-->
@3RU7AL
Go to my second reply
Become a theist
Posts
Total:
496
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
There is no proof Jesus ever lived.
Yet, his body, his Church, is still here in an unbroken chain of the laying on of hands.
-->
@keithprosser
nonsense. People have been talking about Roman gods and Greek gods and norse gods since 'forever'. it is your private crusade to rede'fine the word 'G/god' that makes you say something as monumentally absurd as "The word "Gods" is a nonsensical word" when its been part of the English language for thousands of years.If however you object only to the capital G then I submit it is only that you want to honour your god over the gods of the hindus. I have no reason to honour your 'God' over their 'Gods'. I choose to show repect by captalising the G for both where the sense requires it (except when i can't be bothered to fix it!)
Remember the Hindu gods are incarnations of the One God. They call that Brahman "the ultimate reality", and they call the soul Atman, and gods are incarnations of the one God. This of course is true, there are multiple incarnations of very high beings that are called gods, they exist on different planes in the multi-worlds. In essence Polytheism and Monotheism are compatible, because the gods are incarnations of God. Sounds strange but the defining main difference is that incarnated gods or demigods are embodied in some way, whereas God encompasses everything and has no embodiment. So you have both gods...and God, gods being an incarnation of God.
Ever soul actually is, but the difference being the lower and higher states of being and consciousness, the average human soul is a baby compared to demigods.
You should study Hinduism more closely, non-dual Vedanta shows you how this works, how a singular reality becomes the many. Basically what I've been saying in these forums.
-->
@PGA2.0
Your pursuit of specific names and dates and copies is a misguided red-herring.No, what I'm getting at is how accurate the transmission of the teachings from the founding/founder of the religion or earliest evidence of it. With lots of manuscripts from different time periods, you can follow corruptions in the text. The closer to the original text usually means the better chance it was copied accurately.
You make an excellent point.
However, how accurately something was copied has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the inherent truth value of the original teaching.
Your very oldest and most accurate transcripts are from "The Dead Sea Scrolls" and the overwhelming majority of that goldmine does not support the modern christian viewpoint.There is both Masoretic text and Septuagint text found in the caves. With the book of Isaiah, there are only a few minor transmission errors until the earliest full Masoretic text is found. This shows the great degree of care taken in copying the text from generation to generation. The Christian copyists were not quite as careful, but we have more manuscript evidence from an earlier timeframe than any other ancient manuscript evidence.
However, how accurately something was copied has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the inherent truth value of the original teaching.
The Epic of Gilgamesh is an ancient writing that we have multiple, independent original manuscripts of, that very closely corroborate each other.Original usually implies one. Someone writes the original and others copy from it.
Thanks, more hair-splitting.
By "original" I mean the actual paper and or clay tablet and or inscribed bone or shell that was written on by people of ancient times.
This would be in contrast to a writing about a supposed (or claim of) older teaching, like when Plato speaks of Atlantis.
Plato doesn't offer any original manuscripts from actual Atlantians. He just makes a claim, and writes it down.
According to the Midrash, the Torah was created prior to the creation of the world, and was used as the blueprint for Creation.[3] The majority of Biblical scholars believe that the written books were a product of the Babylonian captivity (c. 600 BCE), based on earlier written and oral traditions, which could only have arisen from separate communities within ancient Israel, and that it was completed by the period of Achaemenid rule (c. 400 BCE).[4][5]
The modern scholarly consensus is that the Torah has multiple authors and that its composition took place over centuries.[21] This contemporary common hypothesis among biblical scholars states that the first major comprehensive draft of the Pentateuch was composed in the late 7th or the 6th century BCE (the Jahwist source), and that this was later expanded by the addition of various narratives and laws (the Priestly source) into a work very like the one existing today. [wiki]
In a similar way the Jewish Torah ITSELF claims to be like, super super old, even older than the universe, but the oldest actual copy (original manuscript) we have is...
University of Bologna Professor Mauro Perani announced the results of carbon-14 tests authenticating the scroll's age as roughly 800 years old.
The scroll dates to between 1155 and 1225, making it the oldest complete Torah scroll on record.[LINK]
Based on these fact alone (age and multiple copies), do you believe the Epic of Gilgamesh is true?I'm going to hazard a guess of "no".True, in what sense? Obviously, it is a legitimate record from the time since it is carved in stone. It is also based on a historical king, confirmed by archeologists. The rest of the story seems to be clocked in legend and myth.
Ok, so when Enki (a.k.a. EA, the god of water, knowledge, and creation) tells Utnapishtim (Noah) to demolish his house and build a boat to save his family from the super top secret scheduled flood... THAT'S JUST A RIDICULOUS MYTH?
It sorta seems like you're saying, "how accurately something was copied has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the inherent truth value of the original teaching".
Not really. Making predictions does not, itself, mean anything at all. What you need is a RELIABLE SYSTEM OF MAKING PREDICTIONS THAT IS INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIABLE. Making some number of accurate predictions without revealing your methods "oh, I had a dream or vision or heard a voice" - is less than meaningless.1. I challenge you to show me biblical predictions/prophecy that are wrong from what I gave you (Daniel 2, 9, 12).2. Nostradamus' prophecies are too ambiguous. You can make them into anything.3. History is a verifier of biblical prophecy.
Let's just say for the sake of argument, that Daniel 2, 9, 12 is 1000000000000000000% accu-rat.
Does this fact alone lend any credibility to any of their beliefs about GODS? Not really. Making predictions does not, itself, mean anything at all.
-->
@PGA2.0
The point here is that I care about as much as YOU DO about the accuracy of Hindu prophecy. Because, even if Hindu prophecy was 100% accurate, it would still not convince you to change your beliefs. Accurate predictions are made by mortals every day of the year. IT PROVES NOTHING. People thought Democritus was a GOD when he proved he could predict the weather. Ancient people were quite unskeptical.You made the claim that these ancient religions were equivalent.
They are all unfalsifiable (based on unknowable claims that are beyond our epistemological limits) AND logically incoherent.
There is not much specific to Hindu prophecy, whereas the biblical prophecy is very specific.
So exactly when is the Jesus going to return to Earth?
Look, ok, let's say that, just between you and me, every prediction of the holy scriptures is the very face of perfection.
That still means absolutely zero regarding any other untestable claims.
For example, if Democritus said, "There will be a terrible storm in two weeks time" and, verily, it came to pass exactly as he predicted, and then Democritus said, "Your wife will become pregnant and will bear a son" does this mean that Democritus is divinely inspired?
And then, if Democritus said, "Everyone should get together and build a temple to the goddess Demo and bring peace offerings to her daily, especially wine, for the goddess Demo absolutely loves wine and it puts her in a good humor so she doesn't send earthquakes and foreign invaders and stuff that you don't like."
Would you, personally, drop everything and worship the great and powerful Demo?
Show me a human/humans who has/have made hundreds of prediction before the facts that have come to pass.
Wow, I was wondering when you might ask me this... Let me introduce you to, Tom Skilling - https://www.facebook.com/pg/TomSkilling/posts/
He has made literally thousands of accurate predictions before the facts have come to pass.
How does a human know so many things in advance?
I have no earthly idea, therefore TOM SKILLING MUST CERTAINLY BE DIVINELY INSPIRED, you can't prove me wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It is not normal nor can it be demonstrated with complete accuracy, except I claim from the Bible when properly interpreted.
The qualifier, "when properly interpreted" is an awesome loophole.
And don't forget that even stock traders can go on a hot streak, but, by law, they still need to inform the public that, "past performance is not a guarantee of future results".
-->
@Mopac
Link please.Go to my second reply
-->
@Mopac
And people still worship Thor. There is no evidence any god exists. There is no evidence they don't. Believe or not don't claim proof.
-->
@Mopac
Fair enough, but I don't see the point of avoiding using capital G, or even capital H in He, Him and His etc. It's a long standing typographic convention. I think avoiding or ignoring traditional capitalisation is a bit 'tokenist' - but it's mostly a matter of personal taste and old habits.And lets not pretend you have reverence for any of these gods, because you don't believe any of them exist. You don't even believe in the big G.
-->
@3RU7AL
Post 376
-->
@EtrnlVw
Hinduism discussed sin a lot too they just call it karma. Have you ever read the death ritual work your supposed to do. And the details of what sin brings you back as which creature. It's really detailed.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
"Prove to me that it is true that there is truth!"
That is what you are asking. My God is The Truth. So when you ask me to prove my God, you are not asking a reasonable question.
My God certainly exists. I'm sure you would come to accept that too if you believed what I was saying.
-->
@keithprosser
As I said in the post you responded to but didn't read, it is a matter of language not reverence.
-->
@Mopac
I am not asking your god for crap. I don't need proof any god exist, I know they do. I don't find him honest or worthy of worship. That is what you don't get.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
The Truth lies?
That's a pretty bold claim.
-->
@Mopac
Your truth is a lie
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I'm not talking about "my truth" as if truth were such an arbitrary thing. I am talking about The Truth itself, Reality As It Truly Is.
And this is what I acknowledge as God, no other. Take me out of the picture. I must become less so The Truth is magnified.
-->
@Mopac
Yes you are. Your god is not the god of everything. He is one of many. That is your lie. You can try to be grand about it but it's still just you lying cause your god told you to in a book.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
It is not a reasonable statement. There is lots of proof. Nineteen extra-biblical sources from antiquity mention Jesus and some of these sources confirm some of the events of Jesus' life, such as the crucifixion and that His follower's believed He was resurrected.There is no proof Jesus ever lived.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I don't worship a book as God.
You don't really understand my faith as well as you think you do.
The God I believe in is not a created being. The God I believe in is The Uncreated Created Creator of all creation. The Ultimate Reality.
I am not lying. You worship created things as gods. That is why you think I do the same. So you only see the created manifestations. You don't see The Spirit.
My God is not like the pagan gods. Very different.
-->
@EtrnlVw
It seems to me that it is extremely difficult for a westerner to adjust to hindu thinking. Nor is the problem made any easier by the many schools of hindu philosophy.
-->
@PGA2.0
Yes it is. There is no evidence that Jesus was a real person who lived on Earth. Period. I believe all kinds of stuff about my gods too. They don't walk around on Earth just like Jesus.
-->
@Mopac
No one said you did. Your god didn't not create everything. There are other creation gods in almost every faith. No he isn't like pagan gods. He's a liar and endorses genocide of non believers.
-->
@Mopac
Post 376
I think our core disagreement has something to do with the (hypothetical) division between "creator" and "created".
As EtrnlVw, so elegantly points out, "Remember the Hindu gods are incarnations of the One God. They call that Brahman "the ultimate reality", and they call the soul Atman, and gods are incarnations of the one God."
I'm not saying existence can't be (hypothetically) separate from the uncreated creator.
I'm just pointing out that (IFF) existence is (fundamentally) separate from the uncreated creator, (THEN) the uncreated creator cannot be omnipresent.
Oh, and, incidentally, it would also mean that the creator would not (could not) be able to influence or view existence at all.
-->
@Mopac
As I said in the post you responded to but didn't read, it is a matter of language not reverence.
I read it - it wasn't the first time you have referenced MW! My view is that dictionaries do not actually define words. What they do is do their best to describe how words tend to be used, or have been used in the past. MW tell us the word 'God' is used - or has been used - to refer to 'ultimate reality' - which is not the same thing as guaranteeing that God is 'ultimate reality', whatever the rather pretentious phrase 'ultimate reality' means!
Chances are you don't want spend weeks reading Wittgenstein, so here is a nice short article on his theory of language.
-->
@PGA2.0
There is no proof Jesus ever lived.It is not a reasonable statement. There is lots of proof. Nineteen extra-biblical sources from antiquity mention Jesus and some of these sources confirm some of the events of Jesus' life, such as the crucifixion and that His follower's believed He was resurrected.
Historical evidence of the Jesus is moot.
There is historical evidence of Siddhartha, does this make Buddhism true?
There is historical evidence of Joseph Smith, does this make Mormonism true?
There is historical evidence of Lafayette Ronald Hubbard, does this make Scientology true?
-->
@keithprosser
Well stated.Dictionaries do not actually define words. What they do is do their best to describe how words tend to be used, or have been used in the past.
-->
@Mopac
Pure logic.I'm sure you would come to accept that too if you believed what I was saying.
-->
@Mopac
The word "Gods" is a nonsensical word, because there cannot be 2 ultimate realities.
Well, technically there can be any number of "ultimate realities" but they would need to be perfectly and fundamentally separate.
-->
@3RU7AL
None of them are viewed to be gods. Only one even addresses a god. No proof of Jesus does not negate his divinity.
-->
@PGA2.0
What does this have to do with the biblical God?It means that Nanna the Moon god is an older religion than Judaism. It also begs the question of why the "YHWH" would have been hiding-out up to this point.Have you ever considered that these religions were castoffs of the true faith that was proclaimed from Genesis 3 onward, that borrowed or corrupted these ancient accounts?
If that is the case, I have the exact same question. Why did the "YHWH" wait so long to write anything down?
Couldn't the "YHWH" have popped little "holy assassins" and "talking donkeys" down to earth in order to "reason with" the misguided followers of Ahura Mazda?
Yet Abraham turned to the biblical God from idols. So what?It also lends some credibility to the idea that Abraham's concept of god and heavenly hosts was very likely shaped by this pre-existing religion.Or their religion by his and those before him, but they corrupted the belief.
Based on what? Wouldn't you need some historical basis for this perfectly bald assertion?