quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

A quick and easy way to differentiate between the two is to ask "Is this particular element essential to the message of the religion?"

So in the case of say, the story of Siddhartha Gautama standing up and speaking immediately upon being born, it is irrelevant to the message of Buddhism, and serves to make him magical and supernatural right from the start (something that actual Buddhist teachings run counter to BTW) and so can be taken as part of the mythological component.

However, the story of Mohammed and the mountain is not so clearly mythological, as it demonstrates an essential element in the message of Islam. So the events related may well be made up, it serves a purpose beyond glorifying and mystifying the person/being in question, and so it falls into the philosophical component.

Now, as odd as it may seem at first glance, the crucifixion and resurrection part of the Jesus story is in fact an element of the mythological component of Christianity. Yes, I know that it comprises the central element of Christian belief, but it does not actually serve to advance the message of Christianity. Jesus' words and teachings would be just as valid without that bit. If Jesus just vanished into the wilderness instead of being crucified, it would not eliminate any part of the message. It serves two purposes, first to fulfill some prophecies, and also to reinforce the divinity of Jesus (or at least divine favour enjoyed by him, as it is interpreted in Islam).
And, if you think about it, the supposed meaning of the resurrection is a proof of the truth of the message, well it does no such thing really. How does him being resurrected prove that any part of the message is true? It simply does not, and that leads you to ask why it is in the story. Well, a comparative religion course would have explained that to you, in the whole Tammuz Adonis connection, you would know that the idea of a god dying willingly to redeem his people in some way, and then being reborn/resurrected is a long-standing mythological tradition throughout the middle eastern region (and beyond as well),and knowing this you can understand the reason this seemingly unconnected and basically thematicly irrelevant episode is not only included, but is central to the cult's whole belief system.
It was central to that of Tammuz, and that of Adonis as well, it is a cultural meme so to speak, and thus the central place it has in the Christian narrative, despite it's complete irrelevance to the message of Christianity.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

The resurrection is central to the story that Jesus was the son of god. With the resurrection, his preachings are confirmed to be divine.

That is exactly the point. The message itself is not changed, only the supposed divinity of the messenger. Therefore, it is a mythological component, not a philosophical one. It is important to note that all the gospel references to Jesus' otherworldly nature appear in John, a book very much different, not only in style and tone from the other three gospels, but also in content. Not only the mythological content, but also in the teachings of Jesus, John differs significantly from the other gospels.
And as I pointed out, the death and resurrection was also central to the Adonis story, and the Tammuz story, and the Dionysus, and Attis stories.

Yes, many have argued and quite properly so, that the whole story of Jesus was just the last one plagiarized from a dozen figures that came before him.

But here for me is an even bigger problem. It's ALL mythology and I don't believe any of it. Plus, it is much more likely that a man named Jesus...never existed. After a man named Moet (?) an Egyptian, led people to Canaan but no mount visit, no 10 commandments, no parting of the sea, mixed with the Canaanites. (Palestine)

When entering this story into the bible, his named was changed to Moses and a whole bullshit story that was created around his character.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

A quick and easy way to differentiate between the two is to ask "Is this particular element essential to the message of the religion?"

So in the case of say, the story of Siddhartha Gautama standing up and speaking immediately upon being born, it is irrelevant to the message of Buddhism, and serves to make him magical and supernatural right from the start (something that actual Buddhist teachings run counter to BTW) and so can be taken as part of the mythological component.

However, the story of Mohammed and the mountain is not so clearly mythological, as it demonstrates an essential element in the message of Islam. So the events related may well be made up, it serves a purpose beyond glorifying and mystifying the person/being in question, and so it falls into the philosophical component.

Now, as odd as it may seem at first glance, the crucifixion and resurrection part of the Jesus story is in fact an element of the mythological component of Christianity. Yes, I know that it comprises the central element of Christian belief, but it does not actually serve to advance the message of Christianity. Jesus' words and teachings would be just as valid without that bit. If Jesus just vanished into the wilderness instead of being crucified, it would not eliminate any part of the message. It serves two purposes, first to fulfill some prophecies, and also to reinforce the divinity of Jesus (or at least divine favour enjoyed by him, as it is interpreted in Islam).
And, if you think about it, the supposed meaning of the resurrection is a proof of the truth of the message, well it does no such thing really. How does him being resurrected prove that any part of the message is true? It simply does not, and that leads you to ask why it is in the story. Well, a comparative religion course would have explained that to you, in the whole Tammuz Adonis connection, you would know that the idea of a god dying willingly to redeem his people in some way, and then being reborn/resurrected is a long-standing mythological tradition throughout the middle eastern region (and beyond as well),and knowing this you can understand the reason this seemingly unconnected and basically thematicly irrelevant episode is not only included, but is central to the cult's whole belief system.
It was central to that of Tammuz, and that of Adonis as well, it is a cultural meme so to speak, and thus the central place it has in the Christian narrative, despite it's complete irrelevance to the message of Christianity.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

A quick and easy way to differentiate between the two is to ask "Is this particular element essential to the message of the religion?"

So in the case of say, the story of Siddhartha Gautama standing up and speaking immediately upon being born, it is irrelevant to the message of Buddhism, and serves to make him magical and supernatural right from the start (something that actual Buddhist teachings run counter to BTW) and so can be taken as part of the mythological component.

However, the story of Mohammed and the mountain is not so clearly mythological, as it demonstrates an essential element in the message of Islam. So the events related may well be made up, it serves a purpose beyond glorifying and mystifying the person/being in question, and so it falls into the philosophical component.

Now, as odd as it may seem at first glance, the crucifixion and resurrection part of the Jesus story is in fact an element of the mythological component of Christianity. Yes, I know that it comprises the central element of Christian belief, but it does not actually serve to advance the message of Christianity. Jesus' words and teachings would be just as valid without that bit. If Jesus just vanished into the wilderness instead of being crucified, it would not eliminate any part of the message. It serves two purposes, first to fulfill some prophecies, and also to reinforce the divinity of Jesus (or at least divine favour enjoyed by him, as it is interpreted in Islam).
And, if you think about it, the supposed meaning of the resurrection is a proof of the truth of the message, well it does no such thing really. How does him being resurrected prove that any part of the message is true? It simply does not, and that leads you to ask why it is in the story. Well, a comparative religion course would have explained that to you, in the whole Tammuz Adonis connection, you would know that the idea of a god dying willingly to redeem his people in some way, and then being reborn/resurrected is a long-standing mythological tradition throughout the middle eastern region (and beyond as well),and knowing this you can understand the reason this seemingly unconnected and basically thematicly irrelevant episode is not only included, but is central to the cult's whole belief system.
It was central to that of Tammuz, and that of Adonis as well, it is a cultural meme so to speak, and thus the central place it has in the Christian narrative, despite it's complete irrelevance to the message of Christianity.

Ummm... no Dizzy.

The central message of Christianity is that if you want to go to heaven when you die, you have to believe that Jesus took the punishment for your sins by dying on the cross for you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

even the talmud records your alleged 'myth' as real.

On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald . . . cried, “He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy.”{21}

21. The Babylonian Talmud, transl. by I. Epstein (London: Soncino, 1935), vol. III, Sanhedrin 43a, 281, cited in Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 203.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

even the talmud records your alleged 'myth' as real.

On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald . . . cried, “He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy.”{21}

21. The Babylonian Talmud, transl. by I. Epstein (London: Soncino, 1935), vol. III, Sanhedrin 43a, 281, cited in Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 203.

But Christians know that they are to believe Christian mythology. However, put no credence in Greek mythology, or Sumerian mythology or Hindu mythology.

It's all quite a bit too much mythology for me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

A quick and easy way to differentiate between the two is to ask "Is this particular element essential to the message of the religion?"

So in the case of say, the story of Siddhartha Gautama standing up and speaking immediately upon being born, it is irrelevant to the message of Buddhism, and serves to make him magical and supernatural right from the start (something that actual Buddhist teachings run counter to BTW) and so can be taken as part of the mythological component.

However, the story of Mohammed and the mountain is not so clearly mythological, as it demonstrates an essential element in the message of Islam. So the events related may well be made up, it serves a purpose beyond glorifying and mystifying the person/being in question, and so it falls into the philosophical component.

