Religion
Related: About this forumHow is 'Jesus Son of God' different from sons of Greek gods? Ever hear sermon on this?
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)Do we all share in the divine?
MineralMan
(147,575 posts)guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)Using the word divine as a verb, of course.
MineralMan
(147,575 posts)The divine does not exist. Easy. Prove me wrong with any evidence you have of its existence.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)And you are welcome to it.
Check the Amazon site. They might have some books on the topic.
sprinkleeninow
(20,546 posts)Guillaume,
Mon frère,
mon ami.
Je vous admire beaucoup.
La bonne Bon Bon.
[Ah caint hep mahself wit' them googly thingies.]
sprinkleeninow
(20,546 posts)guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)that they cannot see it. Obstacles that they often create by not recognizing the limitations of human intelligence.
Bretton Garcia
(970 posts)Is a pretty sly, slippery, Satanic trick. To try to slip away from numerous, constant empirical disproofs of the biblical God.
It's a trick that seems to work for a while. But in the end, most pay a very heavy but subtle price for it. The constant denegration of reason and science subtly cripples the intelligence of many ardent proponents. And cripples their material effectivess. Dooming billions to poverty.
bobbieinok
(12,858 posts)There was a big theological/philosophical back-and-forth.
Bretton Garcia
(970 posts)marylandblue
(12,344 posts)He was a radical empiricist. If it couldn't be verified empirically, it wasn't knowledge.
bobbieinok
(12,858 posts)I checked Wikipedia article.
As I recall, many took part in the discussion of various questions raised by the parable, and the discussion went on for several years.
I believe, from reading yrs ago, that the falsifiability demand goes back to Popper.
A Google search for the parable comes up with a source at Dartmouth.
For those who enjoy this kind of discussion, the various wiki and Google links could be interesting.
Bretton Garcia
(970 posts)If something can't be shown to be true or false either, or if it has no definite observable results, then it is 1) moot. Or say, 2) useless. And 3) most probably false.
4) When promises of physical miracles failed, much of Christianity switched to promising only spiritual results, in our heads. But even the Bible warned there are many bad, false spirits, that delude our heads with illusions. 5) So we are not supposed to have so much faith; we are supposed "test the spirits" even. With "science" Dan. 1.4-15 KJE.
So the Christianity that stresses faith and spirituality is not ultimately biblical. And it is of course anti rational as well.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)Bretton Garcia
(970 posts)guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)marylandblue
(12,344 posts)Nobody prays to human intelligence or thinks it created the universe. The most you can say is that some people think we are smart enough to think for ourselves. Not a god, just our most useful natural trait.
MineralMan
(147,575 posts)Never mind then...I'm correct. Thanks.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)Did you notice the very subtle reference to Amazon?
NeoGreen
(4,033 posts)guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)Major Nikon
(36,900 posts)guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)I define the Creator for myself, not others.
Major Nikon
(36,900 posts)If you refuse to do so, then it can be safely assumed you were just speaking gibberish.
Thomas Hurt
(13,925 posts)human beings also create, the arts, procreation, society, etc. Even with all its warts and disasters, that is the only thing I could consider divine under that little bit of theology.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)MineralMan
(147,575 posts)Voltaire2
(14,703 posts)Im certain my dad was not an immortal being.
It is a tenet of Christianity that this Jesus person was the literal, not metaphorical, son of the Abrahamic god(s).
LongtimeAZDem
(4,515 posts)Ferrets are Cool
(21,957 posts)Doesn't say much for an "omnipotent" god.
3Hotdogs
(13,394 posts)But not mine."
Glamrock
(11,994 posts)NeoGreen
(4,033 posts)Last edited Sun Feb 17, 2019, 08:16 PM - Edit history (1)
..deity attributes.
For a more detailed summary of many of the historic 'sons of Ra' go to:
https://ffrf.org/component/k2/item/23737-cookie-cutter-christs
Cookie Cutter Christs
The story of Jesus was copied from earlier mythologies. It is cut from the same fabric as many other ancient superstitions. Following are nine of the more than 20 Savior/Sun gods who were said to be born of a virgin and sacrificed to save mankind.
Mithra
The birthday of Mithra, an ancient sun-god born of a virgin about 600 BC, was celebrated on December 25. Magi brought gifts to his birth. His first worshippers were shepherds and he was followed in his travels by 12 companions. Mithra was slain upon a cross in Persia to make atonement for humankind and take away the sins of the world. His ascension to heaven was celebrated at the spring equinox (Easter).
There is a lot more at the link.
bobbieinok
(12,858 posts)struggle4progress
(120,245 posts)For example, I have never seen any Buddhist text teaching that Buddha was crucified, descended into hell for three days, and then ascended into heaven. The Mahaparinibbana sutra, for example, makes it sound as if Buddha died after several days of food poisoning
Much of the nonsense on the FFRF webpage you link probably comes from the Kersey Graves silly book, The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors
Graves once saw a statue of Krishna with a hole in his foot and concluded that Krishna had been crucified -- although the Mahabharata contains a story that a hunter shot Krishna in the foot with an arrow
Graves says of Osiris: Osiris appeared on earth to benefit mankind, and .. by rising from the dead, after being crucified, he became the judge of mankind in a future state. But in the actual Egyptian story, Osiris was a ruler, murdered by his brother Set, whoicast his dismembered body into the Nile, from which place his widow Isis retrieved and temporarily reanimated most of his his body so she could become pregnant, although afterwards the green-skinned Osiris was described only as the ruler of the land of the dead.
NeoGreen
(4,033 posts)...the bible is a credible document for historical accuracy of who was or wasn't crucified and/or other documented magical events?
If so, then there isn't much reason to continue a discussion.
The bible is a book of fiction, there is no point in participating in a discussion of it's factual value.
struggle4progress
(120,245 posts)the nonsense written by Kersey Graves and similar authors provide us nothing useful; and I cannot really understand why you would promote such garbage
NeoGreen
(4,033 posts)...who treats the bible as historical, informative and/or useful (in a positive sense).
However, the supposition that jesus is merely an amalgamation of magical attributes and associated miracles gleaned from historic fictional figures is supported by a preponderance of the narrative similarities between them (i.e. Mithra, Hercules, Horus, Attis, and Adonis) and what is written in the text of the bible.
Your ability to provide apparent criticism of a few elements of comparisons, provided within the ffrf non-track references, is notwithstanding. Graves names 16 crucified saviors, you provided criticism of only the comparison (i.e. Krishna). Then you jump to the broad dismissal that "Graves and similar authors provide us nothing useful", all the while apparently supporting narratives from the bible as true? Wow.
It should be noted that not all of the attributes of each of these historical fictional figures were applied to the fictional jesus. That is not the claim. Finding individual elements that don't match the separate jesus narrative isn't valid criticism.
The "Nothing Useful" tagline truly should be applied to the bible as a whole.
It maybe historically significant (can't get the full gist of Shakespeare without a passing knowledge of the bible) but as a stand-alone document it provides almost nothing useful to the human condition.
The bible is the fictional story that should be earnestly labeled as garbage.
struggle4progress
(120,245 posts)http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2007/04/history-before-1950.html
NeoGreen
(4,033 posts)...you discount Graves.
It still dosen't alter validity of the general comparison and overlapping attributes between jesus and multiple religious fictional characters created throughout the history more than one iota.
The end result is the same: religious fictional characters share the same old tropes.
struggle4progress
(120,245 posts)as opposed to ax-grinding, where the "facts" are derived from the desired conclusions
Actual cultural histories are fascinating and informative: it seems likely that many ideas have long and complicated pedigrees, evolving in multiple transfers
It's interesting to try to sort out actual details, and to try to understand what we have learned from that process
"Facts" derived from prechosen conclusions, and deductions from such "facts," are without interest
NeoGreen
(4,033 posts)...the bible as a reliable source, in of itself?
struggle4progress
(120,245 posts)I have never suggested that the texts in the Jewish or Christian bibles should be regarded as scientific texts or careful historical accounts. In fact, biblical literalists very seldom post on DU
If you don't like the texts in the Jewish or Christian bibles, that's fine with me. If you want to provide interesting perspectives using genuine scholarship to help us understand cultural history, that's fine with me too. But why link to idiotic garbage like that Kersey Graves inspired FFRF page?
NeoGreen
(4,033 posts)you don't take the texts in the Jewish or Christian bibles as scientific texts or careful historical accounts.
Then why are you arguing against Graves if the historicity of the four crucifixion narratives in the new testaments can be discounted as fiction?
Why so much energy discounting someones apparent error in reconciling/comparing accounts in fictional texts?
struggle4progress
(120,245 posts)of whatever they relate. I can't make sense of that view: it doesn't seem to me helpful for reading the texts or for any other purpose
You seem to take a fun-house mirror approach to the literalists' view, namely, that the texts cannot contain anything that might be helpful or informative in any way -- and then because Graves, if he were right, seems to you to discredit the texts, you apparently conclude that we should all accept the nonsense Graves promoted
The notion that cultural ideas and mythologies have long complicated histories, involving appropriation and transformation of elements from earlier and even external cultures can be a useful guide in investigation, but it's not a substitute for careful work
NeoGreen
(4,033 posts)...the primary focus of my criticism is upon the literalist's idea that the magic related in any of these stories is real, should be revered and can not be questioned.
There may be some subtle narrative on morality to be gleaned from some of the stories in these historic religious tracks, but it is overwhelmed and destroyed by the literalist's fervor.
My secondary focus is on those who provide a modicum of cover for the literalist's ideas by providing support (let's call it material support to keep with the current vernacular) to those same institutions where the literalist acquires and foments his bad ideas.
Major Nikon
(36,900 posts)The Jewish phrase "son of god" during the time of Jesus meant something entirely different than what modern Christians think it means today.
spin
(17,493 posts)Nephilim
The Nephilim /ˈnɛfɪˌlɪm/ (Hebrew: נְפִילִים, nefilim) were the offspring of the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" before the Deluge, according to Genesis 6:1-4.
A similar or identical biblical Hebrew term, read as "Nephilim" by some scholars, or as the word "fallen" by others, appears in Ezekiel 32:27.[1][2]
When people began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that they were fair; and they took wives for themselves of all that they chose. Then the Lord said, "My spirit shall not abide in mortals forever, for they are flesh; their days shall be one hundred twenty years." The Nephilim were on the earth in those daysand also afterwardwhen the sons of God went in to the daughters of humans, who bore children to them. These were the heroes that were of old, warriors of renown. (emphasis added)
Genesis 6:14, New Revised Standard Version
The word is loosely translated as giants in some Bibles and left untranslated in others. The "sons of God" have been interpreted as fallen angels in some traditional Jewish explanations.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephilim
struggle4progress
(120,245 posts)the sons of the gods
When Octavian became Augustus Caesar, he was called Divi filius -- the son of god
But Jesus was a poor man, executed as a criminal in the most ignoble manner possible: a method usually used only for slaves
To say "This was the Son of God!" defied the accepted social order
RockRaven
(16,269 posts)by the standards of most priests and preachers I've heard...
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Igel
(36,082 posts)Mostly from atheists, who didn't call their exhortations with prooftexting "sermons" but could have.
Bits and pieces elsewhere, on how knowing the game plan ahead of time allowed the devil to have a bunch of fake mock-ups ready.
But there are differences. The NT strongly implies that Jesus pre-existed; demi-gods didn't pre-exist their human incarnation.
Demi-gods also had a tendency not to see eye to eye with daddy (or mommy).
And the Greeks overall didn't have "expiation" or some sense of divine righteousness that wasn't fairly whimsical. Different philosophical system entirely, and as was known in 100 BC, rather hostile to each other.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Wait - do you actually believe in a literal devil? Really?
Voltaire2
(14,703 posts)I'm pretty sure the first three centuries of christian history were full of christians killing other christians over this and other "true nature of christ" theological gobbledygook.
Oh I had to go look it up again, the murdering around Arianism went on for quite a while. So your assertion that the NT "strongly implies" the trinitarian view is valid only because for 1700 years the trinitarians have been drilling the orthodox perspective into the heads of their flocks. A more objective opinion is that the NT says nothing of the sort.