| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Mani Deli" |
| Date: |
11 May 2005 12:23:57 PM |
| Object: |
On the existence of God. |
The reason for belief in the existence of gods and religions is due to
a blindly conformist society, which makes its business to scare the
***** out of it's innocent little kids. Before they have any ability to
reason, it coerces them into believing that they were born rotten
sinners and carefully describes all the wonderful punishments their
loving god might just have in store for them if they stray from
whatever their branch of the superstition business tells them.
Starting early, the education system and peer groups then teach blind
conformity, avoidance of rationality and any questioning of dogmas
while it punishes deviators. In the social background a religious
sales force continually preaches dire warnings.
Amazingly, the whole fear system in sky-god religions is grounded on
the belief that someone ate the wrong apple and a society too
intimidated, too scared and too stupid to question this.
Should doubt ever arise about Eve having actually eaten that apple
become universal, the whole of theological sky god theory would
evaporate.
.
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: On the existence of God. |
11 May 2005 08:49:09 PM |
|
|
"Mani Deli" <mani@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:f874815ubupaltprmgh1q0i1hsrd3ogive@4ax.com...
The reason for belief in the existence of gods and religions is due to
a blindly conformist society, which makes its business to scare the
***** out of it's innocent little kids. Before they have any ability to
reason, it coerces them into believing that they were born rotten
sinners and carefully describes all the wonderful punishments their
loving god might just have in store for them if they stray from
whatever their branch of the superstition business tells them.
Starting early, the education system and peer groups then teach blind
conformity, avoidance of rationality and any questioning of dogmas
while it punishes deviators. In the social background a religious
sales force continually preaches dire warnings.
Amazingly, the whole fear system in sky-god religions is grounded on
the belief that someone ate the wrong apple and a society too
intimidated, too scared and too stupid to question this.
Should doubt ever arise about Eve having actually eaten that apple
become universal, the whole of theological sky god theory would
evaporate.
I would answer, but I'm too scared.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "RS" |
|
| Title: Re: On the existence of God. |
11 May 2005 03:19:01 PM |
|
|
"Mani Deli" <mani@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:f874815ubupaltprmgh1q0i1hsrd3ogive@4ax.com...
The reason for belief in the existence of gods and religions is due to
a blindly conformist society, which makes its business to scare the
***** out of it's innocent little kids. Before they have any ability to
reason, it coerces them into believing that they were born rotten
sinners and carefully describes all the wonderful punishments their
loving god might just have in store for them if they stray from
whatever their branch of the superstition business tells them.
Starting early, the education system and peer groups then teach blind
conformity, avoidance of rationality and any questioning of dogmas
while it punishes deviators. In the social background a religious
sales force continually preaches dire warnings.
Amazingly, the whole fear system in sky-god religions is grounded on
the belief that someone ate the wrong apple and a society too
intimidated, too scared and too stupid to question this.
Should doubt ever arise about Eve having actually eaten that apple
become universal, the whole of theological sky god theory would
evaporate.
Your argument is extremely flawed. You presume "reason for belief in the
existence of gods and religons" is due to social conformity, when social
conformity isn't a fundamental mainstream psychological process.
Rather, one has to examine all religions (both Eastern and Western).
Christianity, Judaism, and Islam fundamentally work on the same principle,
but Christianity developed a bit further from the antiquated mindset.
Judaism and Islam both focus on the idea that you must serve God in
everything in order to attain salvation. Islam takes this a little further
with a more evangelistic clensing idea (it is their responsibility to do
whatever it takes to convert others). Christianity has this evangelistic
undertone, with a more personal message: If you trust in Christ, you will
be transformed into a person who will want to do good not for the world, but
for the greater glory of God. In the end, you will not face judgment, but
will be given mercy.
None of these systems are grounded in a sky-God theology. Rather, the
Father as witnessed in early antiquity, was an extra-cosmological force. He
didn't exist in the cosmos as it was. And for the most part, children
aren't scared into believing. I was raised Roman Catholic, for instance. I
was captized, communed, confirmed, went through all of the religious
education classes. In none of my experiences or in any of the experiences
of ANY devout Christian I have spoken to, none of them were scared into
believing.
Let us now take a look at the eastern ideals: Their religious thought is a
little more defined and quite different. Hinduism focuses on a system which
is deeply tied into the "non-existent" caste society (specifically in
India). If you do good, you will be reincarnated in a higher caste. If you
perform evil, you will drop down a few levels. Your soul is eternal, but
continues to cycle through reincarnation until it reaches a state of
"Nirvana" or "Eternal Tranquility" in which you leave this cosmos and
achieve eternal bliss. This process continues on and on, trusting to the
paradigm that there is goodness in every human soul.
Buddhism operates on a similar idea, but serves without the inherent
god/goddess distinction. (Hinduism is mostly monotheistic if you think
about it).
Looking at all other religions (mostly pagan), you see a system where you
are called to be a better person and are rewarded, in essence, for living a
life of service to others rather than a life of service to onesself. This
pattern is present in all peace-seeking religions.
Let us look again at Christianity: You must know God in both fear and awe.
Think of it like this. You are looking at a most powerful waterfall. You
are both afraid of it, because of its amazing power (not trembling, mind
you, but you know to respsect the power of the waterfall) and you are in awe
of it (you admire it for its beauty). In the Christian system, if someone
is living a life of faith because they are afraid of hell, then they do not
know Christ, for anyone who knows Christ will not fear eternal punishment.
Look at the contrition of sorrow in the Catholic Church:
"My God, I am most sorry for having sinned against you, not only because of
your just punishments, but because they offend you, my God, who are
deserving of all my love."
There is no "fear" (horror) system as you describe, but a system of respect.
We know God is powerful and we respsect that power. It isn't grounded in
the belief that someone at the wrong apple, because anyone with a wit about
them knows that Genesis 1 isn't a literal story. It isn't a story of how
Adam and Even ate of a fruit of a forbidden tree. It is a manifestation of
the fall of mankind, when we fell away from God by consuming sin (the tree,
therefore, arose from Adam).
There is no doubt that the fruit was eaten, since we are sinful creatures.
This doesn't, however, inspire fear. It inspires respsect in the Christian
system. Christ came down to us, the new Adam, to offer us a way to be born
out of the world that original sin casted us into (Augustine's City of Man)
and to be reborn into the spiritual kingdom, the heavenly Jerusalem, the
City of God.
The Father, therefore, isn't a "sky-God". Quite the opposite actually. As
present in countless theological systems, it is the male-head God who is a
symbol of earth.
As you know already, there is significant doubt about the validity of
Genesis 3 among the population of atheists, agnostics, non-Christians, and
the literal interpretation isn't held by many Christians at all. Still,
despite all of this, a persons' faith in God hasn't evaporated. This
suggests, in itself, that the symbolic interpretation of Genesis 3 is more
enduring than the literal interpretation.
-RS
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mani Deli" |
|
| Title: Re: On the existence of God. |
11 May 2005 10:54:50 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 11 May 2005 16:19:01 -0400, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> wrote:
"Mani Deli" <mani@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:f874815ubupaltprmgh1q0i1hsrd3ogive@4ax.com...
The reason for belief in the existence of gods and religions is due to
a blindly conformist society, which makes its business to scare the
***** out of it's innocent little kids. Before they have any ability to
reason, it coerces them into believing that they were born rotten
sinners and carefully describes all the wonderful punishments their
loving god might just have in store for them if they stray from
whatever their branch of the superstition business tells them.
Starting early, the education system and peer groups then teach blind
conformity, avoidance of rationality and any questioning of dogmas
while it punishes deviators. In the social background a religious
sales force continually preaches dire warnings.
Amazingly, the whole fear system in sky-god religions is grounded on
the belief that someone ate the wrong apple and a society too
intimidated, too scared and too stupid to question this.
Should doubt ever arise about Eve having actually eaten that apple
become universal, the whole of theological sky god theory would
evaporate.
Your argument is extremely flawed. You presume "reason for belief in the
existence of gods and religons" is due to social conformity,
Ultimately yes.
Rather, one has to examine all religions (both Eastern and Western).
No, one has to examine fundamental beliefs starting with the naked
lady and the snake being the reason for a life of fear along with the
myths fundamental to a life of guilt.
Christianity, Judaism, and Islam fundamentally work on the same principle,
snip, that's not what my statement addressed.
of ANY devout Christian I have spoken to, none of them were scared into
believing.
If you went to Catholic school I can only say that you have amnesia.
Let us now take a look at the eastern ideals:
not interested.
snip
Do you believe that you are tainted by the original sin?
Do you believe that there is a god who created hell?
Do you believe you are responsible for the death of the "son of god?
Yes or no?
.
|
|
|
| User: "RS" |
|
| Title: Re: On the existence of God. |
12 May 2005 02:17:45 AM |
|
|
"Mani Deli" <mani@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:ssj581tntdfdi52hgpdefuc9tpfe57eg63@4ax.com...
On Wed, 11 May 2005 16:19:01 -0400, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> wrote:
If you went to Catholic school I can only say that you have amnesia.
I did ot go to Catholic school personally, but my mother was a principal at
a Catholic school and I know the procedings at that school quite well before
it closed its' doors.
Do you believe that you are tainted by the original sin?
I believe that when I was born, I was. Through my baptism, however, I was
reborn into the Spirit and the stain that was original sin was washed away.
Do you believe that there is a god who created hell?
I believe in one God the Trinity. I recognize hell to be the only place in
the entire spiritual cosmos that is without God.
Do you believe you are responsible for the death of the "son of god?
Yes. Since Christ died for my sins and for those of the whole world, we are
all responsible, in a way. If we are not to recognize the sacrifice He made
for us, then we are to take upon ourselves again the sins He died for...
Ask forgiveness for your sins and Christ will forgive them.
-RS
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: On the existence of God. |
12 May 2005 10:36:35 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 12 May 2005 03:17:45 -0400, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> wrote:
"Mani Deli" <mani@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:ssj581tntdfdi52hgpdefuc9tpfe57eg63@4ax.com...
On Wed, 11 May 2005 16:19:01 -0400, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> wrote:
If you went to Catholic school I can only say that you have amnesia.
I did ot go to Catholic school personally, but my mother was a principal at
a Catholic school and I know the procedings at that school quite well before
it closed its' doors.
Do you believe that you are tainted by the original sin?
I believe that when I was born, I was. Through my baptism, however, I was
reborn into the Spirit and the stain that was original sin was washed away.
Do you believe that there is a god who created hell?
I believe in one God the Trinity. I recognize hell to be the only place in
the entire spiritual cosmos that is without God.
Do you believe you are responsible for the death of the "son of god?
Yes. Since Christ died for my sins and for those of the whole world, we are
all responsible, in a way. If we are not to recognize the sacrifice He made
for us, then we are to take upon ourselves again the sins He died for...
Ask forgiveness for your sins and Christ will forgive them.
-RS
We are born guilty of a sin we did not commit. We owe a debt to god
because of this non-crime, which we cannot pay. Somebody must be
punished to make it up to god, so god punishes himself; and that makes
it okay. It is amazing.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: On the existence of God. |
12 May 2005 11:14:02 AM |
|
|
RS wrote:
Yes. Since Christ died for my sins and for those of the whole
world, we are all responsible, in a way. If we are not to
recognize the sacrifice He made for us, then we are to take
upon ourselves again the sins He died for... Ask forgiveness
for your sins and Christ will forgive them.
Which, once you think about it, is a pretty silly thing to do.
What kind of silly god would send itself/son to Earth to die, but
not die, for sins that no one alive committed? Why couldn't this
god just forgive? Why did it need something to die, but not die?
Would you kill your son in order to forgive me for something I
did not do?
And there is a bunch of stuff you left out about the Catholic
baptism. It's not to wash away "original sin." It is because
being born of a woman is dirty, unclean, unholy. Now, look at a
big, old style, catholic church. Shaped like a cross? No. It's
shaped like a woman. Look at the front of the church. Big doors
with a round window above them; vagina and clitoris. For a
baptism the baby always enters through one of the side doors; an
ovary. Then they proceed through to the baptismal font and get
sprinkled with ritual amniotic fluid, then out through the main
doors. The kid is then born of a church and not of a dirty woman.
And, no, I did not make that up. It was explained to me in
catholic catechism.
--
Dave
.....If you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an
ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish
the useful ideas from the worthless ones - Carl Sagan, 1987.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: On the existence of God. |
12 May 2005 12:34:59 PM |
|
|
RS wrote:
[snip]
Yes. Since Christ died for my sins and for those of the whole world,
we are
all responsible, in a way. If we are not to recognize the sacrifice
He made
for us, then we are to take upon ourselves again the sins He died
for...
Ask forgiveness for your sins and Christ will forgive them.
-RS
Since he didn't stay dead exactly what was the sacrifice?
nafc
.
|
|
|
| User: "wmech" |
|
| Title: Re: On the existence of God. |
12 May 2005 03:58:13 PM |
|
|
This whole "Christ died for our sins" is utter nonsense.
Christ is claimed to be God and God created the Universe and everything in
it. He then also created "sin".
God could just forgive sin without the necessity of coming to earth for some
thirty years, work as a carpenter and then preach his religion for a few
years to a miniscule portion of mankind and then be put to death on a cross
to pay for man's sins. This is a totally ridiculous tale that no intelligent
person should believe. Why should the "creator" himself need to go through
this ridiculous scenario when all he had to do was declare man's sins as
forgiven?
This is less believable than Aesop's fables!
--
Bill
<nafc@snet.net> wrote in message
news:1115919299.818919.226550@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
RS wrote:
[snip]
Yes. Since Christ died for my sins and for those of the whole world,
we are
all responsible, in a way. If we are not to recognize the sacrifice
He made
for us, then we are to take upon ourselves again the sins He died
for...
Ask forgiveness for your sins and Christ will forgive them.
-RS
Since he didn't stay dead exactly what was the sacrifice?
nafc
.
|
|
|
| User: "SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim" |
|
| Title: Re: On the existence of God. |
22 May 2005 04:21:50 PM |
|
|
exactly, why didn't the loving, caring god just do a wave of his magic wand
and say, Your sins are forgiven".
problem solved.
instead we have more of this fairy tale, about his son being born by a
virgin (lmao), about his life on earth, etc.
why all this ***** pretense? why not just a wave of god's magic wand to
forgive all sin.
..
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: On the existence of God. |
12 May 2005 04:17:20 PM |
|
|
wmech wrote:
This whole "Christ died for our sins" is utter nonsense.
Yes. If Christ existed (which I doubt, due to the facts that the Jesus
story was cobbled together from older tales), he was killed for bucking
authority and for proclaim himself to be "the King of Man".
Christ is claimed to be God and God created the Universe and everything in
it. He then also created "sin".
Well, God Works in Mysterious Ways (TM). ;-)
God could just forgive sin without the necessity of coming to earth for some
thirty years, work as a carpenter and then preach his religion for a few
years to a miniscule portion of mankind and then be put to death on a cross
to pay for man's sins.
He could, but God likes doing things the hard way. ;-)
This is a totally ridiculous tale that no intelligent
person should believe. Why should the "creator" himself need to go through
this ridiculous scenario when all he had to do was declare man's sins as
forgiven?
Because tall tales require long drawn-out plots and storylines. Douglas
Adams wrote over a thousand pages worth of malarkey wherein he describes
his view of the universe. Douglas Adams is no more a prophet than the
authors of the Bible... but Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is far more
entertaining. ;-)
This is less believable than Aesop's fables!
Speaking of talking-animal fables, I saw on TV a dog barking the word
"Mama". It's only a matter of time, so says the Slippery-Slope
Advocates, before dogs are speaking 14 languages and putting us on leashes.
For this, we must exterminate all dogs. Preemptively get them before
they get us!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim" |
|
| Title: Re: On the existence of God. |
22 May 2005 04:18:42 PM |
|
|
you're responible for jesus dying?
fine, then I'll call the cops and have you arrested for murder
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "William T. Goat" |
|
| Title: Re: On the existence of God. |
11 May 2005 09:21:13 PM |
|
|
Sorry if this message appears multiple times; Google is acting funny.
RS wrote:
Let us look again at Christianity: You must know God in both fear
and awe.
Think of it like this. You are looking at a most powerful waterfall.
You
are both afraid of it, because of its amazing power (not trembling,
mind
you, but you know to respsect the power of the waterfall) and you are
in awe
of it (you admire it for its beauty). In the Christian system, if
someone
is living a life of faith because they are afraid of hell, then they
do not
know Christ, for anyone who knows Christ will not fear eternal
punishment.
Would it be fair to say, that anyone who is living a life of faith
because he is afraid of Hell, would be better off abandoning the faith?
Look at the contrition of sorrow in the Catholic Church:
"My God, I am most sorry for having sinned against you, not only
because of
your just punishments, but because they offend you, my God, who are
deserving of all my love."
Hmm. I was raised Catholic, and that's not the way I learned it.
"Oh my God, I am heartily sorry for having offended thee; and I detest
all my sins, *because I dread the loss of Heaven and the pains of
Hell*, but most of all because they offend thee, my God..."
--Billy
.
|
|
|
| User: "RS" |
|
| Title: Re: On the existence of God. |
12 May 2005 02:10:35 AM |
|
|
"William T. Goat" <ericvonl@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1115864473.634179.231140@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Sorry if this message appears multiple times; Google is acting funny.
RS wrote:
Let us look again at Christianity: You must know God in both fear
and awe.
Think of it like this. You are looking at a most powerful waterfall.
You
are both afraid of it, because of its amazing power (not trembling,
mind
you, but you know to respsect the power of the waterfall) and you are
in awe
of it (you admire it for its beauty). In the Christian system, if
someone
is living a life of faith because they are afraid of hell, then they
do not
know Christ, for anyone who knows Christ will not fear eternal
punishment.
Would it be fair to say, that anyone who is living a life of faith
because he is afraid of Hell, would be better off abandoning the faith?
Look at the contrition of sorrow in the Catholic Church:
"My God, I am most sorry for having sinned against you, not only
because of
your just punishments, but because they offend you, my God, who are
deserving of all my love."
Hmm. I was raised Catholic, and that's not the way I learned it.
"Oh my God, I am heartily sorry for having offended thee; and I detest
all my sins, *because I dread the loss of Heaven and the pains of
Hell*, but most of all because they offend thee, my God..."
When I first learned the contrition of sorrow, it read
"My God, I am heartily sorry for having offended you because of your just
punishments, but most of all becasue they offend you, my God . . . "
Though if you were Catholic now, you would relalize that all priests would
allow for a personal contrition to be spoken, as long as it reflects why we
are truly guilty for our sins (because they offend God and subtract from the
glory of His kingdom).
-RS
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: On the existence of God. |
12 May 2005 10:36:35 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 12 May 2005 03:10:35 -0400, "RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> wrote:
"William T. Goat" <ericvonl@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1115864473.634179.231140@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Sorry if this message appears multiple times; Google is acting funny.
RS wrote:
snip
Though if you were Catholic now, you would relalize that all priests would
allow for a personal contrition to be spoken, as long as it reflects why we
are truly guilty for our sins (because they offend God and subtract from the
glory of His kingdom).
And when he is offended he becomes vicious, but doublethink comes into
play here. One must train oneself to believe that one is really
worried about hurting the feelings of an omnipotent being.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: On the existence of God. |
11 May 2005 03:59:18 PM |
|
|
on 11 May 2005 in alt.atheism, RS dropped trou, farted, whirled, then
shouted:
"Mani Deli" <mani@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:f874815ubupaltprmgh1q0i1hsrd3ogive@4ax.com...
The reason for belief in the existence of gods and religions is due
to a blindly conformist society, which makes its business to scare
the ***** out of it's innocent little kids. Before they have any
ability to reason, it coerces them into believing that they were born
rotten sinners and carefully describes all the wonderful punishments
their loving god might just have in store for them if they stray from
whatever their branch of the superstition business tells them.
Starting early, the education system and peer groups then teach blind
conformity, avoidance of rationality and any questioning of dogmas
while it punishes deviators. In the social background a religious
sales force continually preaches dire warnings.
Amazingly, the whole fear system in sky-god religions is grounded on
the belief that someone ate the wrong apple and a society too
intimidated, too scared and too stupid to question this.
Should doubt ever arise about Eve having actually eaten that apple
become universal, the whole of theological sky god theory would
evaporate.
Your argument is extremely flawed. You presume "reason for belief in
the existence of gods and religons" is due to social conformity, when
social conformity isn't a fundamental mainstream psychological
process.
Is this really how *you* came to be religious? What is your religion? Is
it by any chance the same as that of your family?
Rather, one has to examine all religions (both Eastern and Western).
Did you examine all religions before you came to be what you are? Really?
I have to admit I only sampled four. Lutheran, Mormon, Non-denominational
and Judaism before dropping it all in favor of none.
Christianity, Judaism, and Islam fundamentally work on the same
principle, but Christianity developed a bit further from the
antiquated mindset. Judaism and Islam both focus on the idea that you
must serve God in everything in order to attain salvation. Islam
takes this a little further with a more evangelistic clensing idea (it
is their responsibility to do whatever it takes to convert others).
Christianity has this evangelistic undertone, with a more personal
message: If you trust in Christ, you will be transformed into a
person who will want to do good not for the world, but for the greater
glory of God. In the end, you will not face judgment, but will be
given mercy.
None of these systems are grounded in a sky-God theology.
Why, then, do they believe the god is in heaven (the sky)?
Rather, the
Father as witnessed in early antiquity, was an extra-cosmological
force. He didn't exist in the cosmos as it was.
The bible doesn't say this. It says Jesus will descend from heaven, he
will come in clouds. Why do people raise their voice to the lord, or look
upward when indicating god?
The current sky-god got its start as a sun-god.
And for the most
part, children aren't scared into believing. I was raised Roman
Catholic, for instance. I was captized, communed, confirmed, went
through all of the religious education classes. In none of my
experiences or in any of the experiences of ANY devout Christian I
have spoken to, none of them were scared into believing.
Ah, you were raised Roman Catholic. You did not, then, examine all
religions before deciding to become Roman Catholic, did you? It looks to
me as if you conformed to what society around you (your family) pushed on
you. Most children lack the maturity to stand up for themselves at the age
they are when Catholicism enters their impressionable little minds. Those
that show skepticism are usually shown the steel ruler, or some other form
of punishment based on the biblical "rod". Yes, they are frightened into
it, and are frightened into staying with it when the seeds are properly
planted.
Can you really say you became a devout Catholic without knowledge of the
fear of hell, or the devastation of original sin?
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
Plonked by Jason Gastrich for all eternity...
______________
As you were, I was. As I am, you will be.
--- Hunter S. Thompson
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: On the existence of God. |
11 May 2005 06:08:47 PM |
|
|
Hey Mani dude. You posted to alt.bible *and* alt.atheism. Me thinks you
are dumb troll.
Also, projection of flaw onto people who have something you don't is a bit
psychotic.
Thirdly, talking about what you *don't* believe in is extremely idiotic and
a grand waste of time.
"Mani Deli" <mani@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:f874815ubupaltprmgh1q0i1hsrd3ogive@4ax.com...
The reason for belief in the existence of gods and religions is due to
a blindly conformist society, which makes its business to scare the
***** out of it's innocent little kids. Before they have any ability to
reason, it coerces them into believing that they were born rotten
sinners and carefully describes all the wonderful punishments their
loving god might just have in store for them if they stray from
whatever their branch of the superstition business tells them.
Starting early, the education system and peer groups then teach blind
conformity, avoidance of rationality and any questioning of dogmas
while it punishes deviators. In the social background a religious
sales force continually preaches dire warnings.
Amazingly, the whole fear system in sky-god religions is grounded on
the belief that someone ate the wrong apple and a society too
intimidated, too scared and too stupid to question this.
Should doubt ever arise about Eve having actually eaten that apple
become universal, the whole of theological sky god theory would
evaporate.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dean" |
|
| Title: Re: On the existence of God. |
11 May 2005 06:58:07 PM |
|
|
Hey real. Amen. Most on this NG have very little faith when it comes to
the Bible but when it comes to evolution they have Great Faith.
<real@believer.com> wrote in message
news:FuadnWA8qdcdDR_fRVn-2w@rogers.com...
Hey Mani dude. You posted to alt.bible *and* alt.atheism. Me thinks you
are dumb troll.
Also, projection of flaw onto people who have something you don't is a bit
psychotic.
Thirdly, talking about what you *don't* believe in is extremely idiotic
and a grand waste of time.
"Mani Deli" <mani@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:f874815ubupaltprmgh1q0i1hsrd3ogive@4ax.com...
The reason for belief in the existence of gods and religions is due to
a blindly conformist society, which makes its business to scare the
***** out of it's innocent little kids. Before they have any ability to
reason, it coerces them into believing that they were born rotten
sinners and carefully describes all the wonderful punishments their
loving god might just have in store for them if they stray from
whatever their branch of the superstition business tells them.
Starting early, the education system and peer groups then teach blind
conformity, avoidance of rationality and any questioning of dogmas
while it punishes deviators. In the social background a religious
sales force continually preaches dire warnings.
Amazingly, the whole fear system in sky-god religions is grounded on
the belief that someone ate the wrong apple and a society too
intimidated, too scared and too stupid to question this.
Should doubt ever arise about Eve having actually eaten that apple
become universal, the whole of theological sky god theory would
evaporate.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: On the existence of God. |
11 May 2005 07:58:57 PM |
|
|
On 11 May 2005, Dean dropped trou, farted, whirled, then shouted:
Hey real. Amen. Most on this NG have very little faith when it comes
to the Bible but when it comes to evolution they have Great Faith.
Ahh, so you're one of those who deny reality.
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
Plonked by Jason Gastrich for all eternity...
Lovingly plonked by Roger Pearse
______________
"I'm sickened by all religions. Religion has divided people. I don't think
there's any difference between the pope wearing a large hat and parading
around with a smoking purse and an African painting his face white and
praying to a rock."
[Howard Stern]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dean" |
|
| Title: Re: On the existence of God. |
12 May 2005 05:49:41 PM |
|
|
So you are a follower of Howard Stern. Boy that makes you real smart I
better pay more attention to you.
"Vic Sagerquist" <address@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9653B724AF1E0vicman@216.196.97.136...
On 11 May 2005, Dean dropped trou, farted, whirled, then shouted:
Hey real. Amen. Most on this NG have very little faith when it comes
to the Bible but when it comes to evolution they have Great Faith.
Ahh, so you're one of those who deny reality.
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
Plonked by Jason Gastrich for all eternity...
Lovingly plonked by Roger Pearse
______________
"I'm sickened by all religions. Religion has divided people. I don't think
there's any difference between the pope wearing a large hat and parading
around with a smoking purse and an African painting his face white and
praying to a rock."
[Howard Stern]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: On the existence of God. |
12 May 2005 06:45:09 PM |
|
|
On 12 May 2005, Dean dropped trou, farted, whirled, then shouted:
So you are a follower of Howard Stern. Boy that makes you real smart I
better pay more attention to you.
Don't do it for that reason alone. Do it because you want to learn how to
think for yourself.
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
Plonked by Jason Gastrich for all eternity...
Lovingly plonked by Roger Pearse
______________
"I'm sickened by all religions. Religion has divided people. I don't think
there's any difference between the pope wearing a large hat and parading
around with a smoking purse and an African painting his face white and
praying to a rock."
[Howard Stern]
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mephisto" |
|
| Title: Re: On the existence of God. |
12 May 2005 10:42:45 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 11 May 2005 19:58:07 -0400, "Dean" <griffin007@comporium.net>
wrote:
Hey real. Amen. Most on this NG have very little faith when it comes to
the Bible but when it comes to evolution they have Great Faith.
What aspect of evolution requires faith?
Mephisto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dean" |
|
| Title: Re: On the existence of God. |
12 May 2005 05:52:44 PM |
|
|
evolution Life comes from non living matter. Takes a lot faith.
Creation Life comes from life. Take a little faith.
"Mephisto" <mephisto@go.away> wrote in message
news:5au681l8ttktt5fdnb07qeps0f07l212op@4ax.com...
On Wed, 11 May 2005 19:58:07 -0400, "Dean" <griffin007@comporium.net>
wrote:
Hey real. Amen. Most on this NG have very little faith when it comes to
the Bible but when it comes to evolution they have Great Faith.
What aspect of evolution requires faith?
Mephisto
.
|
|
|
| User: "skyeyes" |
|
| Title: Re: On the existence of God. |
12 May 2005 06:05:47 PM |
|
|
Dean wrote:
Creation Life comes from life. Take a little faith.
Nope. In the Bible, life is made out of mud, breathed on by a
super-being for which no evidence exists. Takes faith out the wazoo to
believe that.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: On the existence of God. |
12 May 2005 06:40:01 PM |
|
|
Dean wrote:
evolution Life comes from non living matter. Takes a lot faith.
Creation Life comes from life. Take a little faith.
Creation, takes faith in a provably non-existant sky pixie
**************************************************
God disproven #1 Short Version
W.C. Barwell 3-9-05
**************************************************
By god here, I mean the Grand God of Grand Theology,
the god that is perfect, omnipotent, omniscient,
omnibenevolent. The god that is defined as the most
powerful thing that can be imagined, the creator of
all. This god is defined as being intelligent, having
conciousness, and will. I mean this in the general
overall sense that the word god means dogmatically to
Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.
1. Can god do the impossible, create a square circle or
a 4 sided triangle?
2. That really asks the question, does god create the
rules, the laws, the logic of the Universe at large?
And thus can change them at a whim, or for a reason?
3. Since god is supposedly omnipotent, let us try
answering yes.
4. If yes, god could easily create a world where man has
free will yet freely chooses only to do moral good.
5. But in this world we see that man often does moral
evil.
6. If god could create such a word since he creates the
Universe's rules, and does not do so, god is effectively
the creator of all evil, past, present and future.
Evil exists only because god allows it to when he could
easily end all evil by creating a Universe where indeed
man has free will and yet freely chooses only to do
moral good.
7. Thus god is the author and sustaining cause of all
evil and is himself evil, that is omni-malevolent,
rather than as claimed, omni-benevolent.
8. Since dogmatically, god is supposedly omni-benevolent
rather than omni-malevolent, this is obviously not
acceptable. Allowing god to make the rules makes
him overtly evil.
9. God therefore does not make the rules, the laws or
the logic of the Universe.
10. God is said to be the most powerful thing that can
be imagined, the greatest thing that can exist.
But if god does not make the laws and rules and logic
of the Universe, and cannot change them at whim,
then the Universe with its rules and laws and logic
are more powerful than god, and this dogmatic claim
is obviously not true.
11. This claim is used as a basis of ontological claims
such as Anselm's ontological proof and these type of
ontological proofs are all thus falsified.
12. God is supposedly omnipotent. But if he is limited
by the Universe with its rules and laws and logic,
obviously he is not omnipotent at all. This dogmatic
claim cannot be saved unless you accept a god that
is omni-malevolent as a basic dogma.
13. God is dogmatically claimed to have been the creator
of the Universe, of all that is. But if god does not
make the laws and rules and logic of the Universe,
they must be beyond him, outside him, and must either
preceed him or parallel god's existance, he cannot
have created it thusly, so the dogma that god created
all is false also.
14. One dodge here might be to claim god created the
Universe in the manner that limits him, but god,
being omniscient, superintelligent and omnibenevolent
would have known that by creating such a Universe, he
was creating a Universe tht contained evil only because
he chose to create a limited Universe, so we are back
to claiming god is omni-malevolent. Thus such a dodge
fails.
15. The idea of a perfect omni-everything god preceeds
Christianity, Epicurus noted the problem of evil
in 250 BCE. If the gods are omnibenevolent and omnipotent,
yet evil exists. The gods either cannot or will not end
evil thus must be either not omnibenevolent or
omnipotent or possible neither.
16. Yet over 2,500 years, the theological methodolgy
used to erect the hypothetical Grand God of Grand
Theology which is now dogmatic in all major religous
traditions has failed to see this god as shown above,
cannot exist as claimed.
17. Thus not only is god as so defined an impossible
and failed hypothesis, the theology methodology
used to create such a hypothetical god is a failed
methodology and its basic method, making overarching
assertions without evidence is a failed methodology.
18. What are the laws and the rules and the logic of
the Universe? And what can we say about them?
19. As far as can be noted, we do have good, basic
understandings of the laws of the Universe. Things
are made up of matter and energy, operating in a
framework of time, and dimensions, with rules known
by science, phsycs, chemistry, astronomy and other
sciences.
20. There is no room in these laws and rules of
the Universe for disembodied gods or entities
that have will and who act. Thinking beings
are made of matter and energy and subject to rules
of chemistry and physics.
21. If theology wishes to claim otherwise, theology
bears the burden of demonstrating with hard evidence
that a god or other supernatural entity can exist.
And very much has a burden to prove that the Grand
God of theological tradition has actual and real
existance.
23. The failed theological methodology of making
unsupported assertions and deriving subclaims
is not an acceptable method for doing theology,
since as demonstrated above, that has proven to
be a total failure as a methodology.
(END)
--
When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: On the existence of God.- reply to JW |
13 May 2005 04:38:12 PM |
|
|
On 12 May 2005, JW dropped trou, farted, whirled, then shouted:
wcb <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in
news:1187pqq26mgr824@corp.supernews.com:
<piggybacking a reply to JW, who cowardly requested e-mail replies only>
<tough *****, this is a newsgroup - live with it>
This is yet another STUPID exercise in tautology (The first one was in
#1, above). Of course God CANNOT create a world where man has free
will yet chooses only to do moral good.
Then he is not omnipotent.
But the problem is not God's.
Cop out.
No, the problem lies with the person who asks silly
self-contradictory questions.
You didn't think it was this easy to disprove your god as defined, did
you? The problem lies with a self-contradictory doctrine, the cognitive
dissonance of which you accept blindly and without question, then throw
excrement at those who disagree with you.
<snip remainder of slanderous post>
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
Plonked by Jason Gastrich for all eternity...
Lovingly plonked by Roger Pearse
______________
"I'm sickened by all religions. Religion has divided people. I don't
think there's any difference between the pope wearing a large hat and
parading around with a smoking purse and an African painting his face
white and praying to a rock."
[Howard Stern]
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: On the existence of God.- reply to JW |
13 May 2005 11:35:58 PM |
|
|
Vic Sagerquist wrote:
On 12 May 2005, JW dropped trou, farted, whirled, then shouted:
wcb <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in
news:1187pqq26mgr824@corp.supernews.com:
<piggybacking a reply to JW, who cowardly requested e-mail replies only>
<tough *****, this is a newsgroup - live with it>
This is yet another STUPID exercise in tautology (The first one was in
#1, above). Of course God CANNOT create a world where man has free
will yet chooses only to do moral good.
Then he is not omnipotent.
But the problem is not God's.
Cop out.
Rather!
Does god have free will? Of course!
As Aquinas states most clearly.
Does god have a good nature incapable of doing evil?
Of course, he is omnnibenevbolent.
He cannot do evil.
But if god has free wil and a good nature incapable
opf moral evil, why do theists say man cannot likewsie
have a god like free will and good nature.
Well, with all this evil around, we have to blame somebody
and the true believers are not going to admit it might be
god's doing.
But if he is omnibenevolent and he can give man a god
like free will and a god like good nature as god has,
god is evil or not capable of that is is most certainly
not omniptent as claimed.
So god cannot exist, as defined.
No, the problem lies with the person who asks silly
self-contradictory questions.
You didn't think it was this easy to disprove your god as defined, did
you? The problem lies with a self-contradictory doctrine, the cognitive
dissonance of which you accept blindly and without question, then throw
excrement at those who disagree with you.
<snip remainder of slanderous post>
--
When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: On the existence of God.- reply to JW - |
16 May 2005 02:53:38 PM |
|
|
wcb wrote:
Vic Sagerquist wrote:
On 12 May 2005, JW dropped trou, farted, whirled, then shouted:
wcb <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in
news:1187pqq26mgr824@corp.supernews.com:
<piggybacking a reply to JW, who cowardly requested e-mail replies only>
<tough *****, this is a newsgroup - live with it>
This is yet another STUPID exercise in tautology (The first one was in
#1, above). Of course God CANNOT create a world where man has free
will yet chooses only to do moral good.
Then he is not omnipotent.
But the problem is not God's.
Cop out.
Rather!
Does god have free will? Of course!
As Aquinas states most clearly.
Does god have a good nature incapable of doing evil?
Of course, he is omnnibenevbolent.
He cannot do evil.
===>That is why Christianity, a form of Zoroastrianism,
insists of a "God God" and an "Evil Spirit", as we find
in the characters of Ahura Mazda and Ahriman. -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "J.W." |
|
| Title: Re: On the existence of God.- reply to JW - |
20 May 2005 08:05:36 PM |
|
|
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in
news:4288FA41.D6D60913@Nothing_But_The.Truth:
Does god have a good nature incapable of doing evil?
Of course, he is omnnibenevbolent.
He cannot do evil.
To my favorite heretic and apostate:
I a recent post, I refuted the above-stated notion that God is
omnibenevolent. In short order, the argument went thus:
"Omni-benevolent" means showing compassion, love and kindness to everyone.
The God of the Bible killed everyone and kills everyone; he causes and
creates evil, and sends people evil spirits; and he is angry and wrathful
toward people constantly; and, since everything happens because of him, he
is also the cause of all disasters. All of these characteristics are
either demonstrated or spelled out in the Bible.
A God who does all of these things certainly does not show compassion and
kindness to "everyone."
Therefore, God is not omni-benevolent.
But you picked up on the incorrect proposition that God is omni-benevolent
and spake thus:
===>That is why Christianity, a form of Zoroastrianism,
insists of a "God God" and an "Evil Spirit", as we find
in the characters of Ahura Mazda and Ahriman. -- L.
It is interesting that you insist that Christianity is a form of
Zoroastrianism. The similarites between the two give a facial appeal to
this notion . . . .
.. . . . but only if one refuses to consider the differences.
Contrary to what you have written, there is no genuine analogy between
Ahura Mazda (or Ormazd if you prefer) and Ahriman (or Angra Mainyu) on the
one hand, and the God (and/or Satan) of the Judeo Christian tradition.
The Zoroastrian conception of Ahura Mazda is that he was the creating
spirit of good, light and truth. He was entirely free of evil.
It was only his counterpart, Angra Mainyu or Ahriman, who was or came into
being independently, who was responsible for, evil, falsehoods, disease
destruction, and so forth.
Unlike Ahura Mazda, God, as revealed in the Bible, is capable of both good
and evil, destruction and restoration, creation and death:
"I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, AND CREATE EVIL; I
the LORD do all these things." ([My emphasis] Isaiah 45:7.)
Again:
"See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me; I KILL, AND I
MAKE ALIVE; I WOUND, AND I HEAL; neither is there any that can deliver out
of my hand." ([My emphasis] Deuteronomy 32:39.)
Furthermore, Zoroastrianism posits the existence of both Ahura Mazda and
Angra Mainyu as separately created, or separate and independent, spirits
who are equals locked in a struggle between good and evil.
This is not the case with God, as revealed in the Bible. "Thus saith the
Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of Hosts; I am the
first, and I am the last;' and besides me there is no God." (Isaiah 44:6;
and see id, v. 8, and 45:6,21, to the same effect.)
Satan, as described in various places, does not correspond to Angra Mainyu
either. As mentioned, Angra Mainyu is a spirit of equal stature to Ahura
Mazda. "Satan" was reportedly already thrown out of heaven and cast down
to earth along with his angels. (Luke 10:18; Revelations 12:9.) He is
destined to be defeated again. (Revelations 20:10.) In the meantime, he
is dangerous to believers, but not so powerful that believers cannot resist
him. (Ephesians 6:11; and see James 4:7 "Resist the devil, and he will
flee from you.") Some view Ezekiel 28:11-15 as a reference to Satan. In
which case, it describes him as "blameless in [his] ways from the day [he
was] created, until unrighteousness was found" in him. (Id., 28:15, NASB).
Being a "created" creature, Satan could not be equal in stature or power to
the God revealed in the Bible.
Aside from the difference in dieties, the theology works very different as
well.
Zoroastrianism, for example, has from one to three different "Saoshyants"
or saviors. Each Saoshyants is believed to be the future sons of the
prophet Zoroaster (Zarathustra) (who was not divine). None of the
Saoshyants are considered to be divine. The Saoshyants will allegedly be
born to different virgins who bathe in three different millenia in Lake
Kans (in Iran). Zoroaster's "seed," miraculously preserved in the lake
will impregnate the virgins, after which they will give birth.
Judaism and Christianity claim only one Messiah. Christianity claims the
Messiah was and is the Son of God, conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of
a virgin. Thus, the Christian Savior, in contrast to the Zoroastrian
Savior, is only one person, divine and born of God.
Soteriology, also, works very differently under Zoroastrianism and
Christianity. Zoroastrianism works on a kind of "points" system, whereby
people pick up good points and bad points. More good points than bad
points lands a person in heaven, and the inverse score lands a person in
hell. In Christianity, the situation is the quite different. The
scriptures declare that salvation comes by grace, through faith, and not by
collecting brownie points through works. (Ephesians 2:8-9; Galatians
2:16.) Furthermore, according to Christian scriptures, failure to gather
any bad points does not guarantee a trip to heaven.
I respectfully submit that these differences are too great support the
conclusion that Christianity is a form of Zoroastrianism.
John Wadsworth
john4250@value.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: On the existence of God.- reply to JW - |
20 May 2005 10:08:52 PM |
|
|
"J.W." wrote:
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in
news:4288FA41.D6D60913@Nothing_But_The.Truth:
Does god have a good nature incapable of doing evil?
Of course, he is omnnibenevbolent.
He cannot do evil.
===>Libertarius did not write such a dumb thing!
To my favorite heretic and apostate:
I a recent post, I refuted the above-stated notion that God is
omnibenevolent. In short order, the argument went thus:
"Omni-benevolent" means showing compassion, love and kindness to everyone.
The God of the Bible killed everyone and kills everyone; he causes and
creates evil, and sends people evil spirits; and he is angry and wrathful
toward people constantly; and, since everything happens because of him, he
is also the cause of all disasters. All of these characteristics are
either demonstrated or spelled out in the Bible.
===>You are presenting a biased view of a CONFLICT between
traditional Judaism and Neo-Zoroastrian Phariseism and Judeo-Christianity.
A God who does all of these things certainly does not show compassion and
kindness to "everyone."
Therefore, God is not omni-benevolent.
But you picked up on the incorrect proposition that God is omni-benevolent
and spake thus:
===>That is why Christianity, a form of Zoroastrianism,
insists of a "God God" and an "Evil Spirit", as we find
in the characters of Ahura Mazda and Ahriman. -- L.
It is interesting that you insist that Christianity is a form of
Zoroastrianism. The similarites between the two give a facial appeal to
this notion . . . .
. . . . but only if one refuses to consider the differences.
Contrary to what you have written, there is no genuine analogy between
Ahura Mazda (or Ormazd if you prefer) and Ahriman (or Angra Mainyu) on the
one hand, and the God (and/or Satan) of the Judeo Christian tradition.
The Zoroastrian conception of Ahura Mazda is that he was the creating
spirit of good, light and truth. He was entirely free of evil.
It was only his counterpart, Angra Mainyu or Ahriman, who was or came into
being independently, who was responsible for, evil, falsehoods, disease
destruction, and so forth.
Unlike Ahura Mazda, God, as revealed in the Bible, is capable of both good
and evil, destruction and restoration, creation and death:
"I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, AND CREATE EVIL; I
the LORD do all these things." ([My emphasis] Isaiah 45:7.)
===>Cute!
I have quoted that verse many times.
It is an example of the ARGUMENT between traditional Yahwists
and those influenced by Zoroastrianism, who ultimately succeeded
in Judeo-Christianity!
You are simply denying the obvious!
With the "God" defined as YOU are presenting him, there was no
Devil/Satan/Belial/etc.
Again:
"See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me; I KILL, AND I
MAKE ALIVE; I WOUND, AND I HEAL; neither is there any that can deliver out
of my hand." ([My emphasis] Deuteronomy 32:39.)
Furthermore, Zoroastrianism posits the existence of both Ahura Mazda and
Angra Mainyu as separately created,
===>Angra Mainyu ws CREATED BY/is one of the sons of Ahura Mazda,
together with his twin Spenta Mainyu ("Holy Spirit").
"Ahriman
The evil power in the Avesta, the collection of religious writings in
Zoroastrianism.
Ahriman is ethymologically the middle-Persian form of Angra Mainyu,
one of the two twin-spirits created by Ahura Mazda.
Ahriman chose evil consciously, and by this act he created death.
The central subject of Zoroastrian teaching and theology is the constant
ongoing battle between Ahriman and Ahura Mazda."
(http://www.redqueen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ahriman.htm)
"In ancient Persian mythology, Spenta Mainyu ("holy spirit") i
s the god of life and the personification of the good and the light.
He is the twin brother of Angra Mainyu (Ahriman), the god of darkness,
with whom he fights an eternal battle.
In an earlier version of this religion, they both are the sons of
Ahura Mazda (Ormazd)."
or separate and independent, spirits
who are equals locked in a struggle between good and evil.
This is not the case with God, as revealed in the Bible. "Thus saith the
Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of Hosts; I am the
first, and I am the last;' and besides me there is no God." (Isaiah 44:6;
and see id, v. 8, and 45:6,21, to the same effect.)
Satan, as described in various places, does not correspond to Angra Mainyu
either. As mentioned, Angra Mainyu is a spirit of equal stature to Ahura
Mazda.
===>That is FALSE!
"Satan" was reportedly already thrown out of heaven and cast down
to earth along with his angels. (Luke 10:18; Revelations 12:9.)
===>Also false: see the book of JOB!
He is
destined to be defeated again. (Revelations 20:10.)
===>As is Ahriman.
In the meantime, he
is dangerous to believers, but not so powerful that believers cannot resist
him. (Ephesians 6:11; and see James 4:7 "Resist the devil, and he will
flee from you.")
===>As is Ahriman.
Some view Ezekiel 28:11-15 as a reference to Satan. In
which case, it describes him as "blameless in [his] ways from the day [he
was] created, until unrighteousness was found" in him. (Id., 28:15, NASB).
===>That is NOT a reference to "Satan"!
Repeatedly misquoted/misapplied by Christians.
Being a "created" creature, Satan could not be equal in stature or power to
the God revealed in the Bible.
===>Nor is Ahriman.
Aside from the difference in dieties, the theology works very different as
well.
Zoroastrianism, for example, has from one to three different "Saoshyants"
or saviors. Each Saoshyants is believed to be the future sons of the
prophet Zoroaster (Zarathustra) (who was not divine). None of the
Saoshyants are considered to be divine.
===>No one said NEO Zoroastrianism was IDENTICAL with the'original.
Things change.
The man Jesus was declared "God" by Trinitarian Christians.
The Saoshyants will allegedly be
born to different virgins who bathe in three different millenia in Lake
Kans (in Iran). Zoroaster's "seed," miraculously preserved in the lake
will impregnate the virgins, after which they will give birth.
===>Detail.
Zarathustra would have considered it a blasphemy to claim that
the Savior would be born to a betrotherd virgin impregnated by
Ahura Mazda!
Judaism and Christianity claim only one Messiah.
===>Again, later developed detail.
Christianity claims the
Messiah was and is the Son of God, conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of
a virgin.
===>BLASPHEMY according to Zoroastrian (and Jewish as well as
Islamic) thinking!
Thus, the Christian Savior, in contrast to the Zoroastrian
Savior, is only one person, divine and born of God.
===>That's just the Athanasian version.
Soteriology, also, works very differently under Zoroastrianism and
Christianity. Zoroastrianism works on a kind of "points" system, whereby
people pick up good points and bad points. More good points than bad
points lands a person in heaven, and the inverse score lands a person in
hell. In Christianity, the situation is the quite different. The
scriptures declare that salvation comes by grace, through faith, and not by
collecting brownie points through works. (Ephesians 2:8-9; Galatians
2:16.)
===>Not according to the words attributed to Jesus!
Matthew 6:19-21
"Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth,
where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves
break through and steal:
But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven,
where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt,
and where thieves do not break through nor steal:
For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also."
"I chose you, and appointed you,
that you should go and bear fruit,
and that your fruit should remain" (John 15:16).
"And anyone whose name was not found recorded in the
Book of Life was thrown into the lake of fire." ( Revelation 20:15)
"be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect" (Matt 5:48).
"only those who do the will of my heavenly Father
will enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 7:21).
Matthew 19:12-13
Now someone approached him and said,
"Teacher, what good must I do to gain eternal life?"
He answered him, "Why do you ask me about the good?
There is only One who is good.
If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments."
etc., etc.
It was the anti-Torah approach of Saul/Paul that introduced
the concept of "grace".
Furthermore, according to Christian scriptures, failure to gather
any bad points does not guarantee a trip to heaven.
===>But it helps to gather GOOD POINTS!
I respectfully submit that these differences are too great support the
conclusion that Christianity is a form of Zoroastrianism.
===>And I conclude that you are SERIOUSLY MISTAKEN,
apparently ignorant of or deliberately denying the facts.
By some religions ignorance is the greatest of sins.
FYI:
"Zoroastrian Beliefs:
Beliefs include:
A single god Ahura Mazda who is supreme.
Communication between Himself and humans is by a number of
Attributes, called Amesha Spentas or Bounteous Immortals. ["angels"]
Within the Gathas, the original Zoroastrian sacred text,
these Immortals are sometimes described as concepts,
and are sometimes personified.
One school of thought promotes a cosmic dualism between:
An all powerful God Ahura Mazda who is the only deity worthy
of being worshipped, and
An evil spirit of violence and death, Angra Mainyu,
who opposes Ahura Mazda.
The resulting cosmic conflict involves the entire universe,
including humanity who is required to choose which to follow.
Evil, and the Spirit of Evil, will be completely destroyed at the end of time.
Dualism will come to an end and Goodness will be all in all."
(http://www.religioustolerance.org/zoroastr.htm)
"Zoroastrianism is the oldest of the revealed world-religions,
and it has probably had more influence on mankind,
directly and indirectly, than any other single faith." (Mary Boyce).
As I have stated. -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: On the existence of God.- reply to JW |
16 May 2005 07:09:25 AM |
|
|
Vic Sagerquist wrote:
On 12 May 2005, JW dropped trou, farted, whirled, then shouted:
wcb <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in
news:1187pqq26mgr824@corp.supernews.com:
<piggybacking a reply to JW, who cowardly requested e-mail replies only>
<tough *****, this is a newsgroup - live with it>
This is yet another STUPID exercise in tautology (The first one was in
#1, above). Of course God CANNOT create a world where man has free
will yet chooses only to do moral good.
Then he is not omnipotent.
(Piggybacking)
Thomas Aquinas (and others) have long claimed god has free will.
Naturally.
And only does moral good for god has a good nature
incapable of evil.
As per every theologian since Tertullian and Augustine.
So, if god may have free will, and have a good nature
incapable of doing moral evil, then so might man have
free will and also a god like good nature.
Why do the christians insist man has free will, while
Romans 8 - 11 denies it? Why, to try to keep god
from being blamed for all this evil.
But it does not work. If god did not create man
with free will and a god like good nature incapable of
doing evil, god is evil because all moral evil exists
because of his choice here.
The objection that having a good nature negates good will
is an argument negated by the fact god has such a nature
and the theologians assures us that simply because god can
do no evil does not negate his omnipotence claims.
There is thus no possible objection.
Unless one wishes to assert every theologian since Tertullian
was an idiot.
But the problem is not God's.
Cop out.
No, the problem lies with the person who asks silly
self-contradictory questions.
You didn't think it was this easy to disprove your god as defined, did
you? The problem lies with a self-contradictory doctrine, the cognitive
dissonance of which you accept blindly and without question, then throw
excrement at those who disagree with you.
<snip remainder of slanderous post>
--
When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
