Ending the Myth of Horus

Posted by Consigliere on Monday, January 10, 2005 at 06:43 AM. Read 53659 times. Tags:
{name} pic

[Editor’s Note: It was my intent to have a reply ready before posting this, but I’ve found myself putting it off due to a busy weekend so I’m going to go ahead and post it as is. I’ll address it properly in the comments as soon as I have the opportunity though I’m sure there are several regulars who will probably be more than capable of addressing it first.]



I’ve heard repeated here several times that Horus, an Egyptian god, is carbon copy of Jesus.  The obvious implication by those that have made this statement is that Jesus is a copycat version of an earlier Egyptian deity.  The purpose of this entry is to disembowel that proposition once and for all. 

When I first heard that Horus was the inspiration for Jesus several years ago, I didn’t give it much credence because I couldn’t establish any source material for the claims.  I still can’t, but the internet is as adept at allowing anybody and everybody to pass on misinformation. 

Upon further research, I’ve concluded that this theory originated with Gerald Massey, an English poet, born 1828, died 1927.  He published primarily poems, but had an interest in Egypt.  He parlayed that interest in Egypt into several books and lectures in which he set forth the proposition that Horus was in essence the first Jesus, and Jesus was a cheap imitation.  The primary basis for his writing is the Egyptian Book of the Dead.  This is available on-line and you can easily look it up to read it yourself.  Be forewarned that forced reading of this would be an extremely efficient form of torture. 

It should be noted that Massey’s actual proposition was that Jesus was a copycat from more than just Horus.  According to Massey, Jesus was a compilation of an innumerable number of Egyptian deities.  There were over 2,000 deities who had every human and godlike characteristic one can think of, excepting Superman’s power to stop a speeding bullet.

Since Massey, there is a dearth of anybody with any credentials that has adopted a straight Horus=Jesus theory.  There is a one individual that has adopted some of Massey’s thoughts and incorporated them into a book-The Christ Conspiracy.  This appears to be the basis for the claims that I see.  The author is Acharya S.  Her website is http://www.truthbeknown.com I note that Richard Price, a noted Christ Myther, and one that I take much more seriously then Acharya, said the following:

“Those of use who uphold any version of the controversial Christ Myth theory find ourselves immediately the object not just of criticism, but even of ridicule. And it causes us chagrin to be lumped together with certain writers with whom we share the Christ Myth butt little else.....

His other criticism, like mine, is that she uses very dated sources (19th Century) who were in Price’s words “eccentrics, freethinkers, and theosophists.”

Les, I am using your post from 1/3/05 as an example of the claims because you carry more credibility than most. That said here are the claims and what I have found:

Claim #1-Horus and Jesus are born from a virgin. 

Horus’s mother is Isis.  Isis was married to Osiris.  We do not know for what length of time, but presumably the marriage was consummated.  Whether it was or wasn’t doesn’t matter though.  After Osiris is killed, Isis puts him back together again (he was hacked into 14 pieces) except for his penis which was tossed in a river or a lake.  Iris fashions a substitute penis for him, humps him and here comes Horus.  There is nothing virginal about that.

Claim #2-Both Horus and Jesus were born to a Mary and Joseph. (Seb)

As noted Isis is Horus’s mother’s name not Mary.  In addition, Seb is not Horus’s father, Osiris is.  Seb is Osiris’s father.  Further, Seb is a distinct name from Joseph.  Putting them side by side does not make them synonyms, and that appears to be what was done here.

Claim #3-Both were born of royal descent.

This is accurate.

Claim #4-Both births were announced by angels and witnessed by shepherds. 

I can find nothing that mentions that the birth of Horus was announced by an angel or witnessed by shepherds.  I have found that Horus was born in a swamp, which is a pretty unlikely place for shepherds.  In addition Acharya mentions that Horus was born in a cave.  Massey makes no mention of this, although he does represent that Mithra was born in a cave. 

Claim #5-Both were heralded by stars and angels. 

There is no star that heralded Horus’s birth nor is there any angel announcing it.  Archarya in a footnote in The Origins of Christianity indicates that that there are three stars named the three kings in Orion and then relates this to the birth of Jesus.  When we look to the stories regarding Horus, we find no star or angel announcing his birth.  To the extent that Acharya S relies upon Massey and Massey relies upon what is depicted in the panels at Luxor see (from an atheist) further regarding virgin birth and pronouncement by angels http://www.frontline-apologetics.com/carrier_luxor_inscription.htm

Claim #6-Both had later visitors (Horus-3 deities and Jesus-3 wisemen.)

There is no indication that there ever were 3 wisemen.  The bible never mentions the number of wisemen, nor is there any document that reflects 3 deities at the birth of Horus.  See the website referenced in Claim #5.

Claim #7-Both had murder plots against them. 

There is mention that Seth did want to kill Horus, and Herod wanted to kill Jesus.  so this is accurate.

Claim#8-Both came of age at 12, were baptized and their baptizers were executed. 

There is no indication that Horus was preaching in a temple when he was 12.  In fact, Massey indicates that Hours the child was depicted as a “weakling.” That doesn’t jive with story of Jesus preaching in the temple.  Again this appears to have been a confabulation from Acharya and repeated by others. 

Horus was never baptized in any of the Horus stories.  In addition, Acharya mentions that John the Baptist is actually Anup the Baptizer.  This individual is never mentioned anywhere in any Horus account.  There is not even a footnote in Archaya’s on-line work The Origins of Christianity to support this.  There is nothing.

Claim #9-Both had 12 disciples. 

According to the Horus accounts, Horus had four semi-gods that were followers.  There is some indication of 16 human followers and an unknown number of blacksmiths that went into battle with him.  Horus did not have 12 disciples. Jesus reportedly did.  Acharya failed to give a footnote to support this.

Massey points to a mural in the Book of Hades in which there are twelve reapers.  Horus is not present in this scene.  For Massey to make this connection he goes to a different scene within the same mural.  In this scene there is a picture of a god whose name is the Master of Joy.  Horus is never depicted although in other murals the artists do depict Horus.  Had the artists ascribed 12 reapers in any relation to Horus all they had to do was put Horus at the scene.  They did not. 

Claim #10-Both walked on water.

Horus didn’t, or at least there is no record that I can find that he did.  Massey does not maintain that Hours did.  Massey uses wild conjecture to connect the story of fish man, Oannes, not Horus, to Jesus.  Oannes came out of the sea during the day, and went back into the sea at night.  Massey makes the two analogous because by his calculations, Jesus walked on water during the day. 

As to Acharya, she as usual provides nothing to substantiate this. 

Claim #11-Both performed miracles. 

This is true although the miracles were different in scope and nature.

Claim #12 Both exorcised demons and raised Lazarus. 

The actual claim is that Horus raised Osiris from the dead and that the name Osiris morphed to Lazarus.  It doesn’t matter because Horus did not bring Osiris back to life.  There is no mention of this in any document regarding the story.  Horus did avenge Osiris’s death, but that did not raise Osiris from the dead. 

Claim #13-Both held a Sermon on the Mount; both were transfigured on a mountain, died by crucifixion along with two thieves and were buried in tombs where they paid a quick visit to Hell and then rose from the dead after 3 days time, both resurrections were witness by women, and both will supposedly reign for 1,000 years in the Millennium.

These are the most damning claims if they were proven true in my opinion.  Yet, I can locate none of this.  No sermon, no transfiguration, certainly no crucifixion w/ two thieves, no trip to hell and no resurrection.  There was an incident in which Horus was torn to pieces and Iris requested the crocodile god to fish him out of the water he was tossed into, which was done, but that’s it.  I am at a loss to refute this because I can not find anything to support it.

Massey does compares a story about the Autumn Equinox related to Osiris, not Horus, as the symbolic crucifixion.  There is no indication that Horus is involved in any way.  There is no mention by Massey of any Sermon on the Mount.  No mention or any actual crucifixion, no two thieves, no burial in a tomb.  Massey does not maintain that anything of the sort occurred with Horus. 

In short, of the claims outlined in this entry, I find the comparison between Horus and Jesus to consist of the following: they were of royal descent, they allegedly worked miracles and there were murder plots against them. 

Comments:

Page 22 of 32 pages « First  <  20 21 22 23 24 >  Last »

leguru United States Posted on 02/04/2008 at 01:04 PM

leguru pic

Topic? Topic? These threads are supposed to have a topic?  LOL  LOL

 Signature 

“What is a good man but a bad man’s teacher?
What is a bad man but a good man’s job?
If you don’t understand this, you will get lost,
however intelligent you are.
It is the great secret.” LAO-TZU

microgod United States Posted on 02/15/2008 at 06:05 AM

microgod pic

I haven’t read this entire thread, but from what I have read, it seems to be the case that a major source of confusion and distraction was/is Nunya’s fixation upon Consi’s perceived (or perhaps expressed, I don’t know) belief regarding the historical or mythological/allegorical basis of the story of Jesus. 

From what I can see, that matter is not at issue or even a factor in Consi’s initial post in this thread.  My understanding of the substrate of Consi’s argument is that the one story (that of Jesus) is not derived from the other (that of Horus).  The analysis thereof has no dependency whatsoever on any particular belief regarding the historical or mythological nature of either story.

microgod United States Posted on 02/15/2008 at 06:58 PM

microgod pic

I have to correct myself here.  This statement from my previous post:

“The analysis thereof has no dependency whatsoever on any particular belief regarding the historical or mythological nature of either story.”

is invalid, but is actually not what I meant to say.  It’s invalid because if ones takes the “Jesus story” as being historically literal and correct, then he or she cannot reasonably believe that it was derived from the “Horus story”.  Therefore one’s belief regarding the historical vs. fictional nature of the Jesus story is not irrelevant to or independent of the analysis of whether the one was derived from the other.

The point I more so meant to make, is that the analysis of whether or not the Jesus story was derived from the Horus story has no dependency on one’s belief regarding Jesus himself having been a historical or fictional figure in general.

This view emphasizes the distinction between the “Jesus story” - the metadata surrounding Jesus’ alleged historical life - and Jesus’ alleged message/teachings themselves, which in my opinion, are far more relevant and worthy of attention, examination and analysis than the metadata surrounding his alleged life.

It is possible to believe that the Jesus story was derived from the Horus story, yet still believe that Jesus lived as an actual/historical person, as well as to believe “x” about his actual message/teachings.

It is also possible, obviously, to have that same belief about the Jesus/Horus stories, and believe that Jesus never lived at all. 

Therefore, as I intended to say originally, the analysis of whether or not the Jesus and Horus stories are one and the same has no dependency on one’s belief regarding the historical vs. fictional nature of Jesus’ existence.  I was originally compelled to make this statement in response to the fact that Nunya mentioned several times that a “fallacy” in Consi’s argument was his belief that Jesus ever actually existed.

Ku United States Posted on 02/26/2008 at 08:25 AM

Ku pic

For those who haven’t seen it, Google Zeitgeist the movie and watch it. It shows the similarities between all the “Sun” Gods.

The 12 constellations in the stars are what guide the sun and are usually represented in nature by animals or things that happen during that time. IE Aquarius who brings the Spring rain.

(These days are just rough estimates) As many before me have mentioned, Horus(3000 BC) and Jesus have billions of similarities. Teacher at 12, baptized at age of 30, performed miracles, crucified, and resurrected. Others with very similar backgrounds include: Attis (1200 BC), Mithra (1200 BC), Krishna (900 BC), Dionysus (500 BC), etc.

I cannot say that Jesus = Horus. But I can say for sure that these similarities are too similar to just turn the other cheek. You cannot ignore the fact that they all share VERY similar attributes.

3 kings = Orion’s belt follow Sirius star in the east.
Virin Mary = virgo constellation, house of bread = Bethelhem.
So many astrological coincidences.

The story of Moses was a direct knock off of Sargon of Akkad. I don’t even need to give sources for this one since much of his story was documented. It was almost word for word, except with a change of names and places.
Noah’s ark is another rewritten story of Gilgamesh.

10 Commandments? From the Book of the Dead of Negative Confessions.

4: I have not committed theft. (Thou shall not steal)
5: I have not slain man. (Thou shall not kill)
... and the others.

I also love how the bible will repeat some of its stories.

Joseph of Old Testament (pre-Jesus)
-miracle birth, of 12 brothers (12 diciples), sold for 20 pieces of gold (sold for 30), JuDAH suggests sale (JuDAS suggests sale), both worked at age of 30.

“The Christian religion is a parody on the worship of the sun, in which they put a man called Christ in the place of the sun, and pay him the adoration originally payed to the Sun” - Thomas Paine.

The Christian religion was used to gain power. Why do you think the Lutheran church started? To evade the corruption of the Catholic church.

Sorry everything is so choppy; it’s 4 am and I’m quite tired.

Last_Hussar Great Britain (UK) Posted on 02/26/2008 at 09:59 PM

Last_Hussar pic

Fetch the stakes, silver bullets and garlic- this is the thread that refuses to die.

 Signature 

I know of only two things that are infinite- The universe, and human stupidity.
And I’m not sure about the universe.
(Einstein)

MisterMook United States Posted on 02/27/2008 at 12:21 AM

MisterMook pic

It’s like a rash running through the popular kids at high school.

Geoff United States Posted on 02/29/2008 at 04:50 AM

Geoff pic

Granted I didn’t have time to read all the posts but there are a few things I can’t accept, at least about nunyabiz’s comments in 2005.
Consg. is quite right, there is not much evidence (and I have read several different versions of the book of the dead) that Isis was a virgin or that Horus was the product of an immaculate conception.
In terms of Zeitgeist, I have also watched that several times through and done some surface investigation into the sources they used. For one, the “astrological references” in the bible are few and far between and usually have no indication of being related to astrology in any way. The primary examples they use in Zeitgeist are: John 16:9-11, in which Jesus feeds 5000 people with barley bread and two fish that are said to represent Piesces, the fact is that, and this is a historical fact, bread and fish were main staples of ancient diets, and besides there is no indication that the “two fish” are relevant to the story for any reasons that point to astrology. Next zeitgeist uses Matthew 4:19, in which Jesus recruits two fishermen (the brothers Paul and Simon, I believe, but I may be wrong on the names) but what it fails to mention is that in the exact same passage Jesus also recruits 2 other fishermen (James and John, and these I am sure of) making a total of 4 fishermen, not 2. Another claim that zeitgeist makes is that in Luke 22:10, Jesus tells his disciples to follow a man carrying a jug of water into a house and that this represents the transition from the age of Piesces (the two fish) to Aquarius (the water carrier), This, which the documentary says is, and I quote “This scripture is by far one of the most revealing of all the astrological references” is no more likely to be a symbolism of Aquarius than Jack running up the hill to fetch a pail of water. Another, seemingly damning, piece of evidence it offers is Matthew 28:20, “I will be with you until the end of the age/ (mistranslation) world”. Christians make no secret of the fact that, in the King James Version of the bible, age was mistranslated as world because the term age is meant to signify the end of the age of man on earth. According to Revelation Jesus will visit earth just before the 7 years of tribulation begin, then the anti-Christ will take over and the world will go to, forgive the pun, hell in a hand basket, after which Jesus will return to earth (still technically hasn’t left permanently at this point) imprison Satan and 1000 years of sin free peace will reign on earth, which will have basically returned to Eden. At the end of this 1000 years Satan will escape (which causes a “final judgment” of man, i.e. humans will be forced to choose between sin and god, which is a drastically different idea of the “final judgment” of Egypt in which Anubis weighs the soul of individuals when they die against the feather of law, notice how zeitgeist tried to play them off as the same thing, wrong) and Jesus will, for the last time, return to earth, banish Satan and everyone who has gone to hell to an unknown fate (presumably worse than hell and or nonexistence) and EVERYONE, including Jesus will leave the earth, never to return again, thus ending the age of man on earth.

Now if all this doesn’t convince you that zeitgeist is, shall we say, less than credible, look at the interactive transcript. If you look at the source cited section of that page you’ll notice that there are 197 references for “the greatest story ever told” part. Seems pretty impressive at first glance, but when you take a closer look, you’ll notice that there are only 33 actual source document references (27 of which are from the King James Bible which is widely accepted as mistranslated, yes even by Christians) from the Bible, The Book of the Dead and The Epic of Gilgamesh, only 3 are from the BOD and Gilgamesh. To add to that, nearly all other sources cited are from books trying to disprove Christianity. It is never, ever, considered academically correct to cite biased sources as the main source of proof for a historical argument. Now granted, there isn’t much source documentation proving Christianity either but there’s more than there is disproving it.
And, to top it all off, if you look closely, you’ll notice at least three sources that are cited as Wikipedia (S104, 105 and 108). I wasn’t able to get away with citing Wikipedia as a source in papers I wrote in MIDDLE SCHOOL, so how anyone can find zeitgeist credible is beyond me. (And yes, Wikipedia was around when I was in middle school, I’m only and undergraduate student now)

So to sum it up there’s no real evidence that the bible is Astrology based myth. I won’t lie to you, I am an Atheist turned Christian, but then I’m also a democrat and political science/history major, so I refuse to let any one trait define me.

These are just some of the problems with theories that have attempted to disprove Christianity; I have many more if you want to hear them. The fact is, there is no way to prove or disprove it either way, it is all a matter of faith and I believe that Jesus Christ is my savior and that’s really all that matters. Even though I know this will piss many of you off, whether you want to believe it or not, God loves every single living being and no one can find true happiness until they realize and accept that fact.

In regards to any of the other portions of Zeitgeist that seem true, I have counter points to nearly every idea they argue in the whole film and I’m perfectly willing to voice them to anyone who wants to hear. If you’re still reading this thanks and God bless.

P.S. if you want to get in touch with me about anything I’ve said here my email is

-Geoff

zilch Sweden Posted on 02/29/2008 at 06:48 AM

zilch pic

These are just some of the problems with theories that have attempted to disprove Christianity; I have many more if you want to hear them. The fact is, there is no way to prove or disprove it either way, it is all a matter of faith and I believe that Jesus Christ is my savior and that’s really all that matters.

Proof, if any were needed, that there are reasonable Christians!  Thank you Geoff, for what seems to be a balanced assessment of Zeitgeist.

Now for some nitpicking.  You say:

It is never, ever, considered academically correct to cite biased sources as the main source of proof for a historical argument. Now granted, there isn’t much source documentation proving Christianity either but there’s more than there is disproving it.

I suppose the Bible itself doesn’t count as a “biased source” with you.  I would beg to differ: the authors were selling their religion, and that is a well-known inducer of bias.  And saying there’s “not much” source documentation proving Christianity is a bit understated: aside from the fact that some of the history in the Bible is independently attested to, there is practically none; and the central event of Christianity, the Resurrection, is only documented in the Bible.  By these standards Gilgamesh can’t be disproved any more than the Bible can.  And if we consider the number of internal contradictions in the Bible, and errors of fact, then I submit that we can safely discount its dependability as an historical document.

But as you say, believing is a matter of faith.  As Martin Luther said, reason is the enemy of faith:

“Reason is the Devil’s greatest whore; by nature and manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil’s appointed whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom… Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism… She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets.”

― Martin Luther, Erlangen Edition v. 16, pp. 142‐148

In any case, if you’re ever in Vienna, or in SF this summer, drop me a line.  Cheers, zilch

 Signature 

You were born.  And so you’re free.  So happy birthday.
- Laurie Anderson

Mikhail_T United States Posted on 02/29/2008 at 08:53 AM

Mikhail_T pic

You can’t measure the infinite with a finite stick.

:Z

What else is there to say? We’re not omnipotent. How can we declare or deny things so broadly?

I find it interesting that people try to disprove God or to even preach atheism.

I don’t have anything against it, but preaching atheism?

Prophets of your own logic? As if your mind was infallible.

As if we were infallible.

zilch Sweden Posted on 02/29/2008 at 11:47 AM

zilch pic

What exactly constitutes “preaching atheism”, Mikhail?  If I say I don’t believe in God, and don’t think God belongs in public school science classrooms, or other people’s bedrooms, am I “preaching” atheism?

 Signature 

You were born.  And so you’re free.  So happy birthday.
- Laurie Anderson

Geoff United States Posted on 02/29/2008 at 04:35 PM

Geoff pic

Zilch,

Thanks, it’s good to know that not everyone thinks that if you’re Christian, you’re a religious fanatic.

But I do have to say this; I don’t hold the Bible as an unbiased source. Speaking from a purely academic standpoint, the Bible couldn’t be any more biased, but we aren’t trying here to prove Christianity right using the bible as a source document, all were saying is that there is a book, that is regarded by many as a historical account of the life of Jesus. The question is whether or not those accounts are fictional.

It really doesn’t matter whether the bible in unbiased or not because, as long as your approaching your investigation without using the Bible as an argument for it’s own truth then it is irrelevant.

Now to address the matter of the Bible having errors, contradictions and undocumented occurrences that you would think would have been documented. Remember, the Bible was written, at least supposedly, by men who were there (i.e. more than one person recounting the same event many years after the fact cannot be expected to have all their recollections match up perfectly), but didn’t actually begin writing until many years after the facts. Now let’s assume, for a moment, that the Bible is a, semi-non biased documentation of historical events. If this is how it was written then the memories of all the authors would be susceptible to the faults of memory.

On top of that, our interpretation and translations of the Bible have almost all been subject to manipulation on the part of people attempting to use the bible for their own reasons (i.e. The Council of Nicea, The Catholic Church during the time it had a monopoly on Christianity, etc), which is another reason I refuse to use the Bible as proof of it’s own truth. I don’t think it is too extreme to say that, for these reasons, the bible can be taken no more as proof of it’s own truth than it can be proof of it’s own falsehood.

In terms of parts of the bible containing unsubstantiated events, I don’t believe that that fact can “disprove” the bible, simply because many major historical events have been lost or interpreted as myth, over time. Look at Homer’s Odyssey and Iliad as an example: For thousands of years humanity has regarded the Trojan War as a fictional occurrence in a fictional place, but recently archeologists have begun to discover physical evidence of Troy and the Trojan War. There’s no telling how many real life events, that could potentially substantiate the Bible, have been lost over time.

Please keep in mind here that while I am a Christian I’m trying to look at this from a purely academic and unbiased standpoint.

All I’m saying here is that every argument that attempts to disprove Christianity can be turned around to prove it, and vice versa.

Again, just to drive the point home, I don’t want to get into a shouting match with anyone, I don’t want to insult anyone, I just want to explain how I, when I was an Atheist, came to grips with the facts (or lack thereof) of Christianity.

In the end I looked at it and said “There’s not much absolute proof one way or the other” but I chose to believe because it fulfilled me in a way that I can’t really express in words.

Even the most steadfast skeptics can’t deny that the most basic principle of the bible, itself, is be good to your fellow man, regardless of whether he is a sinner or not or whether he is a Christian or not. To all these skeptics: Christians aren’t evangelical because they are so self assured of their own superiority and righteousness, We Christians are evangelical because we believe it’s the best and only route to happiness.

The bible did not say “Kill the Muslims in the Crusades”, “Burn people at the stake for being witches”, or “Take all the hard earned money away from the people common people to pay for your own extravagant style of living”. What it did say was “Do not kill” and “Do not steal”. I think the bible gets a bad wrap simply because it has been used, many times over the centuries, by corrupt people who twist it to fit their own ideas.

I realize I have skewed from the original topic a little here but I felt it needed to be explained so you can understand my reasoning.

Thanks for reading,
Geoff

Geoff United States Posted on 02/29/2008 at 04:46 PM

Geoff pic

A side note on my privious comment.

Just to let you all know, I am an avid supporter of the first amendment. Regardless of my own faith I have no right to impose it on others. I support legalizeing gay marraige (I know, I’m a Christian, but you don’t see me trying to make “coveting thy neighbor’s wife” a sin), I support the idea of non-biased fact based teachin in the classroom, or that “God is on our side”. I do however, opposed abortion, but not for religious reasons, but that’s another story.

I hope that gives me a little more credibility.

Geoff United States Posted on 02/29/2008 at 04:51 PM

Geoff pic

Wow, I’m off today.

A note on my note:

What I meant to say was…

..."Coveting they neighbors wife” illegal* (please don’t misconstrue, read above)

... I don’t support the idea that “God is on our (America’s) side” he’s on everyones side.

and the numerous other spelling errors.

Sorry, my bad,
Geoff

Patness Canada Posted on 02/29/2008 at 07:34 PM

Patness pic

It really doesn’t matter whether the bible in unbiased or not because, as long as your approaching your investigation without using the Bible as an argument for it’s own truth then it is irrelevant.

I respectfully disagree here, Geoff. I think it matters, the credibility of the Bible as an authoritative source. For that reason, bias matters. And, more than simply using it as an argument for it’s own truth (which is invalid because of it’s close cyclical argument style), I think it is invalid to use the Bible as an argument for anything, except where the possibility that it is fiction is irrelevant (such as a literary argument).

I also disagree with:

Even the most steadfast skeptics can’t deny that the most basic principle of the bible, itself, is be good to your fellow man, regardless of whether he is a sinner or not or whether he is a Christian or not.

because at it’s core, the Bible asserts itself to be the interplay between human and divine perspectives. The Hebrew Bible (Old Testament, Tanakh, whatever) and the New Testament present very different perspectives on that authority - but underlying that is the presence and absolute authority of God. Both books put use to the phrase that you’re to love God and love your neighbor. It’s the central focus of the NT, but it’s peripheral in the OT and is easily overlooked in the face of all the God-sponsored warfare. The authority of God is the constant between them, and I think that makes a better candidate for the “basic principle of the bible, itself”.
 Signature 

The Kidney Punch Of Legendary Peace

One sure and primary and fundamental fact is the joint existence of a subject and of its world. The one does not exist without the other. I acquire no understanding of myself except as I take account of objects, of the surroundings. I do not think unless I think of things — and there I find myself. - Bruce Lee

Geoff United States Posted on 02/29/2008 at 08:46 PM

Geoff pic

Patness,

Excellent points.

You’re absolutely right; you can’t use the bible as proof of anything. But at the same time I have to hold to what I have said before: It is just as impossible to use the Bible to prove that it’s fiction. There are many, possible and rational, reasons why there might be discrepancies among the books of the Bible.

Another important distinction I probably should have made is that when I refer to the Bible, what I’m primarily saying is the New Testament.

Again, I feel I have misspoken. What I should have said is that being good to your fellow man is “one of” the basic principles of the Bible. You’re exactly correct, in that the main principle of both the New and Old testaments is the authority of God over all things. But, the focus of Christianity is on the New Testament, not the Old. The only thing I meant to imply with my original statement is that, based on this principle of the New Testament, there has been a lot of good done in the world. Christianity gets a bad reputation because of the Crusades, the Inquisition, witch trials, manifest destiny and so on, but I don’t think it’s fair to judge Christianity today based on those events. For example, at the beginning of zeitgeist there is a cartoon that says “And he (God) needs money!  ....All knowing, all powerful.... but somehow, just can’t handle money...” The problem with this misconception is that God doesn’t “need” money; the Church uses that money, at least in most cases, for humanitarian purposes. Take my church, for example, right now we’re helping sponsor a friend of mine, to go to India and assist in local schools that are severely understaffed. The only thing I’m trying to say is that Christianity (I’m not including Catholicism in this mainly because it operates on many biblical interpretations that we know were developed by corrupt individuals), today, doesn’t deserve to be judged based on those events of the past and isolated instances of corruption today. You would be hard pressed, today, to find anyone who actually profits from tithing to churches, simply because only a small of that money goes into the church in the form of basic expenses like maintenance of buildings, and subsistence of full time staff. The bulk of this money, however, goes to humanitarian/evangelical programs (and keep in mind here the only purpose of evangelism, to Christians, is to bring people to God which is, at the very least in our minds, beneficial for the convertee and God).

But in any case, this discussion began with the idea that the Bible could be disproved and I still have to say that, based on everything I have already said, it is impossible to either prove or disprove the bible.

Just for the sake of thoroughness I’ll say again, I’m not trying to offend anyone and, when I did most of the research on this topic, I was an Atheist and not biased towards or against Christianity.

I really do appreciate that people haven’t been trying to un-convert me or get angry over what I have to say. It’s good to know that there are people who are willing to present their sides of the argument rationally and calmly.

Thanks again,
Geoff

Last_Hussar Great Britain (UK) Posted on 02/29/2008 at 10:14 PM

Last_Hussar pic

But, the focus of Christianity is on the New Testament, not the Old

But Jesus was a believer in the Old Testament, and espouses it.

 Signature 

I know of only two things that are infinite- The universe, and human stupidity.
And I’m not sure about the universe.
(Einstein)

Geoff United States Posted on 02/29/2008 at 11:24 PM

Geoff pic

Last Hussar,

True. However Christians do beleive the Old Testemant is fact, but we hold the New Testemant as a higher authority than the Old.

Geoff

Infernus United States Posted on 03/01/2008 at 12:21 AM

Infernus pic

Geoff,

So to sum it up there’s no real evidence that the bible is Astrology based myth.

You only say that after you have attempted to discredit Zeitgeist’s comparisons that you say are its “primary examples”, such as that the claims that were made about Jesus in the Bible that involved fish or fishermen are actually a reference to Pisces, the Age in which Jesus lived (which, by the way, is also the true source of the “Jesus Fish” symbol that some Christians choose to display as a symbol of their faith), and that when Jesus told his disciples about a man carrying a jug of water he was referring to the coming Age of Aquarius that, according to the Zodiac, is in fact coming, and after you have also attempted to discredit its claim to the number of sources it draws from as well as the credibility of those sources by calling them biased, but you fail to make any mention of the most obvious points that were made in that movie on the astrological coincidences that do in fact occur and concur with the stories of Jesus in the Bible which can be verified with your own naked eye by looking up at the sky at night an observing the constellations and their relation to the position of the sun in the sky during the day on certain dates that mark the pagan Solstices which also just so happen to be the same dates on which the vast majority of contemporary Christians celebrate the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus every single year.  That, to me, is the primary evidence that is the most compelling of all and the rest of the similarities that exist between Christianity and all of the other pagan mythologies that are based on Astrology that Zeitgeist points out are just cursory examples that further go to prove the point, but by no means are they the “primary examples” that you should be looking at before the other, more obvious points that were made.  Even if you choose to deny the cursory examples such as those you mentioned you cannot refute the primary evidence which is the direct and irrefutable collaboration of the very sky itself with your own Biblical writings that you still insist on believing is the infallible word of God.

In case you missed it, even though you claim to have watched the movie several times, I will reiterate it here:

Jesus Christ was born of the virgin Mary on December 25th in Bethlehem, his birth was announced by a star in the east, which three kings followed to locate and adorn the new savior.

The star in the east is Sirius, the brightest star in the night sky, which, on December 24th, aligns with the 3 brightest stars in Orion’s Belt.  These 3 bright stars are called today what they were called in ancient times - The Three Kings.  The Three Kings and the brightest star, Sirius, all point to the place of the sunrise on December 25th.  This is why the Three Kings “follow” the star in the east, in order to locate the sunrise - the birth of the sun.

The Virgin Mary is the constellation Virgo, also known as Virgo the Virgin.  Virgo in Latin means virgin.  The ancient glyph for Virgo is the altered “m”.  This is why Mary along with other virgin mothers, such as Adonis’s mother Myrrha, or Buddha’s mother Maya begin with an M.  Virgo is also referred to as the House of Bread, and the representation of Virgo is a virgin holding a sheaf of wheat.  In turn, Bethlehem, in fact, literally translates to “house of bread”.  Bethlehem is thus a reference to the constellation Virgo, a place in the sky, not on Earth.

Jesus had 12 disciples with whom he traveled about with during his life.  The 12 disciples represent the 12 astrological constellations that the sun travels about during its “life”.  Since Jesus represents the Sun, which is God, that makes perfect sense.  After being betrayed Jesus was crucified, placed in a tomb, and after 3 days was resurrected and ascended into Heaven.

There is another very interesting phenomenon that occurs around December 25th, or the winter solstice.  From the summer solstice to the winter solstice, the days become shorter and colder.  From the perspective of the northern hemisphere, the sun appears to move south and get smaller and more scarce.  The shortening of the days and the expiration of the crops when approaching the winter solstice symbolized the process of death to the ancients.  It was the death of the Sun.  By December 22nd, the Sun’s demise was fully realized, for the Sun, having moved south continually for 6 months, makes it to it’s lowest point in the sky.  Here a curious thing occurs: the Sun stops moving south, at least perceivably, for 3 days.  During this 3 day pause, the Sun resides in the vicinity of the Southern Cross, or Crux, constellation.  And after this time on December 25th, the Sun moves 1 degree, this time north, foreshadowing longer days, warmth, and Spring.  And thus it was said: the Sun died on the cross, was dead for 3 days, only to be resurrected or born again.  This is why Jesus and numerous other Sun Gods share the crucifixion, 3-day death, and resurrection concept.  It is the Sun’s transition period before it shifts its direction back into the Northern Hemisphere, bringing Spring, and thus salvation.

However, people did not celebrate the resurrection of the Sun until the Spring Equinox, or Easter.  This is because at the Spring Equinox, the Sun officially “overpowers the evil darkness”, as daytime thereafter becomes longer in duration than night, and the revitalizing conditions of Spring emerge.

This is exactly why it just so happens that modern day Christians celebrate the birth and resurrection of Jesus right around or on the very same dates that so many pagans before them celebrated the Winter and Spring Solstices and it also shows why so many Churches of Christ have, throughout Christian history, used and still continue to use the symbol of a cross encompassed within a circle as the symbol of their faith in Jesus, which is also the ancient symbol of the Zodiac - the very same Zodiac that all modern day Christians also condemn as nothing but unholy paganism.  Talk about hypocrisy!

In all fairness, one could even attempt to use these Astrological facts as evidence that Christianity was divinely inspired, they could say that since the most important Biblical events coincided with Astrological events in the sky that can still be viewed today that it was indeed an act of God that transpired, however they would have to concede to the idea that the Zodiac itself is also divinely inspired and that is something that most Christians are just not willing to do, even if it might help their case to some extent.

Now granted, there isn’t much source documentation proving Christianity either but there’s more than there is disproving it.

There is absolutely nothing to prove Christianity outside the Bible and that can’t be used to prove anything because every book in the Bible was written by someone who was already a devout believer in the faith.  Whether or not it was the truth is irrelevant because there’s no way to prove it outside their faith.  They simply believed that it was the truth, for whatever reason, and therefore it was, to them, and that was that.  And so it is today, subsequently, to everyone else who chooses to accept what these ancient people believed on blind faith as well.

I also find it just a little strange that even though Jesus is the central figure of Christianity, none of the books in the New Testament were actually written by him, a fact that no one disputes.  Actually, no, I don’t find that strange at all since most other religions of ancient times that mirror Christianity are exactly the same way, always written after the fact by someone else other than the actual central figure of worship who supposedly lived on the earth at some period of time and performed miracles to prove their divinity and yet they weren’t smart enough to even write down their own “word of God” so that we all could know it, straight from the horse’s mouth, instead of having to rely on other stupid humans to interpret the message that they were supposedly sent to bring us and pass it along in an appropriate manner to all the generations thereafter that supposedly need to hear it or else be damned.  And we are expected to just take the words of these mortal, imperfect men for everything and base our very salvation on it and if we don’t we will, of course, go straight to Hell.  Yeah right.

Let’s not forget that the very first English translation of the Bible, a compilation of many different books (but not all of them, some were deliberately left out) of an ancient Hebrew religion that originated in the Middle East of all places, wasn’t even produced until the 1500’s.  So unless you choose to learn the ancient Hebrew language for the explicit purpose of deciphering what’s left of the “original” writings for yourself, you have no way of even coming close to knowing exactly how much of that writing has been altered over the vast course of time by the numerous mistranslations and misinterpretations, both accidental and deliberate, that have undoubtedly occurred due to the constant state of dispute that those very writings have always been involved in by their own sages and followers, especially considering all the estranged denominations, sects, and cults that the broken religion of Christianity continues to suffer with in vain to this very day.  Not to mention that there is no possible way to know how much of the original teachings of the early Christians were deliberately cut out and how much garbage was added in by various men lusting for power with their own selfish agendas.  And therefore you do not have any way of truly being “saved” by any of the potentially tainted Christian theology that they all claim is the infallible world of God even though they can’t even agree amongst themselves on what is and what is not and I suspect that they never will be able to because that is the nature of Man.  I seriously doubt that an infinitely wise and perfect God would trust in all these inherently sinful men to keep His Word fully intact and transfer it to future generations over the millennia completely undamaged if that is the only way by which we can all be saved.  Unless, of course, He really doesn’t give a damn about us after all.  No, actually I think if He really had something important to tell us He would have rearranged the stars in the sky to spell out exactly what He wants to say or something like that so then no one could ever possibly tamper with it instead of counting on multiple generations of flawed humans to pass it along via word of mouth that can be slurred and forgotten and scrolls that deteriorate with age and exposure to the elements.

Zilch,

As Martin Luther said, reason is the enemy of faith.

How true that is, and vice versa.  Christians want us to deny reason so we can accept their faith blindly because they know that there is no possible way that reason can coexist with it.  Therefore it is not possible to be a fully reasonable person and be a Christian at the same time.  The average Christian may not be an irrational person in general but at least where religion is concerned they are required to be otherwise they cannot be a true Christian who fully accepts the Bible as truth because of the simple fact that none of its core doctrines can be proven by any means outside of divine intervention.  Sure, they might be able to verify certain historical aspects that concern names, dates, and places but that is irrelevant.  I do believe that there are historical grains of truth in the Bible.  The main issue, however, is that they cannot prove any of their most important beliefs, which are those that deal with things outside the realm of actual human perception, such as the afterlife and the Creator.  Therefore, unless a person is capable of accepting Christianity on blind faith alone, that person is also incapable of accepting Christianity period, and there is no way that is a fault that is deserving of any kind of punishment, let alone one that includes eternal suffering!  The simple fact of the matter is that even if Christianity is 100% true God did not give us humans any other means by which to accept it as truth unless you happen to be one of the lucky few who has supposedly received a personal message, vision, visitation, or prophesy of some sort that cannot be logically disputed.  Christians claim that this has indeed happened to select members of their religion and that is precisely how the Gospels came to be, however the rest of us have no choice except to either reject these claims entirely or accept them totally on blind faith.  Does God really want us to have blind faith in the truth?  I don’t think so because having blind faith can easily cause a person to believe in a lie just as well as the truth and God does not want us to believe in lies, only the truth.  The only way to find the truth is by searching for it yourself rather than by choosing to take other people’s words as truth on blind faith alone.

Let me give a clear example of why having blind faith in anything is inherently wrong:  Someone could walk up to me on the street tell me that I need to accept Bugs Bunny as my savior in order to be saved from my sins and get right with God and I could choose to believe it on blind faith and that’s exactly what it would take in order for me to do so.  I would have to have blind faith in that person’s words in order to accept their story as truth.  Obviously in this case having blind faith would be a very bad thing since there is no proof that what they are saying is true and it is pretty safe to assume that what they are saying is wrong, whether they really believe it or not.  I would of course reject their claim immediately on the basis of common sense and I would assume that the person is either totally crazy or just bullshitting me for the hell of it, but the person who is saying it could still nonetheless make up a whole story about Bugs Bunny being the Son of God and all that and they could also threaten me with everlasting damnation in a pit full of fire and brimstone if I refuse to believe it.  Is that going to make me believe it?  No it is not.  They could also pull a piece of paper out of their pocket that has the whole story written down on it and give it to me and I could take that piece of paper and read it for myself.  But is that going to make me believe it?  No it is not.  I believe that Bugs Bunny is just a fictional character that was made up by some guy for the sole purpose of entertaining simple-minded people.  In all honesty, I feel basically the same way about Jesus Christ and the Christian Bible.  And it really doesn’t matter if it is just one personal who is trying to get me to believe a story that they just made up and wrote down themselves 15 minutes ago or if it is 2 billion people that are trying to get me to believe a story that was made up 2000 years ago by someone else, that doesn’t make the given story any more or less true.

Knowledge of truth negates the need for having faith.  If there was indisputable proof of any religious claims there would be no need to have faith in it and since there is no proof of it that is why faith is an absolute requirement in following religion.  Christians don’t even try to deny this fact and yet people are so stupid and so afraid of not knowing the truth that they still choose to have blind faith in religion so they can pretend that they do have the truth even though the proof of it, if it exists, has yet to be discovered, and very well may not even exist at all, whether it is true or not.  In my opinion, science is the only way that we humans currently have, under normal circumstances, without having some kind of direct divine intervention of a personal nature that is indisputable to the individual who is witness to it, to reveal the truth about our universe and not coincidentally, Christians have worked vehemently to suppress the advancement of science for centuries and even continue to do so to this day.  There is no telling how much further along we would be today technologically if religion hadn’t been allowed to block scientific advancement for as long as it has and that is sad because, believe it or not, science and the technology that arises out of it may very well be the only way by which we all can discover and verify the real truth that God wants us to know.  Just a thought.

Geoff United States Posted on 03/01/2008 at 04:23 AM

Geoff pic

Infernus,

To begin with, I’ve tried to make it clear that I’m not trying to offend anyone and I’m not trying to piss anyone off, I’m simply trying to present my side of the story so let’s not get into a shouting match over it.

First off,

Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary on December 25th in Bethlehem

We (Christians) are well aware of the astrological significance of December 25 and we make no secret of it. It is also a well known and established fact that the date of Jesus’ birth was not December 25, nor does the bible ever say, or imply that that is the date. We know that when Rome adopted Christianity as its official religion, there was a meeting held, called the council of Nicea, which officially decided to say that Jesus was born on December 25 to supplement an existing Roman holiday based on that exact occurrence. The Council of Nicea also chose many other important events in Christianity to coincide with other holidays like his resurrection (Easter) and a few others I can’t think of off the top of my head. Also the original Hebrew word used to describe Jesus at that time was “Child” not “Infant” most biblical historians agree that Jesus was around two at the time of the “three kings” in Bethlehem. If you read carefully the bible never says that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, just that he was there when the “3 kings” found him.

Now, to address the issue of the three kings and the eastern star. Nowhere, in any text of the bible does it say that there were, “3” Kings. That misconception comes from the fact that Jesus received three separate gifts, but nowhere does it say that there were only 3 people. Further, the term kings is a mistranslation, the original texts of the Bible translate literally to mean 3 “magi” or wise men. I think we can all agree that there is a big difference between Kings and Wise Men. As to the “eastern star” I must again point out that the bible says, a star in the east, and that the star remained fixed over wherever Jesus was (Whether the magi be north, south, east or west of Jesus) until the magi arrived, as far as I know there is no way to relate a star that never moves at all to any one particular star in the sky.

In terms of the constellation “Virgo the Virgin” being Mary. The constellation Virgo appears in the sky during the month of May, not December. I wouldn’t think that the “Astrological Authors” would choose a constellation that appears in May to embody an event that happens in December. There is also a good deal of evidence that Bethlehem was a real city.

But, as you say, there is still the problem of the 12 disciples being the 12 astrological symbols, but it says in the bible that the 12 disciples are representative of the 12 tribes of Israel. These 12 men were described as the “inner core” of his followers and corresponded far more to the 12 tribes of Israel than to any constellations, there were many other consistent followers of Jesus that would have also been called disciples (i.e. more than 12 disciples). Also I feel I must note that, had the 12 disciples been astrological representations then why was Mary (“Virgo”) not considered a disciple?

As to the next paragraph, I have already addressed the issue of Jesus being “born on December 25th” but your right, around the time of Jesus’ supposed death and resurrection the sun rises in the vicinity of the crux constellation. However, we already know that Jesus did not die on this date and that crucifixion was an extremely common form of execution in and around the time Jesus supposedly lived. Isn’t it possible that the date chosen by the Council of Nicea to be the “official” date of Jesus’ resurrection could have been chosen for the exact reason that that occurrence happens, then used that fact to say “look were right, how could we have changed the stars to show this”?

Again I feel I have to point out the fact that crucifixion was a common method of execution at the time so when, assuming the bible was created by corrupt people to serve their purposes, the symbol of the cross was chosen, it would make a lot more sense to use the crucifixion cross as the primary symbol as opposed to a small cutout of an astrological chart?

In all fairness, one could even attempt to use these Astrological facts as evidence that Christianity was divinely inspired, they could say that since the most important Biblical events coincided with Astrological events in the sky that can still be viewed today that it was indeed an act of God that transpired, however they would have to concede to the idea that the Zodiac itself is also divinely inspired and that is something that most Christians are just not willing to do, even if it might help their case to some extent.

And I also feel I need to disagree with you on this point. I, as well as many other Christians, are willing to admit that the constellations could possibly have been divinely inspired; According to the book of Genesis God did create the Sun, Moon and Stars, but, as I think my counter points have shown, there is really not much relating the Bible to astrology. (Also, Christians don’t deny these constellations exist, we just deny they have any hidden meaning)

I also find it just a little strange that even though Jesus is the central figure of Christianity, none of the books in the New Testament were actually written by him, a fact that no one disputes.

True, Jesus did not write any books of the bible but please at least consider these two possibilities (Arguing, of course, from the standpoint that Jesus was real and who he claimed to be, as you do): 1. Jesus did not write the bible himself because one book written by one man claiming to be the Son of God would sound a little crazier than a few men writing different books at different times. And 2. That Jesus knew when and how he was going to die (very likely, read the story of the last supper) and also realized that, were he to write his own autobiography, that he would not have had the time to devote to writing such a lengthy story.

Further, you will never find an educated and well versed Christian claiming that the Bible is infallible, wholly complete or unsusceptible to change from the corruption in the Catholic Church. Modern Christianity (i.e. Protestantism. I have made the distinction between Protestantism and Catholicism before) has closely examined the bible and done it’s best to look at what exactly the core principles of the New Testament are: Worshiping Jesus as our savior, treating all men equally and evangelism. Christians base their belief o these principles, not on the book itself (that would be idol worship, which is a sin).

The last two things I want to mention are the other “astrological references” in the bible and the idea of the “Jesus Fish” being a representation of Pisces. All the astrological signs put together represent, at least in some aspect, fairly common things in our world. You wouldn’t go to a zoo and say “This zoo has a goat (Capricorn), a lion (Leo) and a Bull (Taurus), the people who built this zoo must have been trying to make a statement about astrology!” As I said before, other “astrological references” in the bible are few and far between and those few passages that could be misinterpreted that way have no indication of being anything more than a cursory mention of a bull, goat, fish, etc. If you read those supposed passages in context you will find that none of them have any more astrological relevance than the animals in our hypothetical zoo.

As to the idea of the “Jesus Fish” being a representation of Pisces, the actual origins of the Jesus Fish come from the times when Christians were being persecuted in Rome. The original translation of the word Jesus, in Latin, began with the letter I, which was also the first letter of the Latin word for fish. Needing a way to stay in contact with one another, one Christian, at some point or another, came up with the symbol of the fish as an unrecognizable symbol of their faith, to be used specifically in times of persecution. During these times, when one Christian would meet another they thought was also, they would slowly draw an x on the ground with their foot, if the other person responded by completing the symbol of the fish then they both knew that the other would not turn them in for speaking of their faith. That’s why the “Jesus Fish” is just a simple curved line rather than any number of other, more elaborate symbols. This is a documented and substantiated fact.

Keep in mind here that I’m not trying to prove the Christianity is true, I’m simply trying to dispel the, farfetched, rumor that the Bible is all one big Astrological allegory. Regardless of its truth, there is little evidence to suggest that the Bible is an astrology based myth.

I believe that I have answered most of your claims, but I would be happy to look into any other evidence you can provide. Again, I’m not approaching this as a religious fanatic or even from the standpoint that the bible is fact; I’m simply stating the fact that it is very unlikely that the Bible is astrology based religion.

I hate to repeat myself but I don’t want to get into a shouting match with anyone, I want, and am looking for, reasonable arguments against my point so that I can provide as complete a case as possible. I’m not trying to convert anyone and I’m not trying to make people angry so please approach this with a civil manner.

Finally, I’ll just leave you with this: Reason/science/technology doesn’t always necessarily oppose faith. The ancient Egyptians had faith that the gods would make the Nile flood every year and there was no “reason” there, just faith. Who’s to say that some day science won’t find an explanation for how Moses parted the sea or how the earth flooded for Noah? Science/ Technology and Reason are, I believe, Christianity’s greatest ally and will eventually prove Christianity correct, but just as the Egyptians had faith in the Nile, Christians have to have faith in the unexplained aspects until the day they can be explained.

Geoff

Beegor Canada Posted on 03/01/2008 at 07:41 AM

Beegor pic

Jesus Christ was born of the virgin Mary on December 25th

Besides Zeitgeist being a new-age bs production, full to the brim with nonsensical rookie errors, and besides Dec 25th not being any claimed or supposed birthdate for Jesus, and besides this having probably been noted countless times in this thread already, Christmas did not originate on Dec 25th, it migrated to that date at a later time.

Before Christmas, or any celebration of Jesus’ birth was officialized, theologians attempted to calculate when Jesus’ birthdate might actually be, coming up with a whole slew of dates: May 20, April 19 or 20, March 28, Jan 6 or 10…

Christmas itself was originally January 6, but shifted, under Roman influence - a move which has been speculated to have happened for the purpose of shutting out the pagan winter solstice celebrations.

Infernus United States Posted on 03/01/2008 at 01:08 PM

Infernus pic

Let me just say that I never intended to start any “shouting match” here with you, I just decided to share my personal beliefs with you.  I’m sorry if you find that offensive but I’m just doing the exact same thing Christians feel compelled to do because they think they are required to “save” people from eternal damnation by bringing them to Jesus, no matter how offensive and perverted their religion actually is.  It is my belief that the Christian religion is a deliberate roadblock to human advancement because it’s whole purpose is to keep people still.

We (Christians) are well aware of the astrological significance of December 25 and we make no secret of it.

That is total BS.

It is also a well known and established fact that the date of Jesus’ birth was not December 25, nor does the bible ever say, or imply that that is the date. We know that when Rome adopted Christianity as its official religion, there was a meeting held, called the council of Nicea, which officially decided to say that Jesus was born on December 25 to supplement an existing Roman holiday based on that exact occurrence. The Council of Nicea also chose many other important events in Christianity to coincide with other holidays like his resurrection (Easter) and a few others I can’t think of off the top of my head.

Please tell that to all the other Christians in the world who still celebrate Christmas and Easer as fully Christian holidays to this very day while completely ignoring and refusing to acknowledge their pagan origins.  I mean seriously think about it, you are telling me that you can’t even tell me the actual dates of when your god man’s birth and resurrection actually occurred, the two most important events to ever occur in all of human history according to your dogma!  I would think that if anything in the Bible were true and accurate it would have at least gotten that much right.  Maybe you are personally willing to admit that the Bible has been tampered with to that extent and still believe in it but you certainly do not speak for the vast majority of Christians.  Most of the ones I know do in fact still believe that December 25th is the actual birthday of Jesus and that Jesus was in fact his real name and that Three Kings did in fact come to visit him and to think otherwise is “blasphemy”.  That is why many conservative Christians to this day still celebrate “Three Kings Day” that just so happens to be on January 6th too.

I think we can all agree that there is a big difference between Kings and Wise Men.

Actually no, whether or not it’s three kings, three wise men, or three magi, no that does not matter one bit.  It still comes from those three stars on Orion’s belt that point to Sirius that points to the sunrise on Christmas morning that represents the birth of your pagan sun-god-man.

“In terms of the constellation “Virgo the Virgin” being Mary. The constellation Virgo appears in the sky during the month of May, not December. I wouldn’t think that the “Astrological Authors” would choose a constellation that appears in May to embody an event that happens in December. There is also a good deal of evidence that Bethlehem was a real city.”

Hello?  I never said that your Mary Mother of God or any of her pagan forerunners were supposed to have been born in December.  That information was just given to point out that the “Virgin Mother” idea is derived from the constellation Virgo.  It’s position in the sky in December or any other time is irrelevant to this discussion because we are talking about the Son’s birth, not the Mother’s.  As it has been shown, the Southern Crux is the constellation that is significant during that time.

...had the 12 disciples been astrological representations then why was Mary (“Virgo”) not considered a disciple?

That’s easy.  Because she is a woman and women couldn’t be considered that important in your religion outside of having babies in that kind of harshly patriarchal culture during that time.  Although, I will point out that there is some evidence to suggest that there was another Mary (Magdalene) who was supposedly a disciple of Jesus but her book was taken out of the Bible by sexist pigs and then there are some Christians believe that it was really the Mary who gave birth to Jesus who was the female disciple.  Either way, whether the early Christian fathers chose to leave her out of the discipleship because she was a woman or because it would mess up the number 12 or both, it is an interesting thing to think about when trying to determine the validity of the Bible.

Isn’t it possible that the date chosen by the Council of Nicea to be the “official” date of Jesus’ resurrection could have been chosen for the exact reason that that occurrence happens, then used that fact to say “look were right, how could we have changed the stars to show this”?

Wow.  That is exactly the whole point that I’m trying to make here.

...assuming the bible was created by corrupt people to serve their purposes, the symbol of the cross was chosen, it would make a lot more sense to use the crucifixion cross as the primary symbol as opposed to a small cutout of an astrological chart?

Hello, they use both!  Some churches like to use one and some churches like to use the other.  I’m not denying the fact that there are many church leaders who probably realize the astrological significance if the Christian/Zodiac symbol and have chosen to abstain from it for that very reason.  My only point in bringing it up is that there were many churches in the past that have used it and there are still many today that still use it in complete ignorance if the facts.  Why did they start using it in the first place?  That’s easy.  They did it for the exact same reason that they set the dates of the birth and resurrection to coincide with the Winter Solstice and Spring Equinox - to get more pagans to willingly convert to their religion.  Are you getting this?  They deliberately tailored the entire Christian religion around pagan theologies just so it would spread faster.  If they had not done so I think it is very likely that people today would look upon Christianity in the same manner that we look upon ancient Greek and Egyptian mythology - as nothing more than curious myths that are interesting to read about and taught as a history lesson rather than a true religion.

I, as well as many other Christians, are willing to admit that the constellations could possibly have been divinely inspired; According to the book of Genesis God did create the Sun, Moon and Stars…

That doesn’t change the fact that most Christians still condemn people as heretics who study it.  Astrology is considered purely pagan and heathenous by the standards of the vast majority of Christians in this world today.  I’m not saying that there aren’t some progressive/liberal Christians out there who are willing to at least partially open up their minds.  There are some people who call themselves Christians who believe that it is possible that there may be other ways to get to Heaven besides Jesus.  I have no problem with them, only the hard-core fundamentalists who practice total hypocrisy in total ignorance and unfortunately there is still plenty of them around.

Jesus did not write the bible himself because one book written by one man claiming to be the Son of God would sound a little crazier than a few men writing different books at different times.

That’s ridiculous!  According to your religion he was already saying out loud that he was the Son of God and lots of people thought he was crazy anyway, even his own mother.  And he was supposedly going around and performing all kinds of miracles to boot.  And you are trying to tell me that he chose not to write a book about it because it would seem more realistic to people in the future who were not around to see these miracles happen for themselves if other people wrote about it instead.  People who you even admit have deliberately incorporated blatant lies in scriptures of the Holy Bible just so their religion would be more palatable to pagans.  This supposed Son of God who actually was God incarnate, who is infinitely wise and omnipotent and therefore knows everything, past, present, and future, deliberately refrained from writing His own word down while he was on earth because he was afraid that people would think He was crazy...are yo listening to yourself??

That Jesus knew when and how he was going to die (very likely, read the story of the last supper) and also realized that, were he to write his own autobiography, that he would not have had the time to devote to writing such a lengthy story.

OMG!  All he had to do was write one little chapter!  One little chapter that would correlate with all other writings that his followers wrote about him!  It says he started his ministry at 12 so he had at least 18 years to do it!  And since he was God he could have just snapped his fingers and made the whole New Testament appear right out of thin air in like a nanosecond!  And if he was really worried about people thinking that he was too crazy from his writings he could have just teleported them somewhere to a secret hiding place where they would not have been found until later times, like the Dead Sea Scrolls (which oddly enough don’t make any mention of any trace of Jesus).  Since He was God He would know just where to put them so they would end up like that.  And then the whole world would have the true word of God right from His own Mouth!  But noooooo...that would have been too easy, right?  ROFL

Further, you will never find an educated and well versed Christian claiming that the Bible is infallible, wholly complete or unsusceptible to change from the corruption in the Catholic Church.

You’re right and that is exactly my point.  Most Christians are very uneducated about their very own religion, among other things in life.

Worshiping Jesus as our savior, treating all men equally and evangelism. Christians base their belief o these principles, not on the book itself (that would be idol worship, which is a sin).

Worshiping Jesus already goes against the principals of the God in the OT, words that supposedly came from His own Mouth, that’s why Jews won’t accept it.  Evangelism = coercion.  Christians like to pride themselves on the fact that their religion is the most widely practiced religion in the world today.  They have the atrocities of the Crusades and the Inquisition to thank for that!

As to the idea of the “Jesus Fish” being a representation of Pisces, the actual origins of the Jesus Fish come from the times when Christians were being persecuted in Rome. The original translation of the word Jesus, in Latin, began with the letter I, which was also the first letter of the Latin word for fish. Needing a way to stay in contact with one another, one Christian, at some point or another, came up with the symbol of the fish as an unrecognizable symbol of their faith, to be used specifically in times of persecution.

Ok, whether you choose to believe it came from a mistranslation of a false name or is a deliberate reference to the Zociac, what’s the difference?  It’s still based on a fallacy of some kind.  And that brings up another point, that “Jesus” could not have even been his real name.  I have read that the original Latin translation of that name refers to a name that comes directly from Greek mythology.  So not only do you not have the actual dates of his birth and supposed resurrection, you don’t even have his real name.  Some people think that his real name might have been Yeshua but there is no way to prove that either.  Also, some people think that the word “Nazareth” is yet another reference to the Zodiac.  But I suppose you don’t think this is important.

Regardless of its truth, there is little evidence to suggest that the Bible is an astrology based myth.

IMO there is far more evidence of that than there is to show that the Bible is the infallible word of God that we are supposed to base our whole lives and our very soul on.

Reason/science/technology doesn’t always necessarily oppose faith.

That’s not what I said.  I said there is no reason to have faith in something if you know it is true and religion demands faith in things that cannot be proven at this time.

The ancient Egyptians had faith that the gods would make the Nile flood every year and there was no “reason” there, just faith.

Exactly, and if they had known the real reason why the Nile floods every year they would not have needed their faith to explain that for them.

Who’s to say that some day science won’t find an explanation for how Moses parted the sea or how the earth flooded for Noah?

I’m not trying to pretend like I can read the future.  I never said that I could.  All I am saying is that until there is a way to prove it we have no reason to believe it is true and if you really think that God is going to punish people for that then your God is sick.

Science/ Technology and Reason are, I believe, Christianity’s greatest ally and will eventually prove Christianity correct…

Sure, that is, until it does the opposite, then you choose to ignore it and call it blasphemy.  Just like the ancient Christians did when it was proven that the earth is not flat and that it revolves around the sun instead of the other way around.  Just like they did when the theory of evolution came out along with the scientific proof that the earth and many of the creatures that once inhabited it exited long before humans ever came along just because it contradicts the stories in Genesis.  That is hypocritical!  Personally, I have no need to believe in your dogma just because it might be the truth, especially when there is so much evidence against it, scientific and historical evidence, not to mention good old fashioned plain old common sense that tells me something is seriously wrong with it.  If you need it, fine, just be glad you live in a country that allows for freedom of religion in this day and age because it wasn’t all that long ago when no such place existed, largely because of Christians.

...besides Dec 25th not being any claimed or supposed birthdate for Jesus…

It has always been claimed and supposed to be just that by many Christians and still is to this day, otherwise they would not celebrate it as such because that would be blasphemy.

Before Christmas, or any celebration of Jesus’ birth was officialized, theologians attempted to calculate when Jesus’ birthdate might actually be, coming up with a whole slew of dates: May 20, April 19 or 20, March 28, Jan 6 or 10…

Which just goes to further prove my point that know one really knows exactly who this guy was, what his name was, when he was born, when he died, when he was resurrected, or if he even exited at all and yet we are still expected to worship him as though he was God or else be damned.  Total BS!

Christmas itself was originally January 6, but shifted, under Roman influence…

January 6th, which is celebrated to this day by Christians as “Three King’s Day”.  A coincidence?  And I do realize that a lot of modern Christians like to blame the Romans for messing up their religion.  Maybe they are right.  But then it just goes to further prove my point that the early Christians who were supposedly trusted by God to preach his word for Him and pass it on to us failed miserably right from the get-go, right in the very first century of its existence.  I do think it is possible that there was a real person on whom this Jesus character was originally based and maybe he had some important things to teach us, but sadly those teachings are long gone, lost, buried, and destroyed by evil humans and by natural causes.

Bahamat Great Britain (UK) Posted on 03/01/2008 at 02:44 PM

Bahamat pic

I don’t have the energy to follow this in depth but I picked up that Geoff is xian and that infernus is being unnecessarily harsh, but I can’t be bothered to read it.

Geoff - I’ve seen that you’re reasonable, you respond, and also stick around, so you’re worth my effort. I’m going to track back to a basic, but underpinning point; something fundamentally makes you believe in the bible, what is it that makes you think the xian holy book is any more likely than the holy book of other religions? Why the xian way?

Organised religion creates packages of beliefs that are supposed to be all/mostly accepted for a person to identify with that religion- Why do your beliefs have to come in a package that someone else created? It doesn’t have to be kept rigid by the feeling that you’re supposed to have a certain opinion.

 Signature 

You don’t need to end all existence to end all suffering

Beegor Canada Posted on 03/01/2008 at 07:52 PM

Beegor pic

Jumping in on someone else’s converstaion with you, just for a bit:

Infernus said:
Christians like to pride themselves on the fact that their religion is the most widely practiced religion in the world today.  They have the atrocities of the Crusades and the Inquisition to thank for that!

First of all, the Crusades weren’t a religious war, although it is often erronously repeated to be. The Crusades were a territorial war. They began due to Muslims invading the Byzantine Empire, calling for the destruction of Christian church in Jerusalem, and killing Christian clergy and pilgrims. The Byzantine Emperor pleaded to the pope for help, and thus began the Crusades. It was about territory, not religion, and it was instigated by Muslims, not Christians.

The Crusades then went on to kill from 1-2 million people over 300 years. Not one of history’s deadlier wars, although deffinitely a long one.

That is why many conservative Christians to this day still celebrate “Three Kings Day” that just so happens to be on January 6th too.

What else happens on January 6 that makes Three Kings Day a “just so happens” type of deal? Also, Three Kings Day is not the original or traditional name for the celebration, so it can’t support a case that there were specifically 3 wise men, and it actually works against the whole new-age 3 stars heralding invention, since that doesn’t occur on January 6. And, of course, as has been repeated, Dec 25th wasn’t Jesus’ supposed bithdate then or ever. So 3 stars on that date is going to turn out meaningless any way it’s looked at.

---------

Infernus said:
It has always been claimed and supposed to be just that by many Christians and still is to this day, otherwise they would not celebrate it as such because that would be blasphemy.

It wouldn’t be blasphemy, and I think Christians are almost universally aware that Christmas is not Jesus’ birthdate, but a celebration of his birth - regardless of date. Factually, the only people I’ve heard voice that Dec 25 is supposed to be Jesus’ birthdate are non-Christians on the attack against Christianity. No doubt, there must be Christians who also think this, but it doesn’t represent the norm, nor would it be especially meaningful if it did, since facts concerning the date are what they are.

Which just goes to further prove my point that know one really knows exactly who this guy was, what his name was, when he was born, when he died, when he was resurrected, or if he even exited at all and yet we are still expected to worship him as though he was God or else be damned.  Total BS!

If you want to argue Jesus’ validity, that’s fine, but I don’t think an admitted lack of knowing his birthdate supports or contradicts that subject, since none of the Christian belief hangs on knowing when he was born. Additionally, there are innumerous historical characters whose birthdates are unknown, yet this doesn’t negate the knowledge of their existence, if they are real.

January 6th, which is celebrated to this day by Christians as “Three King’s Day”.  A coincidence?

Do you mean it’s a coincidence that “Three Kings Day” (Epiphany) is a continuation of the original celebration? If so, that’s like saying it’s a coincidence that a pizza store sells pizza… that’s kind of the point. Three Kings Day is neither the original or traditional name for the celebration, and it’s really not coincidental with the new-age 3 stars idea, since January 6th doesn’t, well, coincide with them.

And I do realize that a lot of modern Christians like to blame the Romans for messing up their religion.  Maybe they are right.

There was no indictment given of Romans “messing up” anyone’s religion. And to be honest, switching Christmas’ date messed up the pagan winter celebrations, not Christmas. So I guess it’s pretty much “mission accomplished” there, as far as Christianity would be concerned.

Geoff United States Posted on 03/02/2008 at 03:04 AM

Geoff pic

Infernus,

First off I feel I must point out that, for the purposes of this conversation I’m not trying to prove Christianity true, I’m simply trying to disprove the idea that it is all based on astrology. I would also appreciate it if you would refrain from being so insulting in your manner, if you want to argue the case of the astrologically based bible that’s fine but there is no need to insult me or anyone else in the process.

Beegor and Bahamat,

Thank you for your comments. Beegor, you make some excellent points that I haven’t actually ever heard before, so thank you for bringing them to my attention. Bahamat, thank you for not viewing me as an unreasonable religious fanatic, I’ll address your question at the end of this post.

But to get back to Infernus’ points,

I, personally, have never met another Christian who maintains that Jesus was actually born on December the 25th but as Beegor says “facts are facts” which makes whether Christians believe this or not a moot point. Also, as Beegor says, Christmas isn’t a celebration of the day December 25th itself, it’s the day we celebrate the fact (and please don’t misconstrue the word fact here, I’m simply saying that it is a fact that be believe he was born and did exist) that he WAS born, not that he was born on that day.

whether or not it’s three kings, three wise men, or three magi, no that does not matter one bit.  It still comes from those three stars on Orion’s belt

As I said before, the idea of the “three” kings/magi/wise men, comes from the number of gifts brought to Jesus, even the version of the bible that came from the council of Nicea had no mention of three people or that they were kings. These are both simply popular misconceptions. So to sum it up, the bible said that an unspecified number of magi came to visit Jesus and gave him some gifts. Using the logic behind the bible/astrology movement, it would be easy to translate the idea of the “three kings” stars to any mention in any book, ever, of an unspecified number of men.

I never said that your Mary Mother of God or any of her pagan forerunners were supposed to have been born in December.  That information was just given to point out that the “Virgin Mother” idea is derived from the constellation Virgo.  Its position in the sky in December or any other time is irrelevant to this discussion because we are talking about the Son’s birth, not the Mother’s.  As it has been shown, the Southern Crux is the constellation that is significant during that time.

I again have to point out the flaw in logic here. Using this logic you are saying that, again, any mention of a virgin in a book is representative of the constellation Virgo. There is absolutely no correlation between the Virgin Mary and Virgo other than that they are both virgins. Based on everything I have said in all my posts I think it’s safe to say that Virgo and the Southern crux appearing in the vicinity of each other could be nothing more than a coincidence.

Because she is a woman and women couldn’t be considered that important in your religion outside of having babies in that kind of harshly patriarchal culture during that time.  Although, I will point out that there is some evidence to suggest that there was another Mary (Magdalene) who was supposedly a disciple of Jesus but her book was taken out of the Bible by sexist pigs and then there are some Christians believe that it was really the Mary who gave birth to Jesus who was the female disciple.

Your right, the culture of that time was harshly patriarchal, but you can’t blame Christianity for the attitudes about women that were around before Christianity even came into being. In terms of Mary Magdalene, she is a very prominent figure in the bible; while not a “disciple” in the strictest sense of the word she was not censored from the bible. Whether or not the book of the bible that was supposedly written by her corresponds to the other books, we don’t know for sure and we may never know. If it is I have no problem believing it, regardless of the sex of the person it was written by, but until it is proved to have some kind of relation to the other books of the current bible (note I’m not saying proven that it’s true, just that it’s not a forgery) I have to treat it tentatively. Again I feel the need to point out that I’m not arguing that the bible was never tampered with or that it doesn’t contain some false information. Christians base their faith around the three principles I have already mentioned, not the infallibility of the bible, we know that people were willing to be murdered for their belief in these core principles of Christianity long before the bible as we know it today was ever written.

Also, if there was another female (or male for that matter) disciple, that would invalidate the idea that the disciples represent astrological signs, and if there wasn’t another disciple then my original point (about the 12 tribes of Israel and Mary, i.e. Virgo) still stands.

I said: Maybe Jesus did not write the bible himself because one book written by one man claiming to be the Son of God would sound a little crazier than a few men writing different books at different times.

What I was trying to say here is that it is easy to call one man, especially one who makes these claims, crazy and a liar. It is a lot harder to call multiple people who all wrote about the same events, at different times, crazy. That also brings up another point, the main criticism of the bible is that it’s the only record of its own events, but what those critics fail to point out is that there’s no evidence to say that the bible was written by one person, or even a group of people in the same time and place. There is no evidence to support the idea that the bible wasn’t written by different people at different times. So, from that perspective, there are at least 21 (the books of the bible not counting multi part books as separate from one another like John 1, 2 and 3) literary sources from that time that substantiate the claims of Christianity. But again, my point isn’t to prove the bible right, just to prove that it’s not an astrological allegory.

Worshiping Jesus already goes against the principals of the God in the OT, words that supposedly came from His own Mouth, that’s why Jews won’t accept it.  Evangelism = coercion.  Christians like to pride themselves on the fact that their religion is the most widely practiced religion in the world today.  They have the atrocities of the Crusades and the Inquisition to thank for that!

Not necessarily. The Old Testament speaks of a messiah that will come and sacrifice himself to save mankind from sin, exactly what Jesus supposedly did. The Jewish people don’t accept this for two reasons:
1. They just, plain old fashion, don’t believe that Jesus was that messiah, those that do are called Christians (Being Christian means believing that Jesus died to save humanity from its sins).

2. They don’t have to. While it would make their lives easier, according to the Old Testament the Israelites are God’s Chosen people and they, aside from everyone else, can get into heaven through following a strict set of guidelines (i.e. not eating pork, etc.). So they can afford to be more skeptical than anyone about who the messiah really is.

Gentiles (Gentile means not Jewish for the record) can’t afford to be that skeptical, and so far, the only person that could be that messiah is Jesus.

As to evangelism=coercion. Try to look at it from a Christian standpoint; we truly believe that by being evangelic we are saving people from an eternity in hell. Coercion implies a threat, a threat implies forcing someone, through telling someone that you will do something negative to them in order to get them to do something that benefits you. In the mind of a Christian evangelism=saving, not only do 99.9% of evangelical Christians not get anything out of their evangelism (that 0.1%= corrupt evangelical preachers that steal money through evangelism) and on top of that evangelism can harm most of these Christians because then they have to deal with the torment and ridicule of people who think they’re are trying to be coercive. I can easily see how, from the outside, evangelism looks like coercion, but by the same token, from a Christian standpoint, there is no kinder thing we can do for a person than bring them to Jesus.

Besides all these points, the core of Christianity lies in those principles and that is a fact. We don’t worship the bible, we worship God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit (the Holy Trinity, “3 Gods in One”, the bible addresses this, don’t try to use it as an argument for Paganism, the bible makes it clear that each of these is a manifestation of the same God).
Also, and I have said this numerous times before, events like the Inquisition and the Crusades were carried out by corrupt members of the CATHOLIC church, and cannot be associated with the protestant church today. The mistake that you, and all other critics of Christianity, are making is that Christianity is one continuous and undivided religion. While very similar to the Protestant Church, the Catholic Church puts far more importance on ceremony, relics and many other practices that we have historical proof were part of the things added to the bible as part of it’s establishment as the religion of Rome (i.e. the Council of Nicea). It is exactly because of this corruption, greed and perversion of the true Christianity (what Christianity was before being distorted by the Romans, in other words the three principles I’ve already mentioned) that Martin Luther broke from the Catholic church, which, I might add, was the event that started the scientific revolution.

You’re right and that is exactly my point.  Most Christians are very uneducated about their very own religion, among other things in life

I would have to disagree with you here. I never said most Christians were uneducated about their own religion, in fact, most are extremely knowledgeable. What I said was “you will never find an educated and well versed Christian (i.e. most of them) claiming that the Bible is infallible, wholly complete or unsusceptible to change from the corruption in the Catholic Church” No matter how you view that it doesn’t change the fact that, being a Christian myself, I deal with other Christians on an extremely regular basis, and as such I would probably have a better idea of the knowledge of the average Christian than you would. I apologize if that sounds like I meant it as an insult, I definitely don’t, I just have to point it out because it is the truth.

That’s not what I said.  I said there is no reason to have faith in something if you know is true and religion demands faith in things that cannot be proven at this time.

There, you said it yourself, religion demands faith in something that can’t be proven at this time. As I said before, no one can know if, at some point in the future, science will prove the existence/non-existence of God. Making the assumption that science will someday disprove God is just as much of a leap of faith as assuming that it will. As to my reference to the Egyptians, let me use a better example: Even Christians, before Newton, had faith that if they through a rock up into the air that it would eventually come down. Christians believe that the source of human desires is the need to be close to God, you can’t deny that humans inherently experience desires, just like you can’t deny gravity. Who knows if, one day, science will find proof that the source of our desires is to be close to god, just like Newton figured out gravity?

Use REASON here. I’m not telling you that the bible is absolutely right or that Christians are infallible. I am simply presenting a REASONABLE argument that it is just as easy to prove Christianity as it is to disprove it. Any argument you can make, on either side, can be turned around and used by the other. Believing that there is no God and that Jesus is not the savior of all humanity is just as much a leap of faith as believing it; it all depends on your perspective.

Look at all the evidence I’ve presented here and try to look at it from a purely factual standpoint. The only conclusion that anyone can reach is that there isn’t enough evidence either way; neither side has been proven thus whichever side you’re on is based on faith, whether it be faith in the existence or non existence of God.

Now, to address your questions Bahamat.

something fundamentally makes you believe in the bible, what is it that makes you think the xian holy book is any more likely than the holy book of other religions? Why the xian way? Organized religion creates packages of beliefs that are supposed to be all/mostly accepted for a person to identify with that religion- Why do your beliefs have to come in a package that someone else created? It doesn’t have to be kept rigid by the feeling that you’re supposed to have a certain opinion.

This is where most of faith comes into the equation. The best way to describe it to you is this. What is the difference between the core values and principles of Christianity and every other religion? The answer is that Christianity is the only religion that bases salvation purely on beliefs, not on deeds. Christianity is the only religion that has ever been that says “You are incapable, by human nature, of gaining acceptance into heaven. You can give all the money in the world away, save 10 million people from starving to death and follow every law ever created, but if you, even once, have looked at someone of the opposite sex (or same for that matter) who you were not married to in a lustful manner, if you have been even tempted to ste