Jesus = Fact

Author: 3RU7AL

Posts

Total: 285
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
Because there is no church of Gilgamesh that stretches back to antiquity.
Zoroastrian communities comprise two main groups of people: those of South Asian Zoroastrian background known as Parsis (or Parsees), and those of Central Asian background. According to a survey in 2004 by the Zoroastrian Associations of North America, the number of Zoroastrians worldwide was estimated at between 124,000 and 190,000. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism

At best, maybe some neopagan nerds have fabricated a mock religion in recent times that they certainly wouldn't die for.
Zoroastrian communities comprise two main groups of people: those of South Asian Zoroastrian background known as Parsis (or Parsees), and those of Central Asian background. According to a survey in 2004 by the Zoroastrian Associations of North America, the number of Zoroastrians worldwide was estimated at between 124,000 and 190,000. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Quit being  bigots and I can quit saying it. 
Please explain exactly what you are asking me to do.
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
That doesn't follow from what I said.
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@Mopac
Again, why bring it up?

Just as Jesus leaving a church does not imply his teachings are correct, Gilgamesh not leaving a church does not imply that Gilgamesh's teachings are incorrect.

Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
What does zoroastrianism have to do with Gilgamesh?

Or are you trying to point out that there are people who still practice a really old religion? Because if you are trying to do the later, no one disputes that people practice really old religions.

Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Stronn
Why do you respond to me with questions I already answered?


Do you just think ignoring what I said and plowing through adds legitimacy to the nonpoint that you are making?


What I said stands on its own. Maybe you are reading too much into it. I never said, "Aha!"

Who said anything about being correct?

But I know my faith, and I know it is correct. You can't know my faith is correct, because if I tell you plainly what my faith is, you will in your mind make it something else. 

And that is part of the vetting process for Orthodoxy, why it takes the form it does. If you don't have charity, you'll never get past the images.



3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
What does zoroastrianism have to do with Gilgamesh?
Inanna is an ancient Mesopotamian goddess associated with love, beauty, sex, desire, fertility, war, justice, and political power. She was originally worshipped in Sumer and was later worshipped by the Akkadians, Babylonians, and Assyrians under the name Ishtar.[wiki]

Astarte (Greek: Ἀστάρτη, Astártē) is the Hellenized form of the Middle Eastern goddess Astoreth (Northwest Semitic), a form of Ishtar (East Semitic), worshipped from the Bronze Age through classical antiquity. The name is particularly associated with her worship in the ancient Levant among the Canaanites and Phoenicians. She was also celebrated in Egypt following the importation of Levantine cults there. The name Astarte is sometimes also applied to her cults in Mesopotamian cultures like Assyria and Babylonia.[wiki]

Ishtar is a god of fertility, love, sex, and beauty. Brash and proud, she is enraged when Gilgamesh rejects her marriage proposal. She threatens to release the dead into the world of the living if her father Anu does not release the Bull of Heaven—an event that ultimately leads to Enkidu’s death.[LINK]

Kali, (Sanskrit: “She Who Is Black” or “She Who Is Death”) in Hinduism, goddess of time, doomsday, and death, or the black goddess (the feminine form of Sanskrit kala, “time-doomsday-death” or “black”). Kali’s origins can be traced to the deities of the village, tribal, and mountain cultures of South Asia who were gradually appropriated and transformed, if never quite tamed, by the Sanskritic traditions. She makes her first major appearance in Sanskrit culture in the Devi Mahatmya (“The Glorifications of the Goddess,” c. 6th century CE). Kali’s iconography, cult, and mythology commonly associate her not only with death but also with sexuality, violence, and, paradoxically, in some later traditions, with motherly love.[LINK]

Kali is worshiped by Hindus throughout India especially in West Bengal.[wiki]

You make a good point.  No direct link to the Zoroastrian religion, but there seems to be an indirect link to Hinduism (modern day worshipers).

Interestingly, the descriptions of the early Sumerian gods do seem to correlate with the familiar Greek and Roman pantheon.[LINK]

Or are you trying to point out that there are people who still practice a really old religion? Because if you are trying to do the later, no one disputes that people practice really old religions.
Yes, basically.  You say "Gilgamesh doesn't have a surviving church" - However, Zoroastrianism (nearly as ancient) DOES have a surviving church.

Do you believe that a church surviving from ancient times makes their beliefs more credible?????????????????????????????????????

Ok, so, what is your position?  If Christianity is not the oldest, are you saying it's the most popular?  Because if popularity is your favorite data point, all Christian denominations should join the most popular denomination and quit squabbling over doctrine.
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
Istar and Kali are not the same goddess. Not sure what any of that has to do with this conversation other then you wanted to show you can do links. 
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Istar and Kali are not the same goddess. Not sure what any of that has to do with this conversation other then you wanted to show you can do links. 
Thank you for your expertise.

I was trying to connect any of the gods mentioned in Gilgamesh with modern day worshipers.

I mistakenly thought that, since Zoroastrianism is from a similar time and region (ancient Iraq, aka Babylon), that it might have contained some overlapping gods.

Interestingly this time and region is also the birthplace of the earliest known "bill of rights".[LINK]
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Istar and Kali are not the same goddess. Not sure what any of that has to do with this conversation other then you wanted to show you can do links. 
Thanks for the awesome link by the way.
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
Yeap.
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
I am neither arguing on the basis of age or popularity.


You of course understand that these would be fallacious arguments.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
I am neither arguing on the basis of age or popularity.

You of course understand that these would be fallacious arguments.
I'm glad we seem to be on the same page.

Your best argument is simply, "I feel gods love in my heart".
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
I have never made that argument, nor would I.

I know God exists because The Ultimate Reality exists, and there is no other alternative that can even be entertained.



3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
I know God exists because The Ultimate Reality exists, and there is no other alternative that can even be entertained.
That is a phenomenal argument for Deism, but really doesn't help you validate any particular flavor of Theism.
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
It certainly is an argument for Monotheism.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
It certainly is an argument for Monotheism.
It certainly is an argument that everything is an integral and inextricable piece of god.
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
It is more of an argument that everything comes from God. All the information in the universe doesn't equal God.
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
I know God exists because The Ultimate Reality exists, and there is no other alternative that can even be entertained.
Is it necessary for a god to conscious?   I'd say if X is not conscious calling X a god would be pushing language way beyond sensible limits!    There'd be no point worshipping or praying to X if it is incapable of even being aware of it.

So does 'the ultimate reality' have to someting that is conscious? I think TUR is a piece of yet-to-be-discovered physics and as such no more conscious or aware than the 1st law of thermodynamics.   The laws of thermodynamics really do seem to control the cosmos and life, but no-one prays to them or calls then gods.


3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
It is more of an argument that everything comes from God. All the information in the universe doesn't equal God.
If it "comes from god" and not "from something that is not god" then it must be part of god.
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
I understand that is how you make sense of it, yes.

But if all of creation was wiped out, a piece of God certainly would not be missing.





Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@keithprosser

I am not interested in talking about gods.
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
 I am not interested in talking about gods.
Fair enough.

Is it necessary for God to conscious?   I'd say if X is not conscious calling X God would be pushing language way beyond sensible limits!    There'd be no point worshipping or praying to X if it is incapable of even being aware of it.

So does 'the ultimate reality' have to be someting that is conscious? I think TUR is a piece of yet-to-be-discovered physics and as such no more conscious or aware than the 1st law of thermodynamics.   The laws of thermodynamics really do seem to control the cosmos and life, but no-one prays to them or calls them God.



3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
But if all of creation was wiped out, a piece of God certainly would not be missing.
If all of creation was "wiped out" is some sort of eschatological cataclysm, the energy would revert to its primal (pre-creation) form.

Energy cannot be created or destroyed.
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@keithprosser
Lets assume that God is not conscious. Not because it is true or untrue but for sake of this point.


God is still worth worshipping because it is always in our best interest to abide in the truth.

Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL

You might find this interesting as an introduction.

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
You might find this interesting as an introduction.
"The Ultimate Reality and Meaning of the Palamite theology consists of the distinction between God’s Essence and Energy. This is a way of expressing the idea that the transcendent God remains eternally hidden in His Essence, but at the same time that God also seeks to communicate and The Distinction between God’s Essence and Energy unite Himself with us personally through His Energy."

Ok, it sounds exactly like the noumenon being "divided" into "what we don't currently know" (Mysterium Invisus) and "what may be fundamentally unknowable" (Magnum Mysterium).

Are you suggesting that gods "energy" is any less 100% pure uncut god than gods "essence"?

How is this not hair-splitting?

Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
I am not really arguing with you at this point, I just thought you might be interested to know that what you are saying might not be too far from what we understand in Orthodoxy.

So I am giving you a baseline to look more into it.


Uncreated Energies and such.



3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
I am not really arguing with you at this point, I just thought you might be interested to know that what you are saying might not be too far from what we understand in Orthodoxy.

So I am giving you a baseline to look more into it.

Uncreated Energies and such.
Creation = Creator = Creation = Creator

(IFF) Creation is not part of the Creator (THEN) where did the Creation come from?

(AND IFF) Creation is part of "ex nihilo" (THEN) Creator cannot be omnipresent.
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
Creation doesn't share the essence of God. 

Creation is not The Ultimate Reality.

Yet...


Reality has no reality to it if The Ultimate Reality isn't in it to give it reality.


So God is certainly omnipresent. It can really be no other way.
Creation can be likened to the flesh of The Word of God, enlivened by The Holy Spirit. 


But The Word of God itself is not creation, neither is The Holy Spirit. They are even really the same being. Father, Son, Holy Spirit.