quath