Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19

Thread: Zoroastrianism

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,313

    Zoroastrianism

    A very informative video on the origins of Zoroastrianism. This religion was founded by the prophet Zorasthustra in ancient Persia over 3 millennia ago (between 1500 and 1200 BC), and is the oldest surviving monotheistic religion. Their one supreme god is call Ahura Mazda, or the god of good thoughts, good words, and good deeds...introducing the idea of the immortal soul.

    Never trust anything you are afraid to question ~

    To know oneself is to know the universe...


    Live Fully...Love Extravagantly...For the sake of Goodness

    Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Matt.10:16

    Come let us reason together...Isa.1:18
    ********************************
    My new Blog site: God and Butterfly

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    709

    Was the story of Jesus stolen from that of Zoroaster?

    Here is some more info I found on Zoroaster.

    It is said by some critics that:

    • Zoroaster was born of a virgin and "immaculate conception by a ray of divine reason."
    • He was baptized in a river.
    • In his youth he astounded wise men with his wisdom.
    • He was tempted in the wilderness by the devil.
    • He began his ministry at age 30.
    • Zoroaster baptized with water, fire, and "holy wind."
    • He cast out demons and restored the sight to a blind man.
    • He taught about heaven and hell, and revealed mysteries, including resurrection, judgment, salvation and the apocalypse.
    • He had a sacred cup or grail.
    • He was slain.
    • His religion had a eucharist.
    • He was the "Word made flesh."
    • Zoroaster's followers expect a "second coming" in the virgin-born Saoshyant or Savior, who is to come in 2341 CE and begin his ministry at age 30, ushering in a golden age.
    Some of the things listed above are actually true and confirmed by scholarly literature -- and a couple of them come from sources that Zoroastrian scholars suggest go back to a source predating Christianity. But that's the mythicists getting 10 out of 100 on a test where before they got zeroes, or claiming a "100% increase" in a salary that went from one dollar a year to two dollars. Some of these I find no confirmation at all for; others come from sources that are way, way too late -- even as late as the 10th century! Our main source for details on Zoroaster is the Avesta, a collection of sacred texts which was put in writing between 346-360 AD [Herz.ZW, 774] and of which we have manuscript copies only as early as the 13th century [Wat.Z, 56 -- and note to conspiracy theorists: blame Alexander the Great and the Muslims for the destruction of Zoroastrian literature]. Some of the material probably comes from a time before the Christian era, but most of this is reckoned to be hymns and some basic information [Rose.IZ, 17] that was part of the oral tradition. The rest seems likely to have been added later, and for good reason, as Rose notes [ibid., 27]:Name:  zoroaster.gif
Views: 187
Size:  16.6 KB
    The incorporation of certain motifs into the Zoroastrian tradition in the ninth century CE could indicate the conscious attempt of the priesthood to exalt their prophet in the eyes of the faithful who may have been tempted to turn to other religions.
    In other words, if we see a "Jesus-like" story in these texts, especially this late, we have a right to suspect borrowing -- but in exactly the opposite way that critics suppose!
    A key issue seems to be, "When did Zoroaster actually live?" Interestingly enough there has even been a few "Zoroaster-mythers" who said (as Bultmann said of Jesus!) "nothing can be said" of the historical Zoroaster [Rose.IZ, 15]. J. M. Robertson, who also stumped for a mythical Jesus and a mythical Buddha, took up the Zoroaster-myth (to which a Zoroastrian scholar responded, "I have myself indeed divined and published the argument by which Mr. Robertson's successors fifty years hence will irrefutably prove him a myth") [Wat.Z, 11]. One Zoroastrian scholar did go along with the idea eventually, but died before he could justify his position. At any rate, most of the sources I consulted prefer a date around 600 B.C., though one scholar has suggested a date as early as 1700 BC [Yam.PB, 414].


    Does indeed Persia have anything to do with Jerusalem? Zoroaster's faith had an idea that sounds like, and probably is, bodily resurrection, though it is most clear only in AD-dated texts. Did the Jews "steal" this idea while under the thumb of the Persians? There is no direct evidence either way; the Persians may have got the ideas from the Jews, and from Ezekiel or Daniel. We'll see some other general ideas they have in common as well. But in terms of borrowing, no evidence exists -- one way or the other, and a determination depends on the interpretations and datings of Zoroastrian texts. Zoroastrian scholars offer no consensus on the subject [Yam.PB, 461]: Yamauchi cites one scholar who believes that the Jews borrowed, another that says there is no way to tell who borrowed, and yet another who says that the borrowing was the other way. There is also a great difference in approach: The Jews buried their dead, while the Zoros exposed their dead.

    Others argue that the Jewish idea of Satan is borrowed from Zoroastrianism. But Satan appears in Job, a very early book, and is nothing like the evil god Ahriman, who is a dualistic equal to Ohrmazd the good god, rather than a subordinate. Finally, it is significant that while the OT used plenty of Persian loanwords for governmental matters, they did not use any for religion [Yam.PB, 463]. The most we find is, I am told, the name of a Persian demon in the Book of Tobit!
    And so, right to the list, shall we go?

    Zoroaster was born of a virgin and "immaculate conception by a ray of divine reason." It's hard to quantify this one -- the Avesta (note again, a late source, later than Christianity) refers to a "kingly glory" that was handed onward from one ruler to the next; this glory resided in Zoroaster's mother for about 15 years, including during the time she was married to Zoroaster's dad, Pourushaspa. It seems that a human father was still needed for Zoroaster [Jack.ZP, 18, 24] and that this "ray" was merely for the infusion of Zoroaster's spirit, not his body. (A reader has added the point that it is not correct to use "Immaculate conception" to refer to Christ's virgin birth, as seems to be the implication here; rather it refers to the Roman Catholic doctrine that the Mary was born without original sin. It is only somewhat recently that some people have erroneously used it to refer to Christ's virgin birth.)

    He was baptized in a river.
    I can find no reference to this at all. There is a story of Zoraster receiving a revelation from an archangel while on the banks of a river, which Zoroaster later crosses [Jack.ZP, 41], but that is as close as I have found.

    In his youth he astounded wise men with his wisdom.
    Here's what I have on this: At age 7, Zoroaster was placed under the care of a wise man; as he was raised he had disputations with the magi -- the practitioners of occult and magic, necromancy, and sorcery. These were "put to confusion" by him [Jack.ZP, 29, 31]. Later he also made sport of the wise men of King Vishtapsa, who became one of his major converts [Jack.ZP, 61-2], and these wise men plotted against him, accusing him of being a necromancer. Zoroaster was imprisoned, but got out when he helped heal the king's favorite horse by making its legs grow back. Zoroaster was clearly a prodigy, but in quite a different area than Jesus.

    He was tempted in the wilderness by the devil.
    This one is true, sort of -- after 10 years (not 40 days!) of visionary experiences, a sub-demon named J. Buiti was sent by Ahriman (the functional devil-equivalent in this context -- he didn't come himself) "to deceive and overthrow the holy messenger." [Jack.ZP, 51] This temptation involved an attempt to persuade Zoroaster to renounce the "good religion" of Mazdeism and worship evil spirits -- no bread to stones, no leaps from towers, just talking back and forth with Zoro quoting Persian scriptures. Jackson and Waterhouse indicate no location for this; it could have been the wilderness, but it might have been MacDonald's in Tehran. The story has some roots to the 2nd century BC [Wat.Z, 54] but it bears at best a superficial similarity to the temptation of Jesus.

    He began his ministry at age 30.
    This one is absolutely right [Jack.ZP, 16], but rendered meaningless in this context by two things. First, it comes from the Pahlavi literature, which is post-Christian by several centuries, and second, thirty is the age at which Iranian men come to Wisdom. [WL, 54] The ancients gave as much regard to the "big three-oh" as we did -- there is no copycatting here.

    Zoroaster baptized with water, fire, and "holy wind."
    This is kind of odd, because this would equate with a "John the Baptist myth," not a Christ myth! Even so, I find no evidence of any of these at all. Zoroaster did have an association with sacred fires [Jack.ZP, 98] that were part of the fire-cults in three particular temples, and seemed to have taken a part in preserving the fire-cult (which liked to keep the fires going, sort of like our eternal flame at Arlington Cemetery) but he did not "baptize" with and of these things.

    He cast out demons and restored the sight to a blind man.
    "Cast out" is a little vague for a description here -- Zoro apparently didn't like demons, but I find no record saying he cast them out of people as Jesus did: This was one of several abilities Zoro had, including driving out pestilence, witches, and sorcerers. There is a record of Zoroaster healing a blind man, but this comes from a document dated to the tenth century AD -- and he did it by dropping juice from a plant into the blind man's eyes. [Jack.ZP, 94]

    He taught about heaven and hell, and revealed mysteries, including resurrection, judgment, salvation and the apocalypse.
    As this goes, it is true, but not all of these terms have the same meaning in Zoroastrianism that they do in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Only "resurrection" is a good match here -- Zoroaster's faith taught that after judgment, the "dead will rise up" and men will become "not-aging, not-dying, not-decaying, not-rotting" [Herz.ZW, 299]. It's resurrection, it sounds like, though described by negatives.

    In terms of the other stuff, there aren't a lot of similarities [Wat.Z, 95, 96, 98, 102]. Salvation was by works alone; there was "practically no place for repentance or pardon:" and "no doctrine of atonement." There is some issue about the fate of the wicked; one account says they will be tormented three days, then return to do good deeds; another source says they will be annihilated. There is an essential equivalent to Heaven and Hell, but it wouldn't be too hard to create such a concept independently one way or the other based on the simple assumption that people will get what they deserve.

    Judgment would be made by committee: the Persian Mithra and two other gods are on the panel. If you aren't sure where you might go, word is that Zoroaster himself will come and plead for you. A concept of purgatory appears in a Zoroastrian work of the 5th-6th century, and later Zoroastrianism did develop rites of repentance and expiation, contrary to Zoroaster's recorded teachings. There's an apocalypse planned to be sure: a flood of molten metal to burn off the wicked. Zoroastrian eschatology comes for the most part, however, from those late AD sources [Yam.PB, 465]. A reader also sent us this note:

    "The case for a judeo-christian dependence on Zoroastrianism in its purely eschatological thinking is quite different. And not at all convincing, for apart from a few hints in the Gathas which we shall shortly be considering and a short passage in Yasht 19.80-90 in which a deathless existence in body and soul at the end of time is affirmed, we have no evidence as to what eschatological ideas the Zoroastrians had in the last four centuries before Christ. The eschatologies of the Pahlavi books, though agreeing in their broad outlines, differ very considerably in detail and emphasis; they do not correspond at all closely to the eschatological writings of the intertestimentary period nor to those of St. Paul and the apocalypse of St. John. They do, however, agree that there will be a general resurrection of the body as well as soul, but this idea would be the natural corollary to the survival of the soul as a moral entity, once that had been accepted, since both Jew and Zoroastrian regarded soul and body as being two aspects, ultimately inseperable, of the one human personality."
    -- R.C. Zaehner, The Dawn and Twilight of Zoroastrianism. G.P. Putnam's Sons. New York. 1961. Pg. 57
    Note especially the implication that an idea of resurrection could have come up independently in the Zoroastrians because they shared the Jewish perception of totality of body and spirit.
    He had a sacred cup or grail. If he did, the Zoroastrian scholars don't know about it. Not that it matters -- the idea of Jesus having a sacred cup or grail is a product of medieval legend, not the Bible!

    He was slain.
    Zoroaster was indeed said to be slain, but his death isn't vested with any significance. There are a couple of stories about his death. A late story has him struck by lightning, but that is from a post-Christian source. An account that is generally accepted has Zoroaster killed at age 77 by a wizard/priest. There are no details on this death, other than that it occurred in a temple. A nice story from the 17th century has Zoroaster whipping out rosary beads and throwing them at his assassin as he dies. [Jack.ZP, 124-9] Either way, Zoroaster's murder has neither the invested significance nor the surrounding similarities of the death of Jesus. There is also a third account that has him killed in battle as a king! However, none of this may matter as Herzfeld, after analysis of the data, concludes that the "murder of Zoroaster is entirely unhistorical" for the stories of it are all in late sources as much as 1400 years after his time, and had he truly been murdered, it would "resound loudly and persistently in history" before that [Herz.ZW, 241, 845].

    His religion had a eucharist.
    Not that the Zoroastrian scholars are aware of, though I would not doubt that the Z people had communal meals like every religious and political group in ancient times. And since there is no atonement in Zoroastrianism, how can there be a Eucharist? The closest I can find to this is the fact that in later Zoroastriaism, there is a rite involving the intoxicating haoma plant, which may or may not have been known of and/or endorsed by Zoroaster [Yam.PB, 418] and involves a daily rite of consumption with no "eucharistic" significance (i.e., it is not Zoroaster's body or blood, etc.). There is also a ceremony calls the yasna or veneration, which does involve the use of bread (topped with clarified butter) and a drink made from ephedra, pomegranate twigs, and milk (strained through a filter made from the hairs of a white bull), but evidence indicates that this ritual was established as part of liturgical reform in Zoroastrianism in the post-Christian era [Yam.PB, 449-50].

