Why believe in god?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
You're an idiot. I cleared this up a few posts ago. Who mentioned using English? The sun is the sun. It's a big fireball. Ancient Egyptians saw the same thing the Romans saw. In the bible, Jesus is light.

Sigh. Yes, you did indeed say that Sun=Sun=Sunday. Which does indeed rest on the assumption that everybody was speaking English around the time of Jesus' birth. Here you go, from 12/29/2014 @ 09:50:

Anonymous wrote:All the time? so everything he said was a metaphor? like "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved."

Or are the metaphors developed to interpret that which that runs counter to one's own beliefs or preferred view of Biblical teachings?

So let's think about this.

God had a son. Christians worship their god on Sunday, which originated from the pagan practice of sun worship. It's not coincidental, as Jesus is light, no? So how easy it was to modify pagan beliefs in order to fit into a Christian framework. a smooth transition

the son = the sun
Look at the Egyptian sun god Ra. And when Ra wept, Ra created man through his tears.

"Not coincidental," huh?

Still want to deny that you said this? Who's the idiot now?

Care to tell us how the Council of Nicaea invented monotheism again? Or should we instead talk about Horus conceived by the golden penis. Your choice.

[Anonymous]

Since I'm sure you'll claim you never said Nicaea invented monotheism, here's your post from 12/28/2014 14:09:

Anonymous wrote:
You're a moron - plain and simple.

Zeus was indeed their god before people made the move toward monotheism. Is that too hard for you to understand? When the Romans conquered the Greeks, they moved to Jupiter (and his minions) instead.

Constantine the Great, anyone? He hand picked parts of the bible to increase his power. Furthermore, those ruled have NO choice, as they are now unified under one god.

I'm a lazy thinker? lmfao

I'm the only one providing EVIDENCE to support my point.

You (and your minions) have provided no useful information toward any sane argument defending a belief in god.

Please share your research. I'll be waiting.

It wasn't until the First Council of Nicea (at @325 CE) when these gods were combined into one god.

Still waiting for your "evidence." We've ruled out Mithras, Horus, Nicaea, and Son=Sun=Sunday. What else do you have?

[Anonymous]

If you can explain the evidence for the Wiccan horned god and mother goddess, that would be helpful. Thank you.

[Anonymous]

People couldn't find evidence good enough to put away OJ.

You're asking for evidence to prove God's existence?

Point being, not everyone needs to be convinced with the evidence that you need to come to a belief that they are entitled to have.

It is what it is, and it will be what it is going to be.

Signed,
A Believer

[Anonymous]

At their core, ancient religions served to explain how the world works. Knowing how the world works was important to survival, man's major imperative.

Put yourself in a world with no electricity, no central heating, no air conditioning, no sturdily built house, and no grocery stores that sell strawberries in winter. Your day would be totally governed by when the sun is up and when it is down. At night, you'd be treated to a spectacular show of stars in the sky, the wandering planets, and, of course, the moon, sometimes pale and insignificant, and others times full and awe inspiring, all on a regular schedule.

You go through seasons and changes on the earth that vary according to how close your locale is to the equator. In some locales, there are rainy seasons and dry seasons, in others rain can come year round. In others, there may be snow in winter. There are seasons to the mating and births of animals, and a time for sowing, a time for reaping, and a time for letting the the ground lay fallow. In desert areas, there are times for plentiful plants for the animals and a time when there is little.

Over time, man learned that seasonality could be predicted by reference to the stars. This allowed pre-planning for the times of plenty and the times of scarcity. In many places, scarcity was the norm and tribes often fought other tribes for land and supplies as a means of survival.

For many, many millenia, religion and science were inextricably intertwined, as it was religion that sought to explain and predict natural phenomena. It is very recent in man's history that religion and science became separated.

Atheist OP has made a big deal about the supposed pagan roots of Christianity. But, Jesus and the gospel writers used the metaphors of their time, which were greatly influenced by the rhythms of day and night and changing of the seasons. To say brought light to the world would hardly be a pagan reference.

And equating him to a sun god is pretty silly. The fact is the sun god was a pretty minor deity in Greek, Roman, and Mesopotamian religions. The sun was but one player in the sky; the moon and the stars also played very important roles in the art of survival. The head god in all of these polytheistic systems was in fact a sky god, as the sky encompasses all these other bodies, and in addition is the source of life giving rain or frightening storms.

Given the very dry weather of the Near East, rain was particularly important--the sun in fact was not viewed as a benign life giving force but as a power that could give both life and death as vegetation dried up in the hot summers. Ancient Semitic religions, including Judaism and pre-Islamic Arab paganism in fact put the new year in spring time (vernal equinox) when animals gave birth and vegetation was sprouting. There is evidence that these religions actually had a double year, with another new year in fall (autumnal equinox) that in some places, like pre-Islamic Arabia, was much more important as it looked forward and implored for the life giving rains that would vegetate the earth and allow for the survival of the animals on which they depended.

Egypt is something of an exception here as the weather was exceptionally predictable and the Nile provided a ready source of water year round with which they could irrigate their crops. Mesopotamia had the Tigris and the Euphrates, but these are unpredictable rivers, unlike the Nile which rose and flooded each year with the helical rising of Sirius and then receded in a steady pattern. The weather in Egypt was also much more predictable and the sun was seen as much more of a life giving power.

What atheist OP is proposing, although I am not sure (s)he is aware of it, is that Christianity is a melding of ancient Egyptian religion with ancient Semitic/Hellenistic religions with a Roman veneer. God the father in this view is a Semitic/Hellenistic sky god from and Jesus is from the Egyptian Sun god. There is zero evidence for the latter. While clearly Christianity is a Semitic religion and one can see references throughout the New Testament in imagery etc., there are simply no references to Egyptian religion anywhere in the New Testament.

Finally, the fact is that the message Christ brought is one of love for all as the way for life, a view far removed from worship of God/gods for survival of crops, fertility for people and animlas, or success in warfare that preceded him in the Semitic/Hellenistic traditions. By putting religion on a higher plane than mere physical survival, Christianity actually paved the way for the separation of religion and science, which atheist OP has claimed as his/her god.

[Anonymous]

Thanks, PP, for a very thoughtful piece on the origins of Christianity and the relationship to Judaism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thanks, PP, for a very thoughtful piece on the origins of Christianity and the relationship to Judaism.

PP here. Obviously there is much more. One point I did not mention is that in the early Christian church the new year began at the vernal equinox with the feast of the Annunciation. That is, Jesus's conception marked the coming of his life to earth and it coincided with the new life spring brings, particularly for animals, which were all important in ancient Semitic religion, which, it must be emphasized, was the religion originally of a nomadic people.

Spring is also the time that Christ died so that we may have new life.

It was only later as Christianity became mainstream in the Roman Empire that the church calendar was reconciled with the Roman calendar for practical reasons. Nine months from the vernal equinox is the winter solistice and, thus, the day that Christ was born. Atheist OP is obsessed with Christmas being pagan, but in fact this was originally a minor feast day and may not have been celebrated at all in the early church.

Over time, of course, it gained popularity as a time for celebration alongside the nonChristians celebrating their mid-winter holidays. Perhaps in response to that, advent was established as a time of penance to help ensure that religious meaning was preserved. The liturgical year actually begins with advent, which is the first Sunday after the feast day of St. Andrew, known as the introducer to Christ. Just as Andrew introduced Peter to Jesus, Andrew introduces us each year through the liturgical calendar to Christ.

After the calendars were reconciled, the church fathers gave metaphorical meanings to some of the feast days. Christ's birth on earth symbolized the coming of an age of light, just as the solistice marks the beginning of longer days. The birth of John the Baptist was put at the solar equinox, for he was announcing the end of the age of darkness to come. This makes him six months older than Jesus and that fits in with John leaping for joy in Elizabeth's womb when she meets Mary pregnant with Jesus.

All of this is meant to convey metaphorical and spiritual truths, not literal truths, a point that seems to escape atheist OP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks, PP, for a very thoughtful piece on the origins of Christianity and the relationship to Judaism.

PP here. Obviously there is much more. One point I did not mention is that in the early Christian church the new year began at the vernal equinox with the feast of the Annunciation. That is, Jesus's conception marked the coming of his life to earth and it coincided with the new life spring brings, particularly for animals, which were all important in ancient Semitic religion, which, it must be emphasized, was the religion originally of a nomadic people.

Spring is also the time that Christ died so that we may have new life.

It was only later as Christianity became mainstream in the Roman Empire that the church calendar was reconciled with the Roman calendar for practical reasons. Nine months from the vernal equinox is the winter solistice and, thus, the day that Christ was born. Atheist OP is obsessed with Christmas being pagan, but in fact this was originally a minor feast day and may not have been celebrated at all in the early church.

Over time, of course, it gained popularity as a time for celebration alongside the nonChristians celebrating their mid-winter holidays. Perhaps in response to that, advent was established as a time of penance to help ensure that religious meaning was preserved. The liturgical year actually begins with advent, which is the first Sunday after the feast day of St. Andrew, known as the introducer to Christ. Just as Andrew introduced Peter to Jesus, Andrew introduces us each year through the liturgical calendar to Christ.

After the calendars were reconciled, the church fathers gave metaphorical meanings to some of the feast days. Christ's birth on earth symbolized the coming of an age of light, just as the solistice marks the beginning of longer days. The birth of John the Baptist was put at the solar equinox, for he was announcing the end of the age of darkness to come. This makes him six months older than Jesus and that fits in with John leaping for joy in Elizabeth's womb when she meets Mary pregnant with Jesus.

All of this is meant to convey metaphorical and spiritual truths, not literal truths, a point that seems to escape atheist OP.

Thank you. Little gems like this are why I read these forums. Unfortunately you have to wade through a lot of silly baiting about Horus and Mithras to find posts like this.

[Anonymous]

Sunday, being the day of the Sun, as the name of the first day of the week, is derived from Egyptian astrology, where the seven planets, known in English as Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, the Sun, Venus, Mercury and the Moon, each had an hour of the day assigned to them, and the planet which was regent during the first hour of any day of the week gave its name to that day.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You're an idiot. I cleared this up a few posts ago. Who mentioned using English? The sun is the sun. It's a big fireball. Ancient Egyptians saw the same thing the Romans saw. In the bible, Jesus is light.

Sigh. Yes, you did indeed say that Sun=Sun=Sunday. Which does indeed rest on the assumption that everybody was speaking English around the time of Jesus' birth. Here you go, from 12/29/2014 @ 09:50:

Anonymous wrote:All the time? so everything he said was a metaphor? like "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved."

Or are the metaphors developed to interpret that which that runs counter to one's own beliefs or preferred view of Biblical teachings?

So let's think about this.

God had a son. Christians worship their god on Sunday, which originated from the pagan practice of sun worship. It's not coincidental, as Jesus is light, no? So how easy it was to modify pagan beliefs in order to fit into a Christian framework. a smooth transition

the son = the sun
Look at the Egyptian sun god Ra. And when Ra wept, Ra created man through his tears.

"Not coincidental," huh?

Still want to deny that you said this? Who's the idiot now?

Care to tell us how the Council of Nicaea invented monotheism again? Or should we instead talk about Horus conceived by the golden penis. Your choice.

[Anonymous]

There is no credible evidence of Christ outside of the bible.

That's what many of you fail to recognize. One or two lines from some obscure source doesn't Christ MAKE!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is no credible evidence of Christ outside of the bible.

That's what many of you fail to recognize. One or two lines from some obscure source doesn't Christ MAKE!

Tacitus

[Anonymous]

We went through this whole Jesus did not exist thing over a month ago on the thread "So what's the right answer." It starts on page 3.

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/30/425783.page

After a number of reasonable posts showing the weight of academic evidence in support of Jesus's existence, atheist OP then backed away from assertions that Jesus did not exist to assertions he was not divine. Big news--billions of non-Christian people on earth do not believe in the divinity of Jesus. Atheist OP then moved on to trashing Christian Roman emperors for forcing Christianity on people.

Let's see if the same cycle repeats itself again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks, PP, for a very thoughtful piece on the origins of Christianity and the relationship to Judaism.

PP here. Obviously there is much more. One point I did not mention is that in the early Christian church the new year began at the vernal equinox with the feast of the Annunciation. That is, Jesus's conception marked the coming of his life to earth and it coincided with the new life spring brings, particularly for animals, which were all important in ancient Semitic religion, which, it must be emphasized, was the religion originally of a nomadic people.

Spring is also the time that Christ died so that we may have new life.

It was only later as Christianity became mainstream in the Roman Empire that the church calendar was reconciled with the Roman calendar for practical reasons. Nine months from the vernal equinox is the winter solistice and, thus, the day that Christ was born. Atheist OP is obsessed with Christmas being pagan, but in fact this was originally a minor feast day and may not have been celebrated at all in the early church.

Over time, of course, it gained popularity as a time for celebration alongside the nonChristians celebrating their mid-winter holidays. Perhaps in response to that, advent was established as a time of penance to help ensure that religious meaning was preserved. The liturgical year actually begins with advent, which is the first Sunday after the feast day of St. Andrew, known as the introducer to Christ. Just as Andrew introduced Peter to Jesus, Andrew introduces us each year through the liturgical calendar to Christ.

After the calendars were reconciled, the church fathers gave metaphorical meanings to some of the feast days. Christ's birth on earth symbolized the coming of an age of light, just as the solistice marks the beginning of longer days. The birth of John the Baptist was put at the solar equinox, for he was announcing the end of the age of darkness to come. This makes him six months older than Jesus and that fits in with John leaping for joy in Elizabeth's womb when she meets Mary pregnant with Jesus.

All of this is meant to convey metaphorical and spiritual truths, not literal truths, a point that seems to escape atheist OP.

No kidding -- where did that come from? - not the bible. Plus nature had been bringing new life in the Spring long before Christ supposedly cam around. Debates about Jesus' existence or significance aside, there no good reason to believe Jesus died in the Spring for some reason not mentioned in centuries of church history.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is no credible evidence of Christ outside of the bible.

That's what many of you fail to recognize. One or two lines from some obscure source doesn't Christ MAKE!

But there is a large amount of evidence showing the work of his disciples. Now, maybe they all contracted mass mental illness on pentacost. Or maybe they invented jesus in a vast conspiracy to get themselves painful marytered. I think, reasonably, you have to agree that there was a Jesus, and that his disciples believed he was God, even if you do not agree he was God.

[Anonymous]

Your literalness can be stunning.

Obviously, Christ dying in spring so that we may have new life is a later metaphorical gloss that illuminates the theology in a way that people can understand and feel.

As T. S Eliot said, "April is the cruelest month."

Christ died during Passover week, which is always in the spring.