Question to those who do or do not doubt Christianity

Ultimately, I believe That all the major Monotheisms, and even pagan religions point to the same truth...There is one divine God...

I do not know how or where it started from...

But I believe that Jesus is God in the Flesh....And is the Savior they all speak about...and the ones who do not embrace Jesus, are talking about God the Father who is also one with Jesus....And I believe Jesus is the way to the Father...

The entire inquiry area of Biblical ARcheology has attempted to verify , or at least indicate, the actual historical presence of the locations associated with the lives of the Biblical patriarchs(and matriarchs). Several others types of "Biblical Archeology" go further in attempts to verify the Biblical symbolism of actual locations in the Bible and the "mission" of a Jesus. (Places like Megiddo or Gehena).
Then there are the final kinds of "Quasi archeologists" who actually attempt, by physical testing , to verify that Biblical events "could have " occured as tesified in the scriptures (like the "parting of the Red Sea" or the Resurrection). The latter isnt really Forensics but "apodictic Apologetics". Forensics seeks to provide factual data and evidence, and much of Biblical ARcheology is an honest attempot at same. However, where science leaves the planet and myth caims the reigns , is where we see these guys from paces like "Liberty University" attempt to show that there really is an "Ark" buried on Mt Arrarat, or that there really was a "garden of Eden"

That sounds a bit like 'red mini syndrome.' If you go looking for something, as opposed to being objective, you'll find it. You don't normally notice red minis, but once you start looking for them, you see them everywhere.

Ultimately, I believe That all the major Monotheism, and even pagan religions point to the same truth...There is one divine God.

I think you may be correct about Monotheism and the one God part. But for all of the pagan religions to point to the same truth, is to have one hell of an imagination.

Or, why waste time making up new myths when being derivative has so much cache for people who like the "old Time feelings"
Fundamentlism in the US is exactly like this. They profess an inrerrancy of Scripture without even recognizing that they are denying all basic science and evidence.
Fundamentalists deny all the stuff that more modern religious interpretations embrace. So they "pass on" their silly beliefs to their subsequent disciples and then they claim that their way is to follow "truth"
and that all science is atheistic junk. Fundamental Christian Religions must learn to accomodate with modern findings in science and technology or they will be rendered irrelevant movements

does a blue mini with a red Union Jack on its roof count as a red mini.?

My mom in law was obsessed with the fact that there seemed to be an increasing amount of white cars around. She was actually quite alarmed at this and thought we were being invaded by ALbanists. (My mom in law was quite mad)

And you have come to that conclusion how? What Pagan religions have you actually studied? If you base everything you know about spirituality on the reading of technical manuals, and what you see on you tube, your two cents isn't worth much at all.

It depends on the viewpoint of the mini watcher. Personally I think it has to be red, but there are heretics who believe the Union Jack minis would count.

Actually white cars are the safest cars because they stand out, they're less likely to be involved in accidents. Green and brown cars are the least safe, which is why, over here at least, all army vehicles drive with their lights on day and night.

so my mom in law was not mad??
we will have to change her epitaph

I don't know about that, but she may have noticed a move towards safer roads without realising it.

It is cool if you believe like Ryan, "that all pagan religions point to the same truth...There is one divine God..

Would you mind sharing what it is that makes you believe this? To me it seems that God had them all confused in what to believe because they all had different rituals.

It is more fm's usual trick. He casts around for some silly and pointless people, describes in very brief what they do from his own point of view, sneers at it, mentions science and --hey presto- he's out of the game of the social consequences in the here and now of the universal adoption of atheism which is the very thing he is cajoling us all to accept.

His post has no meaning. His science is only his science.

What we actually have is 310 million people trying to decide what to do about the Religion thing. And at the level of the public pronouncements it is a business plan competition.

We can see easily enough where the line is drawn and which institutions will gain from either position succeeding. Which won't happen.

On the atheist side are ranged Big Media, the legal profession and that section of the scientific profession which can only look through one microscope at once. And they tempt the youth with the promise to get Christian sexual inhibitions off their backs.

They don't, of course, offer any alternative. That's because there are only two. No inhibitions of sexual behaviour or inhibitions imposed by some other institution such as The Department of Homeland Hygiene. They cannot even begin to contemplate either let alone outline their ramifications in the ******* real world they are fond of accusing others of not living in or being frightened of.

Which is to say that until they do make a start on describing the two other alternatives for the regulation of sexual life, no small matter, they are full of ****. They don't have a real world at all. In any sort of real world they would provide some outlines and we would be debating those.

There are many things one might say in favour of either of the only two alternatives to Christian sexual regulation such as being shamed out of high office for being caught with a $1,000 whore providing the sort of services one might expect in such a stratospheric price range. No inhibitions might be good fun. At least to begin with.

And State regulation would needs must be scientific. As such that choice might be easier to describe for the spokespersons I have come across since taking an interest in these matters. That my interest coincided with my declining prowess is due to the obvious fact that fading out of the game facilitates objectivity which had not been much exercised in my previous phases in relation to the matter in hand.

I will admit that fm has once mentioned a rehabilitation unit for Christians to be cured in a positive light. No details. Just the general principle. It was the one occasion when he wasn't full of ****.

It would surely be good business with over 200 odd million Americans to be cured. Or realigned. One to one counselling is out of the question.

I've not said I believe the same as Spademaster. I've merely pointed out that your premise doesn't appear to be based on anything substantial. Perhaps if you had read something like this, your two cents might actually be worth something.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/images/1171140991/ref=dp_image_0?ie=UTF8&n=266239&s=books

You can turn my statement on its head. If anyone had red mini syndrome on this thread, it's RL. He's not interesting in looking at anything that challenges his preconceptions, he's only interested in reading (sorry watching) stuff that re-enforces those preconceptions.

Being that you have read the book and you think that it has given you something substantial to base your premise on, please share with all of us your substantial findings about the pagans beliefs also point to there being only one God.

And what do I get? spendius and his predictable sole marks on the stream bed of conversation

I've not said any such thing. You're the one making sweeping assumptions based on nothing but a load of hot air.

Stop finding excuses not to read anything more substantial than a page on the internet. There are no easy answers, you won't find them on youtube. Try reading a few books on the subject first.

I have studied the history of religion and I have read up on many religions but have I read the books that meet your approval? That might be something different.
I think that all the pagan religions were doing there own thing and evolving separately from the other religions and they all thought that a God or the Gods should be worshiped however their minds imagined that God or Gods to be worshiped, "if it meant throwing babies into a fire that is what they would do.

It seems to me that if a God was telling them to throw babies into a fire that all of the different religions would be doing it instead of worshiping a God however they imagined.



Are you trying to promote the sale of books or are you from some old school?

As my last post pointed out, there is no conversation. I'm only predictable in the sense that I'm trying to get you to take part in a conversation and you simply refuse to do so.

This is not conversation--



There are new myths. America, the State, Media as parent, celebrity cults. History itself in a myth. Science is a myth.

Derivative myths are tried and tested. Admittedly industrialisation has altered the external conditions but it has not altered human nature as would be quickly demonstrated if industrialisation collapsed. About 5,000 years of trial and error with extensive peer-review is what produced the derivative myths and the perfecting of them which created industrialisation. "Old time feelings" are not to be lightly dismissed.

And, once again, your "Fundamentalism" is just that. Your fundamentalism. Like your science is just your science. A construction of straw. Designed as a sitting duck for you to pot. And very few of them deny "all basic science and evidence". You just say they do for comfort which is the idea of sitting ducks. Who claims that "all science is atheistic junk"?

I told you 8 years ago that if you have social consequences on Ignore you're not in the grown up game and are not having a conversation. You're inability to stop yourself from using words like "silly" signifies your stubborn refusal to have a conversation. Your a priorism is ingrained I'm afraid and leads to such tiresome predictability that it is only possible to engage with it when viewers are present. In a one-to-one setting any intelligent person would make an exit on hearing it.