Go Back   The Scream! > COMMUNITY FORUMS > Expostulation Plaza

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #241  
Old 08-April-2002, 15:54
Worldlife's Avatar
Worldlife Worldlife is offline
Safe Sane Consensual
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 14,843
Default

There are some excellent brain surgeons able to explain their procedures to a mass viewing population . Hence the popularity of television series on various operations.

We recently had a Christian viewpoint that God may do some damned awful things but they are for a good reason and us mere mortals just don't understand.

I just wonder what proportion of people who call themselves Buddhists are deep intellectuals. Perhaps many just follow a path of simple understanding and rely on faith. Does that happen?

"... Doctrine taught by Gautama Buddha in his first
sermon at the deer park near Benares (Varanasi),
in India. Together with the Four Noble Truths, of
which it forms a part, it sums up the whole of Bud-
dhist teaching.
Is that too difficult ?

from:-The Buddha
Reply With Quote
  #242  
Old 08-April-2002, 17:04
Fenix
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

There are some excellent brain surgeons able to explain their procedures to a mass viewing population . Hence the popularity of television series on various operations.
...... yeah which makes as much sense to the viewer inasmuch as after the op he/she is no closer to becoming a brain surgeon than before just as someone who can explain advanced calculus to a laymen, it will still for the laymen remain a mystery. Without the training it leaves the watcher very little wiser than before and reminds him why he is a postal worker ( and nothing wrong with that BTW) and the brain surgeons a brain surgeon.

I'm sure Lynford Christie could explain every detail of his training, both mental and physical, his diet and anything else which allowed him to win an Olympic Gold for sprinting , but I gotta tell yer, after all that explaining My top speed for 100 metres will still remain at 31/2 minutes

fenix
Reply With Quote
  #243  
Old 08-April-2002, 17:16
The Beef's Avatar
The Beef The Beef is offline
我們被注定
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: From Southport
Posts: 2,114
Default

Now then, as far as I am aware, the bhudist (how do you spell it ) teaching is a peaceful one. I don't think they have ever gone out and pillaged nations in the name of their god. But they will go to war if needed to do so. Examplle:- When the Chinese invaded mongolia, the monks asked the leader, whether they should go to war or not. All this king fu isn't just for excercise you know
So we know that in essence they are a peacful religion.
Fenix my friend you ask us to look into budhism as it is logical and enilightning, but I don't see what is logical about putting a dying monk on the side of a mountain to be torn limb from limb so that he will go to nervana (heaven)
The budhist monk way is a hard self depravating life, which I'm sure you will know.
In order to have a better life when reincarnated one must suffer in this life. What you don't mention are the monks who have left monestaries mentally and physicaly scarred, trying to make things better for themselves in the next life, or to even reach nervana as that is the ultimate goal in budhism. My source for this info is from my boss at work who is Chinese.
Suffering is a part of life. Blaming God for it is illogical and really a cop out. The Christian teaching is if you do suffer in this life whatever that may be, when reaching heaven all will be made well. But to deliberately cause sufferencve to yourself again is illogical Man lives dies once and that's it. Many people who have a relationship with God take great "supernatural" strength in thier suffering while they are here and will be totally liberated when reaching heaven (where ever that is)
As I have said before it's ones relationship with God, which He desires that we all have and each one of us our relatioship will be unique.
The bible yes has been altered over hundreds of years. Especially the new testament. But the old testament is of great historical value to the beliver and the none believer.
Jericho for instance, God extending a day, solomons mines and many more have been found or proven to be true by none christian scientists and historians.
Saying why God doesn't stop all suffering is a cop out. As has been said before this earth needs a balance and unfortunatly nature will have it's way and livrs will be lost.
If one has a deblilitating illness and he asks God for relief, in most cases God won't remove the thing causing his suffering but He will give the devine strenght to cope with it.
Someone mentioned suffering is to purify Christians of sin. Bollacks That's the difference between Chiristianity and other religions. Christians have their past sins and ongoing sins forgiven. But they still have to face the consequences of their sin.
If a murder begins a relationship with Christ he will be forgiven, but he will still have to face the consequences of his sin.
So to the person who posted "christians get forgieven and everything will be alright" is again blollacks.
I'm waffling here and I'm trying to cover loads of things that have been posted all at once.
Just on a final note, Don't completely trust the bible, religious teachers, etc etc, but I do say trust God. That way you won't go wrong.
__________________
Beef.

"Thinking about what you might not be able to control, only wastes time and energy, till it eventually becomes your enemy."
Reply With Quote
  #244  
Old 08-April-2002, 17:40
Fenix
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The thing is Beef the teaching of buddha was called the 'Middle Way' as it strove to take a line of behaviour between the 'opposites' so anything extreme which you have found recorded was not in the orginal teachings of the Buddha. he shunned such behaviour.
look at it another way, howzabout the Spanish Inquisition, a more brutal tyranny in the name of Christ you would be hard put to find.

The truth is that many down the ages have taken a prophets teachings and perverted them, this does not invalidate the original message. I am surprised you have tried to hold up Buddhism as tarred with this brush as Christuianity over the ages has been far the worst abuser of others in the name of its God

fenix

PS: Anybody who believes that they have found 'faith' with whatever type of God ( Christian or otherwise) and takes strength and solace from it, I say, Good for you. Only if that faith then harms others do I take exception.
Reply With Quote
  #245  
Old 08-April-2002, 17:48
squidgy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Whoa! Here's a thread and a half! I must admit, I tend to stop following threads when you can't get to the page before the last one from the index! But hey, thought I might as well have one more look.

tony a says
cannot speak for all faithse but God as in Christian is the same god worshiped by the jews, believe that is also true with the Muslims?

the differance is Mainly Jesus, Christians see him as the son of God, whereas some other religions accept his existance, but not in this sence
An assertion which is often made by comparative religion enthusiasts. There - I've said it. I believe that comparative religion is just another religion, just like any other!

Seriously, though, I have yet to see any quote from the Bible or the Koran which substantiates this. Now, if we were to go down the road of political motives, it's not unreasonable to suggest that the kingdom of the Jewish God is an Israeli kingdom, and the kingdom of the Christian God is a Roman empire. Perhaps the kingdom of Allah is something else again.

Is this really the same God? Hmmm. To be honest, I think that religions aren't defining what God is in a consistent way. I think that they sometimes define God in such a way as to suit their own needs at the time. Perhaps that's why the argument about whether God exists or not carries on - because, after all, if there was one accepted definition of the word "God", then this in turn would clear up the debate on the existence of God once and for all.

But is that what they really want? Here's another way of looking at it - when was the last interview you saw with a politician where they actually said "yes" or "no" in response to a question? Politicians might not gain votes by moving goalposts, but they definitely don't lose them. They only lose them when they take an explicit line which people can see that they don't agree with. And religious preachers are quite aware of this too.



WL says
When we use the name Jesus there is no problem in accepting that he was one of the many Galilean "hasids" that were heirs of the prophetic tradition. When you add "Christ" you then accept Jesus as the both man and deity

It is impossible to believe in events such as the Resurrection without belief in God and so the two issues are not linked at all
Kinda, yeah. But, erm, here's the things that I accept as probable.
  • There was once a bloke called Jesus, who lived in Israel at the time it was under occupation from the Romans, and Jesus was of Israeli origin rather than Roman origin.
  • Something big definitely went off in Jerusalem at around the time of the Jewish annual tradition of Passover, he was probably crucified.
  • Thereafter, on the one hand, some people thought he was dead.
  • Whereas on the other hand, some people thought he was still alive.
  • A handful of people claimed to have seen him and spoken with him after the crucifixion.
  • Absolutely not a single soul claimed to have seen his corpse or skeleton - so, chances are, he really was alive afterwards.

That's as far as it goes really. The concept of someone being the "Son of God" is too abstract for me to consider it seriously. To make a distinction between whether he survived the crucifixion or died and rose again is also not only questionable, but also rather pointless, since I consider the chance of him being alive as being more important. Unless, of course, you plan to propagate some politically motivated religion which is based upon it. But, suffice to say, if I got crucified, but then found myself alive afterwards, yes, I'd think, "phew, thank God for that", but, if the media were going to start making a big deal out of it, and convert people to a new religion on the strength of it, I would find it incredibly embarrassing, and somewhat irritating. Nuff said.

Hmmm. Perhaps I might deal with a few other posts later.
Reply With Quote
  #246  
Old 08-April-2002, 18:01
fridgebuzz
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

At the risk of diluting this fascinating thread......I must just make the observation that......

Correct me if I'm wrong.........

EVERY ONE of your posts to it Squidgy didn't contain ONE SINGLE reference to a film....

Not meant to be flippant - I've enjoyed reading your contribtions m8
Reply With Quote
  #247  
Old 08-April-2002, 18:16
squidgy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Fenix says
It has just seemed to me that despite my opening the thread up to include Buddhism contributors have, with a few exceptions, steadfastly ignored it. As I say, if that is indicative of the level of interest, fair enough, just thought I'd make the point though.
Bless yer cotton socks, 10 years ago, I'd have probably been the same. Yeah, used to have a penguin classics copy of the dhammapada but a rellie has it now, chances are it's ended up in a church fundraiser second hand book sale by now.

But I mean - suffering is caused by desire, right? And if you get rid of desire, you get rid of suffering, right? Well, okay, in an abstract intellectual way, it makes sense. But it just doesn't seem real to me. Maybe I suffer - but that just shows me that I'm alive, right? You have to feel to live, it's not a life if you're on a serotonin and endorphin high every day all day and all night. Sometimes I get so drunk that I throw up. There was once when I was rushed into hospital for a drugs overdose. But so what? Sure, yeah, it's good to get out of the habit that causes these things to repeat themselves too often, but it doesn't really change the way I look at things. Suffering is not necessarily a bad thing!

So, it's a bit of a non-starter for me. To take this line of reasoning further, though, is to pop the question "Should I be in a rehab centre or not?" Hmmm, difficult one. Rather not go there, though, to be honest.

WL says
"Help! Forgive me my intolerance. Let me not become peeved or irritated by those who change their definition of the attributes of God to that which is not consistent with those taught previously as the basis of their religion"
Bless you! Hit the nail on the head there. I think I dealt with that in a previous post though, but that was before I read this one from you.

Okay, will read some more posts now.
Reply With Quote
  #248  
Old 08-April-2002, 18:44
The Beef's Avatar
The Beef The Beef is offline
我們被注定
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: From Southport
Posts: 2,114
Default

The truth is that many down the ages have taken a prophets teachings and perverted them, this does not invalidate the original message.
This is exactly what has happend with the original teachings of Christianity. This is what some of the posters don't seem to realise, when they attack the simple spiritual enlightning teachings of Jesus.
howzabout the Spanish Inquisition, a more brutal tyranny in the name of Christ you would be hard put to find.
The roman catholic Chruch wich propogated this inquistiion and many other's to boot are just like you say about extreme budhists. Who have taken and distorted the original teachings!
I am surprised you have tried to hold up Buddhism as tarred with this brush as Christuianity over the ages has been far the worst abuser of others in the name of its God
I wasn't having a go at you Fenix or Budhism it'self. I was merely trying to portray to others, that even budhism has it's extremists too.
It seemed to me that the atheists posting in this thread were willing to investigate the teachings of budha, yet had a down and outright chip on thier shoulders concerning Christianity. Which to me seemed a bit odd I wanted to bring a balance.
Posters here are thinking about what the "established" church has done and they have done some damn awful things, to which they will be answerable to God.
Maybe I suffer - but that just shows me that I'm alive, right?
Exactly! Although I don't think if we remove desire we remove suffering. Remember illness and such!
Aceppting the original message of Jesus and having a taste won't do anyone any harm at all. In fact you may be surprised to find it will do you some good.
__________________
Beef.

"Thinking about what you might not be able to control, only wastes time and energy, till it eventually becomes your enemy."
Reply With Quote
  #249  
Old 08-April-2002, 18:49
Fenix
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I just wonder if us peeps on TS know how lucky we are, after all I've had me 'Cotton socks' blessed, bless em and WL has had a straight blessing from St Squidge ....just kiddin


From Squidge
Maybe I suffer -
You and me both Squidge and mostly of late reading posts on TS

keep up the good work and I bless your penguin classic, its obviously gone to a better home

fenix
Reply With Quote
  #250  
Old 08-April-2002, 19:21
AJ113 AJ113 is offline
Screamager
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 244
Default

"The bible yes has been altered over hundreds of years. Especially the new testament."

Then how do you justify your faith? If the above statement was true there is no way that I would have ever entertained Christianity.

There is no historian in the world who would doubt the integrity of the New Testament. In 24,000 separate readings there is less than 5% variation and most of these variations are typos and grammar. I would admit to there being some doubt about the originality of three verses, but their inclusion neither adds to nor subtracts from the rest of the NT text. More importantly, there is certainly no variational reading that comes near to challenging the smallest iota of Christian faith.

In rejecting the New Testament on the grounds of its integrity, ALL of ancient history must be rejected too, as the NT is streets ahead of its nearest rival for early extant manuscripts.

The heart cannot rejoice in what the mind rejects as false, this is why I stated earlier that Christianity is not a blind faith.

If anyone can show that Christ did not rise from the dead then Christians do not have a right to their faith.
Reply With Quote
  #251  
Old 08-April-2002, 19:40
fabienne00
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

about religious intolerance and the wars brought about by religion (main factions of Christianity), catholics killing protestans and protestants killing catholics, from a robust atheist site:
http://atheism.about.com/library/wee...tant+massacres
(sorry not much on Buddhism)

I also got from this site the different notions of man a spiritual being as opposed to man as a religious being. It looks like this terminology is quite relevant to some folks's various beliefs on TS, don't you think?

... the words "spiritual" and "religious" are really synonyms. Both connote belief in a Higher Power of some kind. Both also imply a desire to connect, or enter into a more intense relationship, with this Higher Power. And, finally, both connote interest in rituals, practices, and daily moral behaviors that foster such a connection or relationship. ... [However, during the twentieth century, the] word spiritual gradually came to be associated with the private realm of thought and personal experience while the word religious came to be connected with the public realm of membership in religious institutions, participation in formal rituals, and adherence to official denominational doctrines.
Reply With Quote
  #252  
Old 08-April-2002, 19:43
squidgy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Fenix says
I find that any answer that I may give without the questioners understanding of Karma being extant will only lead to more questions which again can only be answered by the questioners deep understanding of Karma.
Oh - right. So when I thought it meant "stuff happens coz you do stuff" - that ain't quite it then? Hmmm, maybe I missed the point then. I'm not trying to be flippant, honestly!

Also - another thing I'm going to pick up on ....

quoted by WL ....
Referring to the naked ascetics who practised self-mortification, the Buddha said: "If O Bhikkhus, beings experience pain and happiness as the result of God's creation, then certainly these naked ascetics must have been created by a wicked God, since they are at present experiencing such terrible pain",
(Devadaha Sutta, No.101. Majjhima Nikaya, II.222)
Yep, I'll go along with that. To take this idea further, the only movie I can think of which makes a serious attempt to challenge ideas held by the mainstream Church is Stigmata ....

whoops ....

posted by fb ...
EVERY ONE of your posts to it Squidgy didn't contain ONE SINGLE reference to a film....
Damn! Blown it! And I was trying sooo hard!

Seriously, the reason I was trying to avoid going down that road is because, brilliant as the movie is, I think (1) although it alludes to some of the stuff I've said, it doesn't go as deep as I have, and (2) hello! You can't honestly tell me that Stigmata wasn't made with just a hint of an idea that it might be a bit of a money spinner to appeal to obsession some people have with self injury. Not saying that as a criticism, mind, because the same could be said of Girl Interrupted, and it could also be said that movies from a wide range of styles, such as Pulp Fiction, Trainspotting, Go, 28 Days, Requiem For A Dream and American Beauty have all been made so as to appeal to an obsession with drugs, amongst other things. So let's clear up this issue before it develops into something that could be a bit raw.

I think that if you have a drugs problem, or alcohol problem, or food problem, or self injury problem, or you tend to get into violent relationships, then that's your problem. Only you can sort it out. You can't blame it on anyone else. That includes religions too. For everything I've said about Christianity, I would definitely not say "it makes people overdose". If anyone did ever try to use those grounds to criticise any religion, college class, TV series or any other form of distributed message, then, personally, I'd take such criticisms with a bit of a pinch of salt.

But then, that's not a million miles away from the point that WL was making. Assuming there were such a thing as a religion which really does make you overdose on tranquilizers, painkillers or other drugs, or slash your wrists, it can't be a good one, can it?
Reply With Quote
  #253  
Old 08-April-2002, 20:09
squidgy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Major cross posting going on, obviously a busy thread. As soon as I post, I discover that six more posts have been made since I started writing it.

I've tried to avoid questioning the fidelity that books hold to their source. After all, if you don't fully trust the motives for creating the books in the first place, then the accuracy of their translation is slightly beside the point.

I'd go along with those definitions of religious and spiritual. If I were totally cynical, I'd say that "religious" means "concerning large scale propaganda in any medium, for example, movies, TV or books" whereas "spiritual" means "concerning personal feelings which may be caused by hormonal activity within your body, but which is more likely to be caused by drugs, sex, pain, food or other physical influences". But I'm not quite as cynical as all that - yet!
Reply With Quote
  #254  
Old 09-April-2002, 00:02
Worldlife's Avatar
Worldlife Worldlife is offline
Safe Sane Consensual
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 14,843
Default

Seems this thread will win the award for having the most quotes contained in its posts.......

The Beef:-It seemed to me that the atheists posting in this thread were willing to investigate the teachings of budha, yet had a down and outright chip on thier shoulders concerning Christianity. Which to me seemed a bit odd I wanted to bring a balance.
No chip Beef from me. Received religious instruction at school concerning the Christian faith to the exclusion of all others.

Would be interested to know more about Bhuddism to see the extent to which the scenarios from this religion have been incorporated into the Bible

Wow......a start with Mithra (not a direct Bhuddist link but found in search criteria):-

In being confronted with the belief that either the life of Christ just happened to match the stories about Mithra from a century earlier or that Paul, a Jew, substituted Jesus for Mithra and told the same stories about him, the latter is by far the most likely. And in noting that Paul mentions not one of the teachings of Jesus from the four approved gospels. Rather he refers to the mysteries of virgin birth, resurrection and the like.
from:- Ethics, Morals and Their Origins

Christianity is founded on plagiarism

The evidence is at Mithraism and Christianity

A century earlier than Christ we have a religion founded on:-

Virgin birth
Twelve followers
Killing and resurrection
Miracles
Birthdate on December 25
Morality
Mankind's savior
Known as the Light of the world

Last edited by Worldlife; 09-April-2002 at 00:22.
Reply With Quote
  #255  
Old 09-April-2002, 01:26
AJ113 AJ113 is offline
Screamager
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 244
Default

"A century earlier than Christ we have a religion founded on:-

Virgin birth
Twelve followers
Killing and resurrection
Miracles
Birthdate on December 25
Morality
Mankind's savior
Known as the Light of the world"

There is an ancient Iranian Mithra, and a later Roman Mithra. It should be noted that the two are connected in name only, but perpetuators of the Christian Plagiarism myth will quite happily bounce from one to the other.

1)Virgin Birth
No. Mithra was born out of solid rock. He was born an adult.

2)Twelve Followers.
There is a depiction of Mithra slaying a bull, it is surrounded by tweleve human forms. This is the one and only piece of evidence to support this contention

3)Killing and resurrection.
There is no evidence of either. There isn't even any record of Mithra's death. If you have any, then please present it here.

4)Miracles
He (apparently) did many splendid things, but nothing such as walking on water, or healing the sick.

6)Birthdate 25 December
Agreed! But nowhere in the New Testament is this date associated with Jesus' birth. It was a universally sacred date as it was the Winter Solstice.

7)Morality
Meaning what, exactly?

8)Mankind's saviour
I am sure that no Mithraic scholar will attribute this title to Mithra. There is certainly no documentary evidence of this.

9)Known as the light of the world.
No he wasn't. See 8).
Reply With Quote
  #256  
Old 09-April-2002, 02:09
Worldlife's Avatar
Worldlife Worldlife is offline
Safe Sane Consensual
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 14,843
Default

AJ I'll just develop the first item on which we do not seem to agree Maybe others will follow to cover the other seven items in similar depth !!

You have questioned the Virgin Birth of Mithras. In Persia the god Mithra was born of a virgin on December 25th.
Maybe therefore the claims of both Jesus and Mithras to be of virgin birth need absolute verification!


Virgin birth does not seem in the sole proprietorship of the Christian faith........

History records that: Buddha was born of the virgin Maya after the Holy Ghost descended upon her.

The Egyptian God Horus was born of the virgin Isis; as an infant, he was visited by three kings.

In Phrygia, Attis was born of the virgin Nama.

A Roman savior Quirrnus was born of a virgin.

In Tibet, Indra was born of a virgin. He ascended into heaven after death.

The Greek deity Adonis was born of the virgin Myrrha, many centuries before the birth of Jesus. He was born "at Bethlehem, in the same sacred cave that Christians later claimed as the birthplace of Jesus."

In Persia, Zoroaster was also born of a virgin.

In India, the god Krishna was born of the virgin Devaki.

Virgin births were claimed for many Egyptian pharaohs, Greek emperors and for Alexander the Great of Greece.

Many mythological figures: Hercules, Osiris, Bacchus, Mithra, Hermes, Prometheus, Perseus and Horus who share a number of factors. All were believed to have: been male.

lived in pre-Christian times.
had a god for a father.
human virgin for a mother.
had their birth announced by a heavenly display.
had their birth announced by celestial music.
been born about DEC-25.
had an attempt on their life by a tyrant while they were still an infant
met with a violent death.
rose again from the dead.

Source:-
The virgin birth of Jesus - Fact or Fable

Last edited by Worldlife; 09-April-2002 at 02:18.
Reply With Quote
  #257  
Old 09-April-2002, 06:20
squidgy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hmmm - interesting! Okay, I must admit, the line I took about the virgin birth being used as a way of breaking the line of descendence from David - yeah, okay, I kinda made that one up. But I can imagine a Christian preacher trying to argue it like that .... saying that Jesus really was the King of the Jews, but yeah, he was born of a virgin too, and the Jews considered it blasphemy for it to be suggested he was the King of the Jews when he wasn't really directly descended from David - which is why they wanted to kill him, which explains how it's plausible that they really did it. Sure, yeah, I've never actually had this argument out with someone, I just want to show that my mind can go into overdrive too, and I can argue it out from all possible standpoints.

But the rest of the ideas, that Jesus was actually a pro-Israeli freedom fighter, who was crucified by the Romans for precisely this reason, but who then went on to live a substantial length of time afterwards, is definitely something I've heard before repeatedly from several different sources, I'm sure a quick search of Google should turn one or two of them up.

I can't resist it but here's another movie reference - that Isiah to Matthew translation mistake immediately made me think of the scene at the start of Snatch.

Last edited by squidgy; 09-April-2002 at 06:28.
Reply With Quote
  #258  
Old 09-April-2002, 08:09
fridgebuzz
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I kinda made that one up
Whooooooooa!..............Does this mean I've got to go to the beginning of this thread and start ALL OVER AGAIN
Reply With Quote
  #259  
Old 09-April-2002, 08:45
Worldlife's Avatar
Worldlife Worldlife is offline
Safe Sane Consensual
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 14,843
Default Good point F/B

It is amazing that intellectual input to this thread is provided from the most unlikely sources.

W/L glances in the direction of F/B

As the thread gets longer maybe it will be useful if when folks backtrack they refer to the previous post by date.... or maybe requote.

It is quite easy to use the search facility within TS to find the post concerned...

I won't be drawn into assisting the piracy this thread. Keep to the virgin birth - topic of the day

Last edited by Worldlife; 09-April-2002 at 08:48.
Reply With Quote
  #260  
Old 09-April-2002, 15:19
AJ113 AJ113 is offline
Screamager
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 244
Default

"You have questioned the Virgin Birth of Mithras. In Persia the god Mithra was born of a virgin on December 25th. "

From your source: "Most of the research into Mithraism, a religion with many parallels to Christianity, comes from two writers, Cumont and Ulansey. "

David Ulansey, in his article "Solving the Mithraic Mysteries" states: "Owing to the cult's secrecy, we possess almost no literary evidence about the beliefs of Mithraism.....However, although our literary sources for the Mithraic mysteries are extremely sparse, an abundance of material evidence for the cult exists in the many Mithraic temples and artifacts that archaeologists have found scattered throughout the Roman empire"

Ulansey goes on to say: "If Mithras was in fact believed to be capable of moving the entire universe, then he must have been understood as in some sense residing outside of the cosmos. This idea may help us to understand another very common Mithraic iconographical motif: namely, the so-called "rock-birth" of Mithras. This scene (http://www.well.com/user/davidu/mithras.html) shows Mithras emerging from the top of a roughly spherical or egg-shaped rock, which is usually depicted with a snake entwined around it."

The image is two thirds of the way down the page, it is entitled "Rock-Birth of Mithras". It clearly shows an adult form.

And again: "But caves are precisely hollows within the rocky earth, which suggests that the rock from which Mithras is born is meant to represent the Mithraic cave as seen from the outside. "

W/L you appear to be jumping from one issue to another without resolving any of them. Your references to other "virgin births" may look impressive, but they are unsubstantiated, and in any case the only function of their presence in this thread appears to be helping you to sidetrack the issue of Mithra's alleged virgin birth.
Reply With Quote
  #261  
Old 09-April-2002, 15:33
Fenix
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Fenix says
I find that any answer that I may give without the questioners understanding of Karma being extant will only lead to more questions which again can only be answered by the questioners deep understanding of Karma.

...so squidge said....

"Oh - right. So when I thought it meant "stuff happens coz you do stuff" - that ain't quite it then? Hmmm, maybe I missed the point then. I'm not trying to be flippant, honestly! "

D'you know what Squdge, I think this is the first time we can agree. You Have missed the Point

fenix
Reply With Quote
  #262  
Old 09-April-2002, 16:06
Worldlife's Avatar
Worldlife Worldlife is offline
Safe Sane Consensual
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 14,843
Default

AJ ..... I accept that there are a few sources that attribute the birth of Mithras to a female rock! I find the virgin birth story (supported by the explicit evidence such as now follows) together with similar details quoted previously, almost equally unbelievable to that of the virgin birth of Jesus :-

According to Persian traditions, the god Mithras was actually incarnated into the human form of the Saviour expected by Zarathustra. Mithras was born of Anahita, an immaculate virgin mother once worshipped as a fertility goddess before the hierarchical reformation. Anahita was said to have conceived the Saviour from the seed of Zarathustra preserved in the waters of Lake Hamun in the Persian province of Sistan. Mithra's ascension to heaven was said to have occurred in 208 B.C., 64 years after his birth. Parthian coins and documents bear a double date with this 64 year interval.
From:-Mithraism

W/L you appear to be jumping from one issue to another without resolving any of them.
AJ You are the one trying to unresolve the issue by not accepting the majority source information concerning Mithras as stated above.

I do not see that it is unreasonable to report that virgin birth claims are not exclusive to just Mithras and Jesus.

Last edited by Worldlife; 09-April-2002 at 16:11.
Reply With Quote
  #263  
Old 09-April-2002, 18:07
AJ113 AJ113 is offline
Screamager
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 244
Default

"..... I accept that there are a few sources that attribute the birth of Mithras to a female rock!"

Female rock? er... a Rockette, perhaps?

No, Mithra's rock birth is the version (no mention of female) as submitted by David Ulansey, acknowledged by your own posted source as being in the forefront of Mithraic research.

Therefore one of two conclusions can be drawn:

a)Ulansey is wrong, thus discrediting the original source, which claims him to be one of two major experts.

b)Ulansey is right.

Regarding Anahita:

"...supported by the explicit evidence such as now follows..."

There is NO explicit evidence regarding Mithra! Merely voicing an opinion is not evidence, neither is quoting people who have their own opinions on the matter. However, as you have bothered to do the research, let us look at the writer's conclusions:

"According to Persian traditions, the god Mithras was actually incarnated into the human form of the Saviour expected by Zarathustra. Mithras was born of Anahita, an immaculate virgin mother once worshipped as a fertility goddess before the hierarchical reformation. Anahita was said to have conceived the Saviour from the seed of Zarathustra preserved in the waters of Lake Hamun in the Persian province of Sistan. Mithra's ascension to heaven was said to have occurred in 208 B.C., 64 years after his birth. Parthian coins and documents bear a double date with this 64 year interval."

And the evidence for these Persion traditions is?

http://www.pantheon.org/articles/a/anahita.html

The above link is from The Encyclopaedia Mythica, a web site devoted to ancient myths. It gets 10,000 - 20,000 hits per day. This is what it has to say about Anahita:

"Anahita was very popular and is one of the forms of the 'Great Goddess' which appears in many ancient eastern religions (such as the Syrian/Phoenician goddess Anath). She is associated with rivers and lakes, as the waters of birth. Anahita is sometimes regarded as the consort of Mithra"

Note CONSORT, not virgin mother.

Interestingly enough, about Mithra himself it says:

".....Mithra was born from a rock (or a cave). "

Last edited by AJ113; 09-April-2002 at 20:43.
Reply With Quote
  #264  
Old 09-April-2002, 20:31
Fenix
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I wasn't having a go at you Fenix or Budhism it'self. I was merely trying to portray to others, that even budhism has it's extremists too.
The thing that your quote illustrates beef ( if its accurate), no aspersions on you incidently, is that the monks were harming only themselves whereas the nutters down the ages in the name of Christ have literally done Bl**dy Murder, wholesale.
Reply With Quote
  #265  
Old 09-April-2002, 20:42
Fenix
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I think actually that the point I made in my last post has a wider implication.
Although most of us realise that the harm that is done in the name of any particular religon, ie the spanish inquisition, the crusades etc, which of course were in the name of christianity, would NOT have been sanctioned by Jesus Christ if the teachings handed down to us in say the NT are accurate, it still begs the question that, what must it be in Chistianity that at times encourages its adherants/followers to be so intolerant and incite such evil and grotesque behaviour. Chistianity really has been the worst religon down the ages for this type of behaviour. WHY?
Reply With Quote
  #266  
Old 09-April-2002, 20:57
AJ113 AJ113 is offline
Screamager
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 244
Default

"what must it be in Chistianity that at times encourages its adherants/followers to be so intolerant and incite such evil and grotesque behaviour."

There is nothing in Christianity that incites its adherants to evil and grotesque behaviour. You yourself have said that this type of action would not have been sanctioned by Christ. Therefore it is an error to find the dogmas of Christian faith at fault on this basis.

Past atrocities committed in the name of Christianity have been committed by individuals mistaken in their understanding of their Christian duties. One could go so far as to say that these atrocities were committed by anyone BUT a Christian, despite the individual's claims to be acting in the name of Christ.

"Chistianity really has been the worst religon down the ages for this type of behaviour. WHY"

Is this your opinion, or is it based on some sort of statistical information?
Reply With Quote
  #267  
Old 09-April-2002, 21:10
Fenix
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

AJ, I think you have missed my point.

Atrocities can be potentially commited in 'any' religons name , why so many in the Christian name?



Chistianity really has been the worst religon down the ages for this type of behaviour. WHY"
Are you saying I am incorrect in my assertion here?
Reply With Quote
  #268  
Old 09-April-2002, 21:24
silver's Avatar
silver silver is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Bournemouth, UK
Posts: 12,177
Default

WHY ?

perhaps because the people who happened to call themselves christian were 'nasty people' ?

I think blaming religion as the cause of wars etc is flawed. I mean look at uncle bin laden - he's a muslim does that mean all muslims go round blowing chit up ?

It's surely a mass generalization to blame a certain religion for things which have happened (unless you count that sect which believed eating old people would help them become younger), it is not a religions fault if people choose to do things in its name. It's like saying that white (or any other color you choose) people tend to cause wars...

Sil
Reply With Quote
  #269  
Old 09-April-2002, 21:40
Fenix
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Well, I think the last poster hasAlso missed the point.

Any or ALL religons can potentially spawn people who go out and ( in its name) do Murder.

Right , given that FACT, how comes Chistianity is top of the League? and it is
Reply With Quote
  #270  
Old 09-April-2002, 21:45
silver's Avatar
silver silver is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Bournemouth, UK
Posts: 12,177
Default

Well, I think the last poster has Also missed the point

you must also wonder why it was white people who went round invading other countries - was it because they were white ?

Sil
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
bad, car, christmas, company, connection, dead, forward, google, happy, health, home, key, law, line, liverpool, lost, mail, make, opinion, police, product, public, rates, sound, speed, speeds, talk, virgin

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 13:45.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1999-2014 The Scream!