Now, as odd as it may seem at first glance, the crucifixion and resurrection part of the Jesus story is in fact an element of the mythological component of Christianity. Yes, I know that it comprises the central element of Christian belief, but it does not actually serve to advance the message of Christianity. Jesus' words and teachings would be just as valid without that bit. If Jesus just vanished into the wilderness instead of being crucified, it would not eliminate any part of the message. It serves two purposes, first to fulfill some prophecies, and also to reinforce the divinity of Jesus (or at least divine favour enjoyed by him, as it is interpreted in Islam).
And, if you think about it, the supposed meaning of the resurrection is a proof of the truth of the message, well it does no such thing really. How does him being resurrected prove that any part of the message is true? It simply does not, and that leads you to ask why it is in the story. Well, a comparative religion course would have explained that to you, in the whole Tammuz Adonis connection, you would know that the idea of a god dying willingly to redeem his people in some way, and then being reborn/resurrected is a long-standing mythological tradition throughout the middle eastern region (and beyond as well),and knowing this you can understand the reason this seemingly unconnected and basically thematicly irrelevant episode is not only included, but is central to the cult's whole belief system.
It was central to that of Tammuz, and that of Adonis as well, it is a cultural meme so to speak, and thus the central place it has in the Christian narrative, despite it's complete irrelevance to the message of Christianity.

Ummm... no Dizzy.

The central message of Christianity is that if you want to go to heaven when you die, you have to believe that Jesus took the punishment for your sins by dying on the cross for you.

Which is all hogwash. The whole concept that all humans are born under a debt of an original sin is ridiculous.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

A quick and easy way to differentiate between the two is to ask "Is this particular element essential to the message of the religion?"

So in the case of say, the story of Siddhartha Gautama standing up and speaking immediately upon being born, it is irrelevant to the message of Buddhism, and serves to make him magical and supernatural right from the start (something that actual Buddhist teachings run counter to BTW) and so can be taken as part of the mythological component.

However, the story of Mohammed and the mountain is not so clearly mythological, as it demonstrates an essential element in the message of Islam. So the events related may well be made up, it serves a purpose beyond glorifying and mystifying the person/being in question, and so it falls into the philosophical component.

Now, as odd as it may seem at first glance, the crucifixion and resurrection part of the Jesus story is in fact an element of the mythological component of Christianity. Yes, I know that it comprises the central element of Christian belief, but it does not actually serve to advance the message of Christianity. Jesus' words and teachings would be just as valid without that bit. If Jesus just vanished into the wilderness instead of being crucified, it would not eliminate any part of the message. It serves two purposes, first to fulfill some prophecies, and also to reinforce the divinity of Jesus (or at least divine favour enjoyed by him, as it is interpreted in Islam).
And, if you think about it, the supposed meaning of the resurrection is a proof of the truth of the message, well it does no such thing really. How does him being resurrected prove that any part of the message is true? It simply does not, and that leads you to ask why it is in the story. Well, a comparative religion course would have explained that to you, in the whole Tammuz Adonis connection, you would know that the idea of a god dying willingly to redeem his people in some way, and then being reborn/resurrected is a long-standing mythological tradition throughout the middle eastern region (and beyond as well),and knowing this you can understand the reason this seemingly unconnected and basically thematicly irrelevant episode is not only included, but is central to the cult's whole belief system.
It was central to that of Tammuz, and that of Adonis as well, it is a cultural meme so to speak, and thus the central place it has in the Christian narrative, despite it's complete irrelevance to the message of Christianity.

thats a bit loony opinion since jesus would not have 'died' for sins if he ran off into the wilderness completely changing the message.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

A quick and easy way to differentiate between the two is to ask "Is this particular element essential to the message of the religion?"

So in the case of say, the story of Siddhartha Gautama standing up and speaking immediately upon being born, it is irrelevant to the message of Buddhism, and serves to make him magical and supernatural right from the start (something that actual Buddhist teachings run counter to BTW) and so can be taken as part of the mythological component.

However, the story of Mohammed and the mountain is not so clearly mythological, as it demonstrates an essential element in the message of Islam. So the events related may well be made up, it serves a purpose beyond glorifying and mystifying the person/being in question, and so it falls into the philosophical component.

Now, as odd as it may seem at first glance, the crucifixion and resurrection part of the Jesus story is in fact an element of the mythological component of Christianity. Yes, I know that it comprises the central element of Christian belief, but it does not actually serve to advance the message of Christianity. Jesus' words and teachings would be just as valid without that bit. If Jesus just vanished into the wilderness instead of being crucified, it would not eliminate any part of the message. It serves two purposes, first to fulfill some prophecies, and also to reinforce the divinity of Jesus (or at least divine favour enjoyed by him, as it is interpreted in Islam).
And, if you think about it, the supposed meaning of the resurrection is a proof of the truth of the message, well it does no such thing really. How does him being resurrected prove that any part of the message is true? It simply does not, and that leads you to ask why it is in the story. Well, a comparative religion course would have explained that to you, in the whole Tammuz Adonis connection, you would know that the idea of a god dying willingly to redeem his people in some way, and then being reborn/resurrected is a long-standing mythological tradition throughout the middle eastern region (and beyond as well),and knowing this you can understand the reason this seemingly unconnected and basically thematicly irrelevant episode is not only included, but is central to the cult's whole belief system.
It was central to that of Tammuz, and that of Adonis as well, it is a cultural meme so to speak, and thus the central place it has in the Christian narrative, despite it's complete irrelevance to the message of Christianity.

Ummm... no Dizzy.

The central message of Christianity is that if you want to go to heaven when you die, you have to believe that Jesus took the punishment for your sins by dying on the cross for you.

Which is all hogwash. The whole concept that all humans are born under a debt of an original sin is ridiculous.

Really? Why do you say that?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
Well I don't see any such implication in there and would require quite an assumption.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
Are you becoming more condescending in your writing or have I only noticed it recently. Perhaps you are becoming perturbed because some one is challenging your belief system. But, surely this is not the first time you have been challenged.

quote:

It's ALL mythology and I don't believe any of it.

quote:

thats a bit loony opinion since jesus would not have 'died' for sins if he ran off into the wilderness completely changing the message.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

And yes, I blew away your earlier comment for the same reason. I didn’t think you really wanted to talk about it but okay, let’s talk about it.

We can talk about them all if you want but first I’ll just pick a couple.

Let’s look at cancer, since you mentioned it first, if cancer was “designed by the Creator” I have just one question; why is it that this “designed by the Creator” problem, which seems ubiquitous now, was almost unheard of a hundred years ago? If it was designed from the beginning why wasn’t it a ubiquitous problem from the beginning? Perhaps it is not so much that it was “designed by the Creator” but that mankind is doing things to bring it on themselves.

Perhaps it was always ubiquitous but mankind did not have the tools to diagnose the illness. It is not beyond reason that for all the centuries that preceded modern medicine to believe that cancer was rampant among populations. And of course there is a possibility that when it did occur its appearance was assigned to the "Will of God."

quote:

Floods? Mankind has known what the hundred-year flood plain is for years so why build your house on the hundred-year flood plain? Also “nature” had ways of absorbing floods without all the big flooding, does wetlands ring a bell, but mankind had a better idea and now it’s God’s fault. Also it's funny that for thousands of years mankind prayed that the flood would come to fertilize the Nile valley, so mankind has not always considered floods an "evil" from God.

The reason why people built their houses on a floodplain was because they were in an agricultural economy and the floodplain was the most fertile land. Now you talk about 100 year flood as if there were newspapers and television programs that educated people about long time flooding. I mean it is just absurd to believe that people would build their farms on arid land.

But what about the floods that come periodically without prediction along the coastline. Here in Florida we now have the benefit of the weather service that predicts hurricanes and flooding but that was not true 100 years or so ago. The storm that hit a bridge that was being built for the railroad across Keys is illustrative of that problem. There was no warning. Many lives were lost. Also, there is this terrible story about the great hurricane around 1900 that hit the beaches of Eastern Texas. At the moment I can't recall the name of the town was it Galveston, the island that is south of Houston? At any rate those people had no warning that a hurricane was coming and that the island would be overrun with water. And most recently we had the event of the tsunami in Southeast Asia. There is no regularity to tsunamis. They come and go when they damn well please. So your argument about people knowing that they're on a floodplain is just absurd. Flooding does not occur only on flood plains.

quote:

Radiation? I’m not sure which radiation you are thinking of but if it is things like Chernobyl and Fukushima, all I can say is; surely, you’re not trying to say that was “designed by the Creator”.

Radiation from Chernobyl, you're trying to be funny, are you not?

Perhaps it is because you live in Colorado but here in South Florida there is a lot of talk and promotion for sunscreen to protect against radiation from outer space. The irony is that there are more cases of skin cancer in the plains such as Utah and Nevada, Colorado and Arizona.

In all of the above it is clear that these are not man-made disasters that are predictable. Not at all. They are gifts from the abundance of your God. Do not try to lay such tragic events onto the shoulders of man. It is just inexplicable that toddlers and tiny babies should die in such great disasters if your God is so damn benevolent which obviously he is not. How you can worship or acknowledge such an evil deity is beyond comprehension.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

thats a bit loony opinion since jesus would not have 'died' for sins if he ran off into the wilderness completely changing the message.

Wrong, because the whole "died for sins" thing is an obvious import from previous mythologies and existing ancient cultural practices, including the annual "killing" of the king that was common on the cultures of that region.