    He was the "Word made flesh."
    Not that the scholars know about it, either. Zoroaster's followers expect a "second coming" in the virgin-born Saoshyant or Savior, who is to come in 2341 CE and begin his ministry at age 30, ushering in a golden age. I have been able to confirm that this is true to some extent: a return is expected in 2341 CE, to start a golden age; the details on age 30 I have found nowhere. Whether this future Deliverer would indeed be Zoroaster himself again is indeed something that has been interpreted, but later Zoroastrian texts think that the person will be of the line of Zoroaster, not Zoroaster himself. [Wat.Z, 94-5]

    A vague doctrine of a future redeemer does appear in texts dated as early as the 400s BC, but only later (9th cent. AD) texts go into detail, reporting three world saviors -- "virgin born" in a sense: It seems that some of Zoro's sperm is being preserved in a lake in Iran, and that three virgins bathing in the lake over the next few thousand years are going to get a big surprise as a result. Virgin born, perhaps, but not virgin conceived. The last of these three guys will eradicate all disease and death and usher in the final victory of good over evil. And that, folks, is about the size of it -- there are more convincing parallels to Jesus in Dragonball Z than there are to the big Persian Z.


    Sources
    • Herz.ZW -- Herzfeld, Ernst. Zoroaster and His World. Octagon Books, 1974.
    • Jack.ZP -- Jackson, A. V. W. Zoroaster the Prophet of Ancient Iran. New York: AMS Press, 1965.
    • Rose.IZ -- Rose, Jenny. The Image of Zoroaster. Bibliotecha Persica Press.
    • Wat.Z -- Waterhouse, John. Zoroastrianism. Epworth, n.d.
    • WL -- Wise Lord of the Sky. Time Life Books.
    • Yam.PB -- Yamauchi, Edwin. Persia and the Bible. Baker: 1990.
    Taken from http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/zoroaster.html

    There is no other book like the Bible in the world where you have to know the Author to understand the book. If Christianity were the religion of the Book then it would be no different than any other religion in the world. But, Christianity is Christ! It is the dynamic, personal Spirit of God functioning in man.

    Answering the Skeptics Bible

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Not from this world...from the other side
    Posts
    3,236
    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    A very informative video on the origins of Zoroastrianism. This religion was founded by the prophet Zorasthustra in ancient Persia over 3 millennia ago (between 1500 and 1200 BC), and is the oldest surviving monotheistic religion. Their one supreme god is call Ahura Mazda, or the god of good thoughts, good words, and good deeds...introducing the idea of the immortal soul.

    Yes, it is also a male religion with men ruling over women Thanks for introducing this thread; looks like another men over women debate coming. Funny, all religions seems to put men above women. Why didn't God make humans like chickens in which gender can change suddenly; male can suddenly becomes female and female can suddenly becomes male? Imagine what a chaotic mess if suddenly, RAM becomes the wife of Rose and Rose becomes the husband of RAM. And everyday they will be looking at their "you know what" to make sure they have not changed. There must be some reasons why God assigns different roles for men and women which are misinterpreted as bias. I am amaze at the wisdom of God.

    http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_a_chic...nge_its_gender

    The wisdom of God never cease to amaze.
    Last edited by CWH; 03-20-2012 at 01:09 PM.
    Ask and You shall receive,
    Seek and You shall find,
    Knock and the door will be open unto You.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    709
    I edited my post because I truly believe you cannot prove the existence of God or why He does what He does or is Who He is by rationality.

    Faith and Rationality are opposites and to tell someone that you can explain your faith in a rational way, is really a weird statement.

    True Faith comes through Revelation not rational thinking, reason or logic.

    If we used rationality to determine who God was then we certainly would not be following Jesus Christ. You cannot even tell someone using rationality (only) why you are following Jesus Christ.

    Faith and Revelation are not even in the same camp as Intellect and Reason. God cannot be understood or apprehended by intellect and reason. Richard and Rose know this and every time they get a Christian to argue their faith using the tools of intellect and reason they know they have already "got you". You're playing their game. Why do you do that?

    Ok, you others can continue with all your Yahweh, Christ and Christian bashing using your rationality.

    Those of you that want to debate God's ways using rationality will most likely lose every time. Why? Simply because God does not operate on that plane. When you bring Him down to the plane of intellect and reason, nothing He does makes sense and so He is easy to pummel and ridicule and so are you.

    But who knows, God may give your opponent some revelation of Him during the process. I have never seen it happen, but then there are lots of things I have not seen. I don't see anyone here that operates on the plane of intellect, logic and reason coming close to buying into Christians explaining their faith by the same.

    Rick
    Last edited by heb13-13; 03-20-2012 at 03:06 PM.

    There is no other book like the Bible in the world where you have to know the Author to understand the book. If Christianity were the religion of the Book then it would be no different than any other religion in the world. But, Christianity is Christ! It is the dynamic, personal Spirit of God functioning in man.

    Answering the Skeptics Bible

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,313
    Quote Originally Posted by heb13-13 View Post
    That was funny!

    I find it interesting in the Yahweh bashing threads that some conveniently forget how evil men and women can be in today's world let alone the OT world. Yes, women too! Go visit a women's prison sometime.
    Hi Rick

    Once again let me repeat myself. No one is saying that men and women don't do evil and wicked things, what Richard and I are saying is that the Bible is full of Yahweh commanding his chosen people to do evil and wicked things There is a big difference you know!

    Quote Originally Posted by heb13-13 View Post
    But back to my point. The world had become so evil and reprobate that God had to destroy men and women with a flood. And then we conveniently forget that God had to choose a people unto Himself who He would bring the Messiah through. Now that would not be easy because since God's promise in the garden to bring a Redeemer, Satan has tried to exterminate the "people of God" in order to thwart God's plans and delay his judgement. He has tried numerous times by pagan tribes and countries in the OT to wipe out the nation of Israel. Pharoah tried it. Satan thought the Deliverer was coming then and had Pharaoh kill all the male children below the age of 2. Too bad Satan, you missed. Then he tried through Herod to wipe out the Messiah, but he was thwarted again. Then he had the chance to kill the Messiah by crucifying Him and thought he had won. Sorry, Slewfoot, you messed up again.

    1Co 2:6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:
    1Co 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
    1Co 2:8Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.


    This is an evil world that is as phony as a 3 dollar bill where everyone is still trying to take advantage of others and get to the top. To get all they can and can all they get. If you don't see this, it is no wonder that some of you think by our own "goodness" you can create your own Nirvana or Shangri-la. No way! It won't happen! Man is no more enlightened today than he was 2,000 years ago. Just more prideful in thinking he is enlightened.
    Yes, the Bible says that the world became so wicked that Yahweh had to kill everyone except righteous Noah and his family, but apparently Noah wasn't so righteous after all because before long the world was populated with wicked people again, so Yahweh confused the language of man hoping that would work, but it didn't. Next Yahweh destroyed all the people in Sodom and Gomorrah except righteous Lot (who offered his two daughters up to the mob to be raped) and his family, but apparently Lot wasn't so righteous either and from him came the Ammonites and the Moabites...and on and on it goes with wicked people and bloodshed all the way through Revelation.

    It seems the only way Yahweh knows how to deal with "sinful" people is to slaughter them, but doesn't he know that will never work, because even when he started over with one righteous man, Noah still had the "sinful" genes of Adam in him.

    Quote Originally Posted by heb13-13 View Post
    And all these religions with copycat stories of Jesus are just more of Satan's ploys to draw people away from the truth.

    Only this time, there is no Messiah to kill anymore, only His truth and His people. But who are His people? Are you confused Satan? You still try to exterminate the Jews and for good measure the Christians, too. The only thing Satan is trying to thwart now is his own final judgment but he has already lost but cannot accept it because of his own utter self-deception. He is incapable of receiving any truth. So he tries to destroy the truth, too. He is waging a many pronged battle, right now. Destroy the people of God and the truth.

    Destroy the TRUTH? Can't happen. You have to destroy God. You would have to find a way to ban the Holy Spirit from planet earth. Wipe out Christians? A Believer in Jesus Christ already has eternal life. He/She is living in it now because it is in Christ that you have life. You in Him and He in you.

    The power of death has been destroyed.

    Heb 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
    You forgot to note that many of your so called "copycat" religions began before Jesus was ever born...so who's copying who?

    Quote Originally Posted by heb13-13 View Post
    Funny how some people on this forum ascribe kindness, nobility and peaceful motives and characteristics to the pagan peoples of the OT and yet they were not even there. But even though they were not there and they are somehow able to ascribe the "best" qualities and motives to the nations surrounding Israel and they pin the the absolute worst qualities and condemnations of men on Israel and Yahweh.

    I have wondered for a long time how they know all of these very important details.

    Something is wrong with this picture.

    I think it is called, being someone's "patsy".

    Rick
    I'm not sure who you are speaking of, but I know Richard and I are only speaking about the moral atrocities that Yahweh commanded his chosen people to commit. I doubt very much that the Hebrews were any better or worse than their surrounding neighbors, that is why it is so obvious that the Bible reflects the mentality of Bronze Age men and the god that they constructed in their own image. The Bible supplies all the details one needs to paint a very grim picture of its masculine warrior god, Yahweh!

    Take care,
    Rose
    Never trust anything you are afraid to question ~

    To know oneself is to know the universe...


    Live Fully...Love Extravagantly...For the sake of Goodness

    Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Matt.10:16

    Come let us reason together...Isa.1:18
    ********************************
    My new Blog site: God and Butterfly

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    709
    Hey there Rose,

    I am actually glad you were able to post my response before I edited it. It only shows that I succumbed to your bashing and fell into your trap of getting me to try to explain why I believe in the God of the Bible by your own tools of reason and logic, which is an impossibility.

    Now, I will post my other response again.

    I edited my post because I truly believe you cannot prove the existence of God or why He does what He does or is Who He is by rationality.

    Faith and Rationality are opposites and to tell someone that you can explain your faith in a rational way, is really a weird statement.

    True Faith comes through Revelation not rational thinking, reason or logic.

    If we used rationality to determine who God was then we certainly would not be following Jesus Christ. I certainly would not be. You cannot even tell someone using rationality (only) why you are following Jesus Christ. We walk by faith not sight (and other human senses).

    Faith and Revelation are not even in the same camp as Intellect and Reason. God cannot be understood or apprehended by intellect and reason. Richard and Rose know this and every time they get a Christian to argue their faith using the tools of intellect and reason they know they have already "got you". You're playing their game. Why do you do that?

    Ok, you others can continue with all your Yahweh, Christ and Christian bashing using your rationality.

    Those of you that want to debate God's ways using rationality will most likely lose every time. Why? Simply because God does not operate on that plane. When you bring Him down to the plane of intellect and reason, nothing He does makes sense and so He is easy to pummel and ridicule and so are you.

    But who knows, God may give your opponent some revelation of Him during the process. I have never seen it happen, but then there are lots of things I have not seen. I don't see anyone here that operates on the plane of intellect, logic and reason coming close to buying into Christians explaining their faith by the same.


    I will leave you to your fun once again.

    Rick
    Last edited by heb13-13; 03-20-2012 at 03:14 PM.

    There is no other book like the Bible in the world where you have to know the Author to understand the book. If Christianity were the religion of the Book then it would be no different than any other religion in the world. But, Christianity is Christ! It is the dynamic, personal Spirit of God functioning in man.

    Answering the Skeptics Bible

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,313
    Quote Originally Posted by heb13-13 View Post
    Hey there Rose,

    I am actually glad you were able to post my response before I edited it. It only shows that I succumbed to your bashing and fell into your trap of getting me to try to explain why I believe in the God of the Bible by your own tools of reason and logic, which is an impossibility.
    Hi Rick,
    I must say I haven't a clue as to what you mean by "my bashing", unless you can't deal with my speaking the truth about Yahweh's horrendous immoralities that I have exposed in the Bible.

    Quote Originally Posted by heb13-13 View Post
    Now, I will post my other response again.


    I edited my post because I truly believe you cannot prove the existence of God or why He does what He does or is Who He is by rationality.

    Faith and Rationality are opposites and to tell someone that you can explain your faith in a rational way, is really a weird statement.

    True Faith comes through Revelation not rational thinking, reason or logic.

    If we used rationality to determine who God was then we certainly would not be following Jesus Christ. I certainly would not be. You cannot even tell someone using rationality (only) why you are following Jesus Christ. We walk by faith not sight (and other human senses).

    Faith and Revelation are not even in the same camp as Intellect and Reason. God cannot be understood or apprehended by intellect and reason. Richard and Rose know this and every time they get a Christian to argue their faith using the tools of intellect and reason they know they have already "got you". You're playing their game. Why do you do that?

    Ok, you others can continue with all your Yahweh, Christ and Christian bashing using your rationality.

    Those of you that want to debate God's ways using rationality will most likely lose every time. Why? Simply because God does not operate on that plane. When you bring Him down to the plane of intellect and reason, nothing He does makes sense and so He is easy to pummel and ridicule and so are you.

    But who knows, God may give your opponent some revelation of Him during the process. I have never seen it happen, but then there are lots of things I have not seen. I don't see anyone here that operates on the plane of intellect, logic and reason coming close to buying into Christians explaining their faith by the same.

    I will leave you to your fun once again.

    Rick
    If Yahweh did not want to operate on the plane of human reasoning, then why did he continually interact with the Hebrews on a human level? Isaiah 1:18 quotes Yahweh as saying: "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool."

    When people do not use their intellect, and reasoning to discern truth, relying on blind faith instead then they become vulnerable to be trapped in any religious dogma that comes along. What keeps a person from falling for every cult that is presented is by using our intellect, and reason. What you call "bashing" is walking with our eyes open and using our intellect and reason to interpret what the Bible says, only then we can see the truth without relying on some magical, mystical faith.

    Glad you stopped in for a chat,
    Rose
    Never trust anything you are afraid to question ~

    To know oneself is to know the universe...


    Live Fully...Love Extravagantly...For the sake of Goodness

    Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Matt.10:16

    Come let us reason together...Isa.1:18
    ********************************
    My new Blog site: God and Butterfly

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by heb13-13 View Post
    I edited my post because I truly believe you cannot prove the existence of God or why He does what He does or is Who He is by rationality.

    Faith and Rationality are opposites and to tell someone that you can explain your faith in a rational way, is really a weird statement.

    True Faith comes through Revelation not rational thinking, reason or logic.

    If we used rationality to determine who God was then we certainly would not be following Jesus Christ. You cannot even tell someone using rationality (only) why you are following Jesus Christ.

    Faith and Revelation are not even in the same camp as Intellect and Reason. God cannot be understood or apprehended by intellect and reason. Richard and Rose know this and every time they get a Christian to argue their faith using the tools of intellect and reason they know they have already "got you". You're playing their game. Why do you do that?
    Hey there Rick,

    I must say I am stunned by your comments. When you reject logic and rationality you have simply conceded the argument. I'm surprised you don't realize this.

    Your statement that Rose and I "know" that "God cannot be understood or apprehended by intellect and reason" is absurd in the extreme. We have never said a word about "knowing God." We have been talking about what the Bible teaches. If that cannot be known using "intellect and reason" then it is an absolutely meaningless book.

    Your comment that we are "playing a game" is very rude. But don't worry, I take no offense. I just want you to know how wrong your comments are. We are not arguing about "faith" - we are discussing the host of truth claims made by Biblical fundamentalists. If they cannot be supported, then why have you been trying to support them? And more importantly, why should anyone believe them? Why call them "true" if they cannot be supported with intellect and reason?

    Again, I mystified by your rejection of intellect and reason. If we cannot use our intellectual faculties to judge truth from error, how are we to know the difference between the Koran, the Book of Mormon, the Bible, or any other religious text?

    It may be true that "faith" comes through non-rational means. But we are not talking about "faith" - we are talking about things that the Bible teaches that are morally reprehensible. The fact that you cannot defend the Bible with intellect and reason only confirms that you find it to be indefensible. Why then do you believe it?

    Quote Originally Posted by heb13-13 View Post
    Ok, you others can continue with all your Yahweh, Christ and Christian bashing using your rationality.
    It is not "bashing" to speak the truth. If the Bible were defensible, folks would be defending it rather than throwing irrational ad hominems at those who point out the problems.

    Quote Originally Posted by heb13-13 View Post
    Those of you that want to debate God's ways using rationality will most likely lose every time. Why? Simply because God does not operate on that plane. When you bring Him down to the plane of intellect and reason, nothing He does makes sense and so He is easy to pummel and ridicule and so are you.

    But who knows, God may give your opponent some revelation of Him during the process. I have never seen it happen, but then there are lots of things I have not seen. I don't see anyone here that operates on the plane of intellect, logic and reason coming close to buying into Christians explaining their faith by the same.

    Rick
    How would you know if the "revelation" you had were valid? Mormons and Muslims think they have "revelations." It looks like you have cast away your mind in a desperate attempt to defend your indefensible fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible.

    Your assertion that God is "easy to pummel and ridicule" if we "bring Him down to the plane of intellect and reason" seems utterly irrational to me. We wouldn't have anything to "pummel and ridicule" if God had not chosen to impersonate a Bronze age tribal war god. Why did he do that? Why is the OT attribute so many reprehensible and irrational attributes to God? Why would God expect us to believe it? He knows how it makes him look. He knows it looks irrational. Do you really think God want's us to believe irrational and indefensible things about him?

    I hope you have a "revelation" that we must use our intellect and reason to evaluate truth claims, no matter who who makes them.

    All the best,

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    Isaiah 1:18 quotes Yahweh as saying: "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool."
    Stop that unbiblical use of your intellect!
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    709
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    Hey there Rick,

    I must say I am stunned by your comments. When you reject logic and rationality you have simply conceded the argument. I'm surprised you don't realize this.

    Your statement that Rose and I "know" that "God cannot be understood or apprehended by intellect and reason" is absurd in the extreme. We have never said a word about "knowing God." We have been talking about what the Bible teaches. If that cannot be known using "intellect and reason" then it is an absolutely meaningless book.

    Your comment that we are "playing a game" is very rude. But don't worry, I take no offense. I just want you to know how wrong your comments are. We are not arguing about "faith" - we are discussing the host of truth claims made by Biblical fundamentalists. If they cannot be supported, then why have you been trying to support them? And more importantly, why should anyone believe them? Why call them "true" if they cannot be supported with intellect and reason?

    Again, I mystified by your rejection of intellect and reason. If we cannot use our intellectual faculties to judge truth from error, how are we to know the difference between the Koran, the Book of Mormon, the Bible, or any other religious text?

    It may be true that "faith" comes through non-rational means. But we are not talking about "faith" - we are talking about things that the Bible teaches that are morally reprehensible. The fact that you cannot defend the Bible with intellect and reason only confirms that you find it to be indefensible. Why then do you believe it?


    It is not "bashing" to speak the truth. If the Bible were defensible, folks would be defending it rather than throwing irrational ad hominems at those who point out the problems.


    How would you know if the "revelation" you had were valid? Mormons and Muslims think they have "revelations." It looks like you have cast away your mind in a desperate attempt to defend your indefensible fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible.

    Your assertion that God is "easy to pummel and ridicule" if we "bring Him down to the plane of intellect and reason" seems utterly irrational to me. We wouldn't have anything to "pummel and ridicule" if God had not chosen to impersonate a Bronze age tribal war god. Why did he do that? Why is the OT attribute so many reprehensible and irrational attributes to God? Why would God expect us to believe it? He knows how it makes him look. He knows it looks irrational. Do you really think God want's us to believe irrational and indefensible things about him?

    I hope you have a "revelation" that we must use our intellect and reason to evaluate truth claims, no matter who who makes them.

    All the best,

    Richard
    Hi Richard,

    You are hilarious, but I'm not playing your game or Rose's. I think I see it pretty clearly, now. You can beat other people up, ridicule and mock them and me too if you want. I could care less. But, why play dumb, Richard? Like you don't know what you are doing? I mean, you know exactly what I am talking about because afterall, you walked with God and had His Holy Spirit dwelling in you. Isn't that right or am I mistaken?

    So you know that the Bible is a spiritual book and is spiritually discerned by the Holy Spirit and not by reason and logic.

    1Co 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
    1Co 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

    1Co 2:14But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

    I don't see you or Rose as "searchers" anymore. I have watched and observed your modis operandi towards others and it seems to me you are more agenda driven and not really open or teachable.

    Whether you and Rose had Christ or just had "Churchianity", only the Lord knows.

    But for now, you both sound more like atheists in the mold of Richard Dawkins trying to dismantle something that is impossible to do. But if that is what your life's work has come to be, then so be it.

    Thank you, that's all I want to say.

    Rick

    1Co 1:20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world?
    hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

    1Co 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God ***the world by wisdom knew not God***, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

    1Co 1:25
    Because the foolishness (and absurdity) of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.



    Last edited by heb13-13; 03-20-2012 at 07:44 PM.

    There is no other book like the Bible in the world where you have to know the Author to understand the book. If Christianity were the religion of the Book then it would be no different than any other religion in the world. But, Christianity is Christ! It is the dynamic, personal Spirit of God functioning in man.

    Answering the Skeptics Bible

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •