Horus/Jesus - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-06-2006, 12:50 PM   #16
Refugee
 
AussieU2fanman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 1,638
Local Time: 10:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
I always find it interesting that atheists or the non-religious, given the array of religious belief floating out in this world; feel compelled to disprove the existence of Jesus. I wonder what is tugging at their hearts.
I find it increasingly interesting that whenever I confront Christians or any other religious people with clear cut questions, (in a non-malicious way) they seem to never...ever....under any circumstances....answer the quesiton in the least..... or failing that, aknowledge the veracity of what im trying to insinuate.
__________________

__________________
AussieU2fanman is offline  
Old 07-06-2006, 12:57 PM   #17
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 07:11 AM
Tom Petty once sang that people will "believe what they want to believe."

If you want to disprove Christianity, I'm sure you can find ways to do so. If you believe you have a relationship with a living God, various attempts to discredit your faith will generally not have much impact.

I'm a Christian and I didn't find the Horus and Jesus comparisons to be that compelling. The fact that they were written as a list of comparisons to me seems particularly suspect. I have a feeling that if we were to read the story of Horus "in context", not with "similarities" gleaned out and lined up next to details from Jesus life, we'd find the comparisons to be even less compelling.


We're dealing with two groups--Christians and atheists-- with an "agenda." The websites can't claim impartiality--they clearly want to discredit Christianity. I'm not claiming any more impartiality for myself either. I just don't see much "objectivity" on either side of the issue.
__________________

__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 07-06-2006, 01:02 PM   #18
Refugee
 
AussieU2fanman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 1,638
Local Time: 10:41 PM
goolgle it for unbiased views objectively reviewing the story of Horus. I can agree that the links I provided you with are pertaining to a certain viewpoint, however, it is all backed up with fact, something which appeals to pragmatists such as myself (it may scare some fervent christians however ...)
__________________
AussieU2fanman is offline  
Old 07-06-2006, 01:03 PM   #19
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 07:11 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AussieU2fanman


I find it increasingly interesting that whenever I confront Christians or any other religious people with clear cut questions, (in a non-malicious way) they seem to never...ever....under any circumstances....answer the quesiton in the least..... or failing that, aknowledge the veracity of what im trying to insinuate.
Another song, an old 10,000 Maniacs lyric:

"Science is truth for life. Religion is obsolete."

I find that mentality difficult to argue with, much as you find the insistence on faith aggravating in dealing with believers.

We who have Absolute Truth--by that I mean you AND me--are difficult to convince aren't we?
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 07-06-2006, 01:13 PM   #20
Refugee
 
AussieU2fanman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 1,638
Local Time: 10:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean


Another song, an old 10,000 Maniacs lyric:

"Science is truth for life. Religion is obsolete."

I find that mentality difficult to argue with, much as you find the insistence on faith aggravating in dealing with believers.

We who have Absolute Truth--by that I mean you AND me--are difficult to convince aren't we?
What are we (Absolute truth holders) being convinced with......? If you are implying that we cannot be convinced arguments based on an empty, intellectually sterile, yet surprisingly common human propensity of 'faith,' you'd be correct.
__________________
AussieU2fanman is offline  
Old 07-06-2006, 01:18 PM   #21
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Kieran McConville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Auto Dafoe
Posts: 9,600
Local Time: 10:11 PM
When someone says 'I find it interesting that', my internal clockspring translates 'I'd like to THROTTLE YOU!!!!!". Take this as a light-hearted aside. Don't worry, I say the same things, all the time, in my room.
__________________
Kieran McConville is online now  
Old 07-06-2006, 01:37 PM   #22
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 07:11 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AussieU2fanman


What are we (Absolute truth holders) being convinced with......? If you are implying that we cannot be convinced arguments based on an empty, intellectually sterile, yet surprisingly common human propensity of 'faith,' you'd be correct.
Well, the words "empty" and "intellectually sterile" are certainly loaded and hostile terms (since my life of faith hardly feels empty or intellectually sterile to me), but yeah, what the heck, I'll concede that point.

My "arguments" for faith are not based on science. And when I enter into an argument with someone who believes that "science is truth for life" I cannot win. And really neither can you. We are at an impasse.

The thing is that the Christian and the Atheist Know.

The Atheist Knows that there is no God. He/She bases that certainty on scientific evidence.

The Christian Knows that there is a God. He/She bases that certainity on their personal experience with a living God, an experience that CAN be rooted in a reasonable faith (reasonable does NOT equal scientifically based), and guided by the Bible (the degree of guidance varies within Christianity varies as I'm sure you know).

If there is be any real discussion at all, both sides have to be willing to listen respectfully, answer what questions are asked when it's possible, and PERHAPS be willing to concede at least the possiblity that they might be wrong.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 07-06-2006, 01:52 PM   #23
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 12:11 PM
Faith can't be based on science. Faith is something that you believe, not something that you can objectively prove with experiments. But just because you can't prove something doesn't mean that it's not true. Far from it, it can be as real as day and night to the believer.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 07-06-2006, 02:14 PM   #24
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 05:11 AM
Ironically - there is a ton of actual science that is pointed toward God. Physics and Philosophy are currently undergoing a revolution that is almost unprecedented.

The atheist is now the one that seems to demonstrate the most "faith."
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 07-06-2006, 06:35 PM   #25
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 04:11 AM
I’m not sure AussieU2fanman asked any sort of clear cut question. He “stumbled across” a web site that provide parallels between two different belief systems and declared, on the basis of the parallels, that one must have plagiarized the other (and declared Christianity as myth in the process). Perhaps that is not the best method to invite discussion despite the self declaration of non-malicious intent. The process of drawing parallels between two sets of facts, absent other forms of direct evidence, does little to create a logical connection between the two.

I noticed that AussieU2fanman hinges the divine nature of Christ on a thirty year delay in writing on his life. Would that really make all the difference for you?
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 07-06-2006, 06:39 PM   #26
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
DrTeeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Q continuum
Posts: 4,770
Local Time: 01:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AEON
Ironically - there is a ton of actual science that is pointed toward God. Physics and Philosophy are currently undergoing a revolution that is almost unprecedented.

The atheist is now the one that seems to demonstrate the most "faith."
Intriguing

Care to illustrate this with a few examples?
__________________
DrTeeth is offline  
Old 07-06-2006, 08:48 PM   #27
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 05:11 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by DrTeeth


Intriguing

Care to illustrate this with a few examples?
search on some of these scientist for a start:

biochemist Michael Behe at Lehigh University, microbiologist Scott Minnich at the University of Idaho, biologist Paul Chien at the University of San Francisco, emeritus biologist Dean Kenyon at San Francisco State University, mathematician William Dembski at Baylor University, and quantum chemist Henry Schaefer at the University of Georgia.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 07-06-2006, 09:23 PM   #28
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 07:11 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON
Ironically - there is a ton of actual science that is pointed toward God. Physics and Philosophy are currently undergoing a revolution that is almost unprecedented.

The atheist is now the one that seems to demonstrate the most "faith."
Specifically, there's a general revival towards "deism," the Enlightenment-era theology that God is defined through reason and observation. Deists, traditionally, have a negative attitude towards tradition and scripture (the "Jefferson Bible," most famously). However, it is not inherently anti-Christian, as the Jefferson Bible also illustrates.

Secondly, there is another trend towards Buddhism and Hinduism (particularly the Buddhist-inspired "Advaita Vedanta" school), particularly amongst those who put a lot of weight into quantum theory. Their philosophy on the nature of Brahman fits in well with quantum theory.

Really, I'd say that both still require large amounts of faith, but, most importantly, they demonstrate that science and religious beliefs are not inherently incompatible.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 07-06-2006, 10:32 PM   #29
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 05:11 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


.

Really, I'd say that both still require large amounts of faith, but, most importantly, they demonstrate that science and religious beliefs are not inherently incompatible.

Melon
Wow! Melon and I actually agree

There is an age old Muslim argument, the "Kalam" argument, that has re-emerged into philosophy and physics debates after nearly a century of absence. It actually goes back to Aristotle.

In a strange twist of fate/providence - the proponents of the Big Bang have brought this argument back into focus.

The Kalam argument is this:

What begins to exist has a cause
The universe began to exist
Therefore, the universe has a cause

For quite sometime, scientist reasoned that physical universe was eternal and static. However, over the last half century, scientists have compiled hard, empirical data about the Big Bang. Today, the Big Bang is almost universally accepted by the scientific community. All matter and energy seem to point back to a singularity – a specific point and place where the entire physical universe “began to exist.”

The Theist or Deist would argue that “something” cannot come from “nothing.” Creatio Ex Nihilo. It is logically impossible. So, ironically, men like Stephen Hawking have given the Theist and Deist a tremendous “leg to stand on” when they argue for a Creator.

This is a very fascinating time for science, philosophy, and theology. In a strange way – many things have come full circle, only this time – the scientific community has helped provide humanity with an even more intense “awe” factor of God and His marvelous creation than we could have ever imagined before.

I really wonder how the next 10 -20 years will unfold.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 07-06-2006, 10:43 PM   #30
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 07:11 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON
This is a very fascinating time for science, philosophy, and theology. In a strange way – many things have come full circle, only this time – the scientific community has helped provide humanity with an even more intense “awe” factor of God and His marvelous creation than we could have ever imagined before.

I really wonder how the next 10 -20 years will unfold.
Well, everything is cyclical, as I see it. We just live variations of the same cycles, with minor changes in the details. It's kind of like how a 60s fashion revival never quite looks like the clothes people actually wore in the 1960s.

In terms of religion, I think we're moving beyond fatalist apocalyptic-centered theology, and we are gradually re-entering a trend towards "mysticism." Well, I'm not sure we're quite there yet, but once people realize that the alternative to religious fundamentalism isn't just atheism, I think we're going to start seeing more of it. Religion has never stayed static in history, and has gone through many philosophical cycles like any other school of thought.

As I see it, you'll never be able to explain the origin of the singularity. Even if you could trace the origin of humanity to the work of an alien species and the origin of the universe as a spawn of another universe (multiverse), there will always be the question of what created that alien species or what created that predecessor universe. There is always room for faith in God in science, without having to bastardize the actual science.

Melon
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com