"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." A.Einstein |
|
escape wrote: On 17 Nov 2004 18:36:29 GMT, (IntarsiaCo) opined: Real quote: Wrong again: This is Abu Mazen's account in Arabic of what Bush said in English, written down by a note-taker in Arabic, then back into English. Regardless, I heard the man say God spoke to him and told him he was supposed to be president. He said this when he was the governor of my state of TX. Probably a good thing he gave up the coke when he did or he might have heard even more stuff. |
|
|
|
"escape" wrote in message ... On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 14:06:17 GMT, "Doug Kanter" opined: Two weeks back, PBS aired a Nova show which showed how scientists are piecing together the beginnings of quadrupeds, starting with certain types of fish, and tracking the increments by which a fish finally left the water and walked on land. Assuming several million Christians watched this show, how do you suppose they felt about it? Did they consider it to be in the same category as Star Trek? I saw the show and it was wonderful. I was thinking about your question as I was watching it, funny enough. I have no idea what a Christian would think about it. I don't know how they can deny evolution, theory or not. My problem is not with Christians believing in creation, but when it comes to the man running the US, it matters to me. Well, people who are into WWII history believe that the movie "Enemy at the Gates" was about a real person, and others, based on their research, think there were several similar heroes, and the movie is about a compilation of those people. Either way, it's still nice to believe in a story that represents something. So, I have no problem with someone who sees the creation as having symbolic beauty. But, when those people look at the last 100 years' of research into evolution and call it bullshit, it's time to get out a really big roll of mental floss. |
"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message ... In article , get- says... God did not write the Bible, men did. Then other men interpreted what men had written. Hmm, really? I guess you never read the new testament. Are we talking the version before Jerome, between Jerome and Luther, or after Luther? After the King James and Douay? or before. Are we talking about the Aramaic or the Greek versions (both before Jerome). Wow. God published international versions? :-) |
On 11/17/04 4:37 PM, in article , "Doug
Kanter" wrote: "Larry Blanchard" wrote in message ... In article , get- says... God did not write the Bible, men did. Then other men interpreted what men had written. Hmm, really? I guess you never read the new testament. Are we talking the version before Jerome, between Jerome and Luther, or after Luther? After the King James and Douay? or before. Are we talking about the Aramaic or the Greek versions (both before Jerome). Wow. God published international versions? :-) Only the Torah...... Cheryl |
|
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 21:33:47 GMT, "Doug Kanter" "escape"
wrote in message .. . On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 14:06:17 GMT, "Doug Kanter" opined: Two weeks back, PBS aired a Nova show which showed how scientists are piecing together the beginnings of quadrupeds, starting with certain types of fish, and tracking the increments by which a fish finally left the water and walked on land. Assuming several million Christians watched this show, how do you suppose they felt about it? Did they consider it to be in the same category as Star Trek? I saw the show and it was wonderful. I was thinking about your question as I was watching it, funny enough. I have no idea what a Christian would think about it. I don't know how they can deny evolution, theory or not. My problem is not with Christians believing in creation, but when it comes to the man running the US, it matters to me. Well, people who are into WWII history believe that the movie "Enemy at the Gates" was about a real person, and others, based on their research, think there were several similar heroes, and the movie is about a compilation of those people. Either way, it's still nice to believe in a story that represents something. So, I have no problem with someone who sees the creation as having symbolic beauty. But, when those people look at the last 100 years' of research into evolution and call it bullshit, it's time to get out a really big roll of mental floss. There are many Christians that believe both in evolution, and in creation as in God created the universe. They are not mutually exclusive views, at least I don't see it that way. There are some Christian groups that reject evolution, but I seriously doubt they are a majority of Christians. Using the label Christians to describe both groups and lump them as being the same in thought and deed is not accurate. As for rejecting history there are those that reject the moon landings, though I've never taken the time to figure out if they're just pulling everyone's leg. From what I've read, the sniper Zaitsev in "Enemy of the Gates" was a real person, and he has published a book of memoirs, but the sniper duel was a fabrication. Who knows? Its easy to follow down a story pretty far yet never get to the bottom. Good luck finding those memoirs at Amazon. Swyck |
(paghat) wrote in message ...
In article , (Roger Pearse) wrote: (paghat) wrote in message ... As someone who has for many years studied comparative religion, whose personal library includes everything from the Babylonian Talmud to the Zohar and Targums and Midrash Rabbah, to the Upanishads to the the Devi Mahatmya to Kojiki: The Record of Ancient Matters, to the complete works of the AnteNicene fathers, five translations of the Bible, the Ng Hammadi texts & every conceivable scrap of Pseudepigrapha, to the Koran and the complete works of Rumi, ad infitum, & having read this entire library more than one time through, I can say that my interest in religion goes as deep or deeper than yours. Good chance I even know more about your faith than do you, unless you too have Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria within arm's reach. I'm afraid that this claim to authority must be disallowed by any reasonable person. You are not an authority on a religion of which you are not a member. A devottee of a single Christian sect remains so by being blind to & rejecting the full range of belief. This claim is based on what peer-reviewed objective statistical research? You see, it sounds like prejudice to me. Is it not unacceptable to claim that our religious position alone is right and everyone else is blind and stupid, surely? (Unless there is some rational ground for the claim). All the best, Roger Pearse |
Larry Blanchard wrote in message ...
In article , says... A devottee of a single Christian sect remains so by being blind to & rejecting the full range of belief. I do not claim to be an authority, though, just have a deeper interest than dunderheads who blame their prejudices & sillier observations on their religion, when they obviously learned only enough about faith to justify hating whatever they already hated. Bring back Mithras! It's all a bunch of bull anyway :-). Sorry, couldn't resist that one :-). Glad to see someone else can see the possibilities. "Get rid of the bull, with Mithras" :) All the best, Roger Pearse |
In article ,
(Roger Pearse) wrote: Larry Blanchard wrote in message ... In article , says... A devottee of a single Christian sect remains so by being blind to & rejecting the full range of belief. I do not claim to be an authority, though, just have a deeper interest than dunderheads who blame their prejudices & sillier observations on their religion, when they obviously learned only enough about faith to justify hating whatever they already hated. Bring back Mithras! It's all a bunch of bull anyway :-). Sorry, couldn't resist that one :-). Glad to see someone else can see the possibilities. "Get rid of the bull, with Mithras" :) All the best, Roger Pearse Mithras is just another resurrected divinity like Tamuz and Jesus. A rose by any other name is still just a fertility daemon worshipped as god. so Mithras worship is still very much with us. Nothing wrong with that, only whimsical that modern Mithras-Tamuz-Jesus worshippers think there's a difference. -paghat the ratgirl -- "Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher. "Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature. -from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers" Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com |
wrote in message
... On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 21:33:47 GMT, "Doug Kanter" "escape" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 14:06:17 GMT, "Doug Kanter" opined: Two weeks back, PBS aired a Nova show which showed how scientists are piecing together the beginnings of quadrupeds, starting with certain types of fish, and tracking the increments by which a fish finally left the water and walked on land. Assuming several million Christians watched this show, how do you suppose they felt about it? Did they consider it to be in the same category as Star Trek? I saw the show and it was wonderful. I was thinking about your question as I was watching it, funny enough. I have no idea what a Christian would think about it. I don't know how they can deny evolution, theory or not. My problem is not with Christians believing in creation, but when it comes to the man running the US, it matters to me. Well, people who are into WWII history believe that the movie "Enemy at the Gates" was about a real person, and others, based on their research, think there were several similar heroes, and the movie is about a compilation of those people. Either way, it's still nice to believe in a story that represents something. So, I have no problem with someone who sees the creation as having symbolic beauty. But, when those people look at the last 100 years' of research into evolution and call it bullshit, it's time to get out a really big roll of mental floss. There are many Christians that believe both in evolution, and in creation as in God created the universe. They are not mutually exclusive views, at least I don't see it that way. I'm busy, so perhaps I'm not seeing all the possibilities, but at the moment, I can only see two possible ways evolution and creation are NOT mutually exclusive: 1) You believe each so-called "day" of creation actually represents millions or billions of years. (I've heard this from a few saps). 2) You think carbon dating is junk science. |
"Cheryl Isaak" wrote in message ... On 11/17/04 4:37 PM, in article , "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Larry Blanchard" wrote in message ... In article , get- says... God did not write the Bible, men did. Then other men interpreted what men had written. Hmm, really? I guess you never read the new testament. Are we talking the version before Jerome, between Jerome and Luther, or after Luther? After the King James and Douay? or before. Are we talking about the Aramaic or the Greek versions (both before Jerome). Wow. God published international versions? :-) Only the Torah...... Cheryl Do you know there's proof that Jesus was a Jew? 1) He thought his mother was a virgin. 2) His mother thought he was god. That's that! :-) |
On 11/18/04 3:00 PM, in article , "Doug
Kanter" wrote: "Cheryl Isaak" wrote in message ... On 11/17/04 4:37 PM, in article , "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Larry Blanchard" wrote in message ... In article , get- says... God did not write the Bible, men did. Then other men interpreted what men had written. Hmm, really? I guess you never read the new testament. Are we talking the version before Jerome, between Jerome and Luther, or after Luther? After the King James and Douay? or before. Are we talking about the Aramaic or the Greek versions (both before Jerome). Wow. God published international versions? :-) Only the Torah...... Cheryl Do you know there's proof that Jesus was a Jew? 1) He thought his mother was a virgin. 2) His mother thought he was god. That's that! :-) Isn't that the way all good Jewish mothers and sons work! (ok - mine is only a prince!) Cheryl |
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote: Do you know there's proof that Jesus was a Jew? 1) He thought his mother was a virgin. She was a Jew. Jewishness is inherited exclusively through the mother, never through the father. Thus Jesus was a Jew. I wasn't aware that even Christians doubted that one! 2) His mother thought he was god. That's that! :-) Christianity is judaized Tamuz worship. I don't believe anywhere in the Christian testament does Mary say she gave birth to a God. Paul, who never met Jesus, seems to have been the first person who ever promoted Jesus as a God, & he grew up in a town where Tamuz worship predominated; despite Paul's first-rate rabbinic education he was still influenced by the paganism that surrounded him in his childhood in Tarsus. The life of Jesus was one of a peasant reform rabbi who taught that God is in all of us, that we are ALL his children, not just Jesus his child; that He is known through good works of worshippers toward the poor & the orphaned, not through adoration of the teacher. He also taught that he didn't give a shit about gentiles but was born among Jews to serve exclusively Jews. Jesus disliked gentiles & called gentiles "dogs" when telling the SyroPhoenician woman he came exclusively to instruct his own people. Perhaps a bit of a bigot, sure, which makes it all the more comical that only gentiles worship him now. It was not until he was dead that people began saying he rose from the grave with a completely different story. The resurrected Jesus did say to go forth two by two & convert the gentiles. This contradicted all his teachings in life. The living Jesus whom Mary had raised thought gentiles were dogs, & Jesus lived not as a heretic pretending to be the messiah but as a rather pleasant rabbi & showman full of lovely little fables. If Josephus's testimony is to be credited, the real inheritor of the teachings of Jesus was his brother James, who was stoned to death on the Temple steps, & the teachings of an authentic Jesus died with James. What has been handed down through the judaized paganism of Paul is in essence Tamuz worship. Other elements of Christianity may have been handed down through Mary Magdalene who claimed special teachings from angels of the tomb & was first to receive teachings from the ressurected "Christ," & her thread of christianity was a Gnosticism that seems to have borrowed a great deal from Phrygian Cybele worship, making Jesus the new Attis. ANd since she purportedly knew Jesus before AND after his mortal life, she'd know best, though the Roman church squashed that early on. So what survives is Paul's Tarsusian paganism which he cleverly imposed on a Jerusalem martyr he never met except in a fever dream quite some while after the fellow was dead. No living follower of the authentic teachings of the historical rabbi Jesus has existed in this world since the stoning of James. To the historical Jesus his deification would be the worst sort of blasphemy. As for me, I think Tamuz worship is nifty, no matter if you change his name to Attis, Mithras, Dionysios, or Jesus. It ain't my faith, but like any faith it should be judged by the works it inspires, not by whether or not its mine or yours. I spent an afternoon with a very culty brain-fractured & pretty young woman who was a member of a fundamentalist congregation & was active in some oddball fundy group called the Daughters of Job. I began deprogramming her & it was great fun, as the more deeply one has to advertise their faith the weaker it actually is, & even the brain-fractured have this instinct to actually THINK now & then. I could see a light returning into her placid but zombified visage, & if I'd been a guru who just wanted to change her programming rather than rid her of it, I think I could've brought her home with me to keep. But at the end of the day she cried out "You're the devil come to tempt me!" & fled back to her cult. What a fun day that was. -paghat the ratgirl -- "Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher. "Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature. -from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers" Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com |
Doug Kanter wrote:
........... I'm busy, so perhaps I'm not seeing all the possibilities, but at the moment, I can only see two possible ways evolution and creation are NOT mutually exclusive: 1) You believe each so-called "day" of creation actually represents millions or billions of years. (I've heard this from a few saps). 2) You think carbon dating is junk science. ............ From AxisofLogic.com Science/Nature "Evolution is a Theory, not a Fact" -- Making No Sense in Defense of Nonsense By Dr. Gerry Lower Nov 14, 2004, 09:20 In the year of our Lord, 2002, during the "compassionate" conservative tenure of George W. Bush, Cobb County school officials in Atlanta, Georgia were so emboldened as to put "warning stickers" in biology textbooks. Literally thousands of parents had complained that the textbooks presented evolution as if it were a "fact," without even mentioning Old Testament explanations for the origins of life, specifically creationism and "intelligent design." As a quick way to ruin a good book, the warning stickers have since been challenged in court as an unlawful imposition by and promotion of religion - in a nation ostensibly based on the separation of church and state. With the ascendency of religion-based capitalism in the U.S., however, this case is but one of several that have been considered in recent years, all of which revolve around the proper teaching of human origins in science education (Chicago Tribune, November 9, 2004). The warning stickers read, "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things." Creationists are wanting to say here that evolution remains "hypothetical" and "unproven," but they employ words that they do not comprehend. Evolutionary theory is not hypothetical at all or it could and would not constitute a theory. Evolutionary theory does not need to be "proven." It stands as the only viable, inclusionary approach available. Implicit, of course, in the creationist's warning is the notion that creationism is somehow more worthy of belief. This all makes perfectly good sense to religious fundamentalists because it seemingly props up the creationist point of view at the expense of the evolutionary point of view. In other words, in the absence of empirical fact and logic, creationism utilizes essentially political approaches to winning arguments. There is little option if one does not know the difference between a fact and a theory. From natural philosophical perspectives, the warning does little harm except in being confusing and divisive to students. It is an argument that makes no sense in its defense of nonsense. At the same time, the warning does provide a good deal of insight into the shallow grasp that religious Americans have of science, natural philosophy and its political philosophy, Democracy (their chosen political philosophy). Everyone already agrees, for example, that evolution is a "theory." Like all good theories, evolution is (by definition) based entirely upon empirical fact and empirical/logical inference (inductions, deductions and reductions). As such, all theories transcend the facts because theories embrace the facts and provide the facts with conceptual context within which the facts make sense and constitute knowledge. Without larger theoretical frameworks within which to organize, prioritize and integrate the facts as ideas, we would live (as we do under religious capitalism) in a complex world of competing facts, no larger knowledge available. This is exemplified by current marketplace-driven approaches to national cancer policy which have created crises in medical research, practice and ethics (Cancer, Capitalism and Intellectual Corruption, axisoflogic.com, October, 2004). To its credit, creationism does not even pretend to be based on empirical fact and logic. For that reason alone, it deserves no entrance into the realm of natural philosophical discourse, because it does not know what the terms mean and it cannot follow established rules, at least not if it hopes to win an argument. Creationism must stand in defense of ancient western superstition and supernaturalism and, in doing so, it must throw fact and logic out. As such, creationism's world view does not even qualify as a hypothesis, because even hypotheses are properly based upon empirical facts, even if those facts do not yet provide the basis for a compelling theory. Evolution is a theory comprised of myriad facts from the informational, molecular, cellular, organismal and populational levels of organization. These hierarchical and interrelated facts are integrated into definable conceptual frameworks over historical and evolutionary time frames to provide an internally-consistent view of the whole, i.e., a theory. Evolutionary theory has long stood as "proven" simply because it provides the only viable frameworks for continued comprehension of human comings and goings. In other words, evolutionary theory is no longer in competition with religious explanations of human origins, no more than the Germ Theory of infectious disease is in competition with religious explanations of disease causation (as punishment from the creationist's god. Evolutionary theory simply provides the best, most human, most broadly applicable explanation for human origins currently available. As a good theory, evolution provides common human ground relevant to all people and relevant to human self-concept. As a good theory, evolution provides not only explanatory value relevant to comprehension but also operational value relevant to control. Legal council for the Atlanta school district said that the "warning" stickers on biology textbooks were meant to "encourage critical thinking." This again is an argument that makes no sense in defense of nonsense. Critical thinking requires, after all, knowing something about the relationships between ideas, facts, hypotheses and theories. Critical thinking requires, after all, knowing something about natural philosophy and its historic American role in overcoming religious despotism two centuries ago. There is and can be no intelligent or meaningful compromise between science and religion on this issue. As with arguments over the motions of the planets and the causes of human disease, ultimately one side will be accepted, i.e., "proven," and one side will be rejected as being inadequate to the job at hand. Creationism will be kindly requested to take its religion back home where it belonged all along in a democracy guaranteeing religious freedom. Its very presence in governmental and academic deliberations is an affront to the separation of church and state. After all the idle debate, it comes down to a matter of human self-concept. The real issue here is whether we, as a people, ought base our views of life on supernatural conjecture (to become transcendentalists, supernaturalists and self-righteous fundamentalists) or on empirical reality (to become empiricists, realists, and thoughtful, caring, responsible citizens). In the end, the choice is ours, to have a view of life based on faith in faith itself or a view of life based on what we know and what we care about. Empiricists see creationists as being challenged when it comes to logic (which they are) while creationists see empiricists as being challenged when it comes to faith (which they are not). Empiricism just happens to better know where to place its faith, in the human mind and in humankind to ultimately achieve maturation and self-comprehension in the honest human truth. This is just the way the world works, just beneath the surface. God is never apart from honesty and human truth, as God is never a part of dishonesty and falsehood. The path to human intellectual maturation and self-comprehension is the path to human spirituality and the God of all people. Faith in the human truth, faith in the human mind, and faith in humankind is faith in God. To claim to be doing the work of God, in spite of global empirical evidence to the contrary, is religious self-righteousness personified, and that is all it is. It will ultimately leave one alone with fools for council, nothing of God in sight. To be honestly human is always to be with God, whose interest is necessarily restricted to the honest human truth. Otherwise, don't you see, even God would be lost right along with his children. Someone has to do the job at the top. Ferdinand Magellan, as if writing to creationists and fundamentalists, put it this way. "The church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen its shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the church" (Magellan witnessing the eclipse of 17 April, 1520). Samuel Adams, as if writing to creationists and fundamentalists, put it this way. "If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen" "Evolution is a theory, not a fact." So is Democracy a political theory and not a fact. Rejoice in that, people. It means that you have the right to change it to fit the facts. ----------------------- Dr. Gerry Lower lives in the shadow of Mount Rushmore in the Black Hills of South Dakota. His website can be reached at www.jeffersonseyes.com and he can be reached at © Copyright 2004 by AxisofLogic.com |
|
In article ,
says... In article , (Roger Pearse) wrote: Larry Blanchard wrote in message ... Bring back Mithras! It's all a bunch of bull anyway :-). Sorry, couldn't resist that one :-). Mithras is just another resurrected divinity like Tamuz and Jesus. A rose by any other name is still just a fertility daemon worshipped as god. so Mithras worship is still very much with us. Nothing wrong with that, only whimsical that modern Mithras-Tamuz-Jesus worshippers think there's a difference. It was a JOKE! Lighten up! -- Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description |
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 15:00:56 -0500, Cheryl Isaak
wrote: There is the "Divine Spark" school of thought - God started it all and stood back and watched.... Cheryl And laughed. That's the one I identify with. zennie |
(paghat) wrote in message ...
In article , (Roger Pearse) wrote: Larry Blanchard wrote in message ... In article , says... A devottee of a single Christian sect remains so by being blind to & rejecting the full range of belief. I do not claim to be an authority, though, just have a deeper interest than dunderheads who blame their prejudices & sillier observations on their religion, when they obviously learned only enough about faith to justify hating whatever they already hated. Bring back Mithras! It's all a bunch of bull anyway :-). Sorry, couldn't resist that one :-). Glad to see someone else can see the possibilities. "Get rid of the bull, with Mithras" :) All the best, Roger Pearse Mithras is just another resurrected divinity like Tamuz and Jesus. A rose by any other name is still just a fertility daemon worshipped as god. so Mithras worship is still very much with us. Nothing wrong with that, only whimsical that modern Mithras-Tamuz-Jesus worshippers think there's a difference. Your statements about the cult of Mithras are imaginary. Mithras was not resurrected. All the best, Roger Pearse |
and who created God?
In article , says... The point of faith becomes only that "something" (god) existed before the point of the big bang. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List http://puregold.aquaria.net/ www.drsolo.com Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the endorsements or recommendations I make. |
In article ,
(Roger Pearse) wrote: (paghat) wrote in message ... In article , (Roger Pearse) wrote: Larry Blanchard wrote in message ... In article , says... A devottee of a single Christian sect remains so by being blind to & rejecting the full range of belief. I do not claim to be an authority, though, just have a deeper interest than dunderheads who blame their prejudices & sillier observations on their religion, when they obviously learned only enough about faith to justify hating whatever they already hated. Bring back Mithras! It's all a bunch of bull anyway :-). Sorry, couldn't resist that one :-). Glad to see someone else can see the possibilities. "Get rid of the bull, with Mithras" :) All the best, Roger Pearse Mithras is just another resurrected divinity like Tamuz and Jesus. A rose by any other name is still just a fertility daemon worshipped as god. so Mithras worship is still very much with us. Nothing wrong with that, only whimsical that modern Mithras-Tamuz-Jesus worshippers think there's a difference. Your statements about the cult of Mithras are imaginary. Mithras was not resurrected. All the best, Roger Pearse You must have a corrupt perhaps christian reference book that doesn't like to admit these savior-myths are all pretty much the same myth. Some Christian references falsely state that Mithraism post-dates Christianity, to explain the similarities; others leave out the resurrection myth in order to cloud the similarities. The Christian claims that their "mysteries" predate Mithras started while Mithraism was still spreading out of Persia along Roman roads, & continues to this day, but it was just propoganda to pretend Christian rituals were novel, when the reason Christianity spread so easily throughout the pagan world was because the rites & the idea for this savior was already well known (and failed to take hold in Jerusalem because it was so well known to be a gentilic faith exclusively). A trick of some Christian scholars is to insist the Vedic, Persian, & Roman Mithras are actually three divinities only coincidentally with the same name, so any portion of the Mithras myth they don't like because too similar to Christian mystery-rites they can discarded or alleged not to predate Jesus, thus making Mithras rather than Jesus the imitation. So Plutarch's statement that Roman Mithraism was introduced by soldiers returning from Persia is dismissed because that religion did not thrive in Rome (but it did), therefore the thriving Roman Mithras who so closely resembled Jesus did not appear until at least 90 years into the Christian Era. Or, all information about Mithraism from India or Arabia is dismissed as allegedly anti-christian & therefore baseless (two unfounded premises in a row in order to get rid of Mithras as a precursor to Jesus). This leaves mainly the anti-Mithras statements of the early Church fathers as acceptable "witnesses" of Mithraic mythology -- anti-Mithras testimony, good; all other testimony, dismissable. The Mithraists themselves did not reveal their mysteries except in a very few fragments of verse which fit the archeological evidence (the temples including dark central initiate chambers of death & rebirth). All kinds of silly antic methods of getting rid of Mithras are tried, so that specifically christian scholarship on Mithras tends even today merely to continue that ancient anti-Mithras tradition that began when two PAGAN mystery cults of very similar character (Mithraism & Christianity) competed vigorously for the soul of Rome. The arguments that Christianity "did to" or "did not" imitate Mithras are all silly because the cultic pattern was almost universal from Sumer onward, & NEITHER Mithras NOR Jesus-as-God were the least bit novel. But central to Mithra worship was his descent (into darkness/death) & ascent (into light/immortality) as a pattern for all Mithraists to imitate ritually, & this Descent & Ascent myth is the same as for the death & resurrection of Jesus, Attis, Dionysios, Adonis, Osiris, & especially Tamuz/Damuzi, though one also finds descent & ascent myths for goddess figures like Persephone & Inanna which show Light's conquest even of the depths of the land of the dead. Mithras was born into the world to experience its sadness & terror, then was slain & entombed in a cavern underneath Mount Ararat, then restored to life bringing gifts of a world that was, like Mithras himself, renewed (much as Christians thought Jesus supplanted a more cruel Jewish god). His alleged birthday (as for so many sun-divinities) was winter solstice, today Christmas; & the mother of Mithras was a virgin, his father was the Sun. During his death his spirit entered the underworld where he conquered Ahriman's demons of darkness & possibly bound even Ahriman, then sprang back to life & came out of his cavern tomb bringing the world gifts of justice, beauty, loyalty, honesty, & bravery, all of which Ahriman had been hording in order to keep goodness out of the world. A similar extrabiblical story is told of Jesus who, during his entombment, entered into the land of darkness to release suffering souls. Mithras served thereafter as a mediator between the world (Earthmother) & the Sun-god, which some view as the same as the Christian Trinity, the Holy Ghost being noted by the earliest Christian gnostics as the Mother. On the day of judgement Mithras will select which souls will or will not persist eternally (in an Islamic myth, Mohammed's daughter does this, dividing the righteous from the unrighteous with her sword of flame). Mithras also had a parallel myth for the Last Supper, but it occurred upon his resurrection when he called his twelve disciples to the feast. Initiates reenacted Mithra's death & resurrection by spending a period of time in a lightless chamber at the center of a temple, then issuing reborn into the light. Before entering the Cavern/Tomb the initiate would be ritualistically tortured (or a kind of mummery acted out in which torture was pretended), undergoing the same tortures & death as Mithras: blindfolded, burned, bound in ropes or chains, cut with a sword, tossed into the tomb, then crowned & given bread upon release). Much the same ritual existed for one of Demeter's fertility daemons, & was intended to incite terror of the afterlife as it will be experienced by the unsaved, followed by salvation. Other versions have Mithras die seasonally & reborn from the cave each year. There is some indication that he originated as a god-personification of a Bull annually sacrififed to the Sun, just as Christians tie the death & resurrection of Jesus to the sacrificial Red Heifer &/or the Pascal Lamb. (Some scholars speculate the bull was Ahriman whose blood restored the stolen beatitudes, but no Roman, Greek, nor even Persian myth identifies the bull with evil, & it would be much more apt to be identified with Zeus, Jupiter, or Mithras himself, & with the fertility of Aphrodite or Europa). Parallelling Christians' macabre drinking of Jesus's blood & eating of Jesus's flesh, Mithras (or his father), in the form of a bull, was slain, his followers were baptized in His blood, & then the Mithras bull was eaten. In Vedic literature Mithra is a form of the god Varuna who also received bull or ox as sacrifice -- Varuna rules the night sky, Mithras the day sky. The Vedic Mithra was called "the first bull." His/their worship was displaced by or absorbed into the worship of Shiva who likewise died or dreams eternally in a cavern, trampled by his death-bride Kali -- and Shiva worshippers do recognize Jesus as an avatar of Shiva. -paggers -- "Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher. "Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature. -from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers" Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com |
Exactly.
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 16:21:33 GMT, opined: and who created God? In article , says... The point of faith becomes only that "something" (god) existed before the point of the big bang. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~ List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List http://puregold.aquaria.net/ www.drsolo.com Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the endorsements or recommendations I make. Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for yourself or a friend? http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html |
(paghat) wrote in message ...
In article , (Roger Pearse) wrote: (paghat) wrote in message ... In article , (Roger Pearse) wrote: Larry Blanchard wrote in message ... In article , says... A devottee of a single Christian sect remains so by being blind to & rejecting the full range of belief. I do not claim to be an authority, though, just have a deeper interest than dunderheads who blame their prejudices & sillier observations on their religion, when they obviously learned only enough about faith to justify hating whatever they already hated. Bring back Mithras! It's all a bunch of bull anyway :-). Sorry, couldn't resist that one :-). Glad to see someone else can see the possibilities. "Get rid of the bull, with Mithras" :) All the best, Roger Pearse Mithras is just another resurrected divinity like Tamuz and Jesus. A rose by any other name is still just a fertility daemon worshipped as god. so Mithras worship is still very much with us. Nothing wrong with that, only whimsical that modern Mithras-Tamuz-Jesus worshippers think there's a difference. Your statements about the cult of Mithras are imaginary. Mithras was not resurrected. All the best, Roger Pearse You must have a corrupt perhaps christian reference book that doesn't like to admit these savior-myths are all pretty much the same myth. Actually I don't trust reference books on matters of controversy. I always go to the ancient sources directly. In fact I grew tired of vague statements about Mithras quite some time ago, and wondered how to find out from primary sources what was known about him, and what was modern imagination (I'm currently doing the same for Sol Invictus). So what I did was search out every ancient mention of him in ancient literature, compile them all onto a website, and see what they said. I gather there are also a lot of inscriptions, but these all say things like "Marcus dedicates this shrine to Mithras". The collected testimonies are at http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/mithras. If someone says something, and it isn't in that collection, and there is no specific reference to an ancient source for the statement, then it is fairly safe to presume it is bogus. Some Christian references falsely state that Mithraism post-dates Christianity, I learn from Prof. Clauss' book on the subject that there is no evidence, archaeological or literary, for the worship of Mithras before around 80AD. to explain the similarities; others leave out the resurrection myth in order to cloud the similarities. There is no ancient evidence of such a myth associated with Mithras, as far as I know. If you know different, by all means provide the literary source. The Christian claims that their "mysteries" predate Mithras started while Mithraism was still spreading out of Persia along Roman roads, The Roman cult of Mithras is not thought to be the same as the ancient Persian worship of Mithra, not least because of all those subterranean temples with the image of Mithras in them, the most characteristic sign of Mithraism. But not a single one of these has been found in Persia. Therefore it cannot be a cult originating in Persia! All the earliest inscriptions show a connection with the city of Rome, he says. & continues to this day, Interested that worship in subterranean Mithraea is extant today in continuous line. But I don't know of this -- what is the source for this unlikely-sounding idea? So Plutarch's statement that Roman Mithraism was introduced by soldiers returning from Persia Plutarch does not state that Mithraism was introduced into Rome by Pompey's soldiers: "There were of these corsairs above one thousand sail, and they had taken no less than four hundred cities, committing sacrilege upon the temples of the gods, and enriching themselves with the spoils of many never violated before, such as were those of Claros, Didyma, and Samothrace; and the temple of the Earth in Hermione, and that of Aesculapius in Epidaurus, those of Neptune at the Isthmus, at Taenarus, and at Calauria; those of Apollo at Actium and Leucas, and those of Juno in Samos, at Argos, and at Lacinium. They themselves offered strange sacrifices upon Mount Olympus, and performed certain secret rites or religious mysteries, among which those of Mithras have been preserved to our own time having received their previous institution from them." (Life of Pompey 24:5/632cd). [long snip of assertions] Pardon me if I don't comment in detail on these. You see, all the assertions made are undocumented from ancient sources, and must therefore be considered dubious. May I ask what your source is for this? -- it sounds like something you found in a book? Unfortunately on matters of this sort there are authors out there who will exploit anti-Christian feeling by selling fairy-stories of this sort to those who'd like to believe them. "The Holy blood and the Holy Grail" comes to mind. The only way to avoid these people is to check every statement and not state as fact that which one has not checked for oneself. Luckily more and more of the ancient sources are online in English, so it is often easier to check than it has ever been. Not all of us have a huge library on-hand and loads of spare time! I hope that's helpful. All the best, Roger Pearse |
Roger Pearse wrote: [long snip of assertions]
Pardon me if I don't comment in detail on these. You see, all the assertions made are undocumented from ancient sources, and must therefore be considered dubious. You have just described the Bible. |
If you don't read every single article about "upgrades" to the Patriot Act, worry a lot and write to your representatives about it, you're stupid. If you do NOT read everything you can get your hands on because you can't imagine your government doing anything really bad, you are evil, you are a useless citizen, and you are guilty of treason. Simple, eh? You're nuts if you do. If you are writing your representative about the "upgrades" to the Patriot Act that you don't agree with I imagine they have a nice little manilla folder out there "somewhere" with your name on it. Most probably, you just might turn up "missing" one of these days - gone without a trace - nobody can do a damn thing about it either. Save your breath. Take care of yourself and your family. Lay low. Maybe one day we will have a democracy back. Maybe. Em Be careful what you wish for.... |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:20 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter