1
   

I challenge any Christian to watch this eye-opening video.

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jun, 2007 10:21 am
Coolwhip wrote:
I might be over my head in calling it a historic fact. But it does seem more likely that a man named Jesus lived, than the whole bible depicting the suns movement across the sky. This video also claims "the egyptian religion is likely 95% of the foundation of the judo-christian theology".


First, allow me to point out that i have not at any time claimed that the video is even merely plausible, let alone reasonable and convincing. As for an egyptian connection, that is stretching a point. Akhenaten, who was originally Amenhotep IV, changed his name to Akhenaten, "Servant of Aten," when he not only reformed the religio-civil system of Egypt, but replaced the pantheon ruled by Amun with a monotheistic worship of Aten. This did not survive his death--he was briefly succeeded by Smenkhkare, who might have been a regent for Tutankhaten, or might have actually ruled in his own name for a couple of years before Tutankhaten succeeded (which happened is truly unimportant). Tutankhaten became Tutankhamun ("King Tut") while still an adolescent, and the name change reflects the priests re-asserting their authority, and replacing the brief worship of Aten with a return to Amun and the pantheon of gods. Therefore, as many "historians" who use the Bobble for a source place the exodus at c. 1250 BCE, some people have suggested that the Jews got monotheism in Egypt, from Akhenaten--which is highly improbable.

What is far more likely is that monotheism entered the Jewish consciousness during the Babylonian Captivity. At that time, they were exposed to the cosmogony of the Aryan Meads and Persians. Their scripture depicts a god who was one among many, then the supreme god among many, the the "true" god among false gods who were demons, and finally the one god. The same progression can be seen in the Pentateuch. When one keeps in mind that the Pentateuch had a major revision after the Jews returned from the Captivity, that is a far more plausible explanation of the rise of monotheism among the Jews. It is helpful to keep in mind that the Jews were not a monolithic religious body. The Jawists (those who recognized Jehovah as the supreme god, and eventually as the only god) were by no means the only religious group among the Jews, and not necessarily even the most prominent. The worship of Baal/Moloch was very popular in Palestine, and the contextual evidence, combined with other contemporary sources suggests that the Jawists had to struggle against the popular Baal worship to establish the supremacy of the worship of Jehovah.

However one looks at that, it is rubbish to suggest that any Egyptian cultural or religious source is responsible for as much as 5% of Judeo-Christian belief, never mind 95%.

Quote:
Making a video without having to back up any of your statements is relatively easy, they seem very convincing at first but most of the claims are either plain false or a far stretch of the truth.


Certainly--and that is precisely why critical thinkers who have no stake in Judaism or Christianity object to the contention that there is much historical truth or religious revelation to be found in the Bobble.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jun, 2007 10:28 am
NickFun wrote:
Archaelologists found a tomb of guy names Jesus with a father named Joseph married to a lady named Mary. That's enough for me


Wanna buy a bridge?
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jun, 2007 10:36 am
neologist wrote:
BubbaGumbo wrote:
. . . Umm...I used to "seriously read the bible" and am now a full-fledge atheist so your point is moot.
Then how did you mis the fact that the bible does not support the doctrine of the immortality of the soul?

First. Adam Did not posess a soul, he came to be a soul, as animals were created to be souls. (Genesis 2:7)

Second. The bible makes it clear that the soul not only dies (Ezekiel 18:4), but at death consciousness ceases (Psalm 146:4)
BubbaGumbo wrote:
What strawman is the video dispelling? . . .
You mean what others?


Neo

If I were a Christian, one to literally believe the Bible, I would probably agree with you on most points, as I have seen the scriptures you point to in my own reading. But, ne'r the twain shall meet . . .
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jun, 2007 02:29 pm
edgarblythe wrote:
neologist wrote:
BubbaGumbo wrote:
. . . Umm...I used to "seriously read the bible" and am now a full-fledge atheist so your point is moot.
Then how did you mis the fact that the bible does not support the doctrine of the immortality of the soul?

First. Adam Did not posess a soul, he came to be a soul, as animals were created to be souls. (Genesis 2:7)

Second. The bible makes it clear that the soul not only dies (Ezekiel 18:4), but at death consciousness ceases (Psalm 146:4)
BubbaGumbo wrote:
What strawman is the video dispelling? . . .
You mean what others?


Neo

If I were a Christian, one to literally believe the Bible, I would probably agree with you on most points, as I have seen the scriptures you point to in my own reading. But, ne'r the twain shall meet . . .
Yeah, but I gotta try to help ya, y'know? After all, ya say ya like Lone Star Beer!!
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jun, 2007 03:34 pm
neologist wrote:
With all due respect, Bubba, what if I were to tell you that if you seriously read the bible, you would no longer be an atheist?



A few weeks ago, I had to spend 5 hours at the hospital with my wife. I started reading the bible in the bedside table out of sheer boredom. Just to give my eyes something to do. The strongest thought to go through my mind as I was reading was "how can anyone possibly take this garbage seriously?"
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jun, 2007 05:32 pm
Was the second strongest thought "...and anyone who does is a nut!!"?
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jun, 2007 11:49 pm
snood wrote:
Was the second strongest thought "...and anyone who does is a nut!!"?


That thought has been known to cross my mind on occasion. But knowing a few decent theists, I know it's often just a matter of parental indoctrination that they had no control over.
0 Replies
 
Coolwhip
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jun, 2007 03:41 am
Oh ye of little faith :wink:
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jun, 2007 05:10 am
neologist wrote:
edgarblythe wrote:
neologist wrote:
BubbaGumbo wrote:
. . . Umm...I used to "seriously read the bible" and am now a full-fledge atheist so your point is moot.
Then how did you mis the fact that the bible does not support the doctrine of the immortality of the soul?

First. Adam Did not posess a soul, he came to be a soul, as animals were created to be souls. (Genesis 2:7)

Second. The bible makes it clear that the soul not only dies (Ezekiel 18:4), but at death consciousness ceases (Psalm 146:4)
BubbaGumbo wrote:
What strawman is the video dispelling? . . .
You mean what others?


Neo

If I were a Christian, one to literally believe the Bible, I would probably agree with you on most points, as I have seen the scriptures you point to in my own reading. But, ne'r the twain shall meet . . .
Yeah, but I gotta try to help ya, y'know? After all, ya say ya like Lone Star Beer!!


You could help me best by lobbying the schools and churches to stop blocking science from being taught.
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jun, 2007 07:52 am
I've got no problem with creationism being taught in schools..........so long as evolution is taught in church.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jun, 2007 08:30 am
edgarblythe wrote:
neologist wrote:
edgarblythe wrote:
neologist wrote:
BubbaGumbo wrote:
. . . Umm...I used to "seriously read the bible" and am now a full-fledge atheist so your point is moot.
Then how did you mis the fact that the bible does not support the doctrine of the immortality of the soul?

First. Adam Did not posess a soul, he came to be a soul, as animals were created to be souls. (Genesis 2:7)

Second. The bible makes it clear that the soul not only dies (Ezekiel 18:4), but at death consciousness ceases (Psalm 146:4)
BubbaGumbo wrote:
What strawman is the video dispelling? . . .
You mean what others?


Neo

If I were a Christian, one to literally believe the Bible, I would probably agree with you on most points, as I have seen the scriptures you point to in my own reading. But, ne'r the twain shall meet . . .
Yeah, but I gotta try to help ya, y'know? After all, ya say ya like Lone Star Beer!!


You could help me best by lobbying the schools and churches to stop blocking science from being taught.
The schools may teach whatever they feel is necessary. The responsibility of education rests ultimately on the parents.
0 Replies
 
Coolwhip
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jun, 2007 01:14 pm
I think parents should encourage free thought rather than indoctrinate their children.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jun, 2007 01:58 pm
Coolwhip wrote:
I think parents should encourage free thought rather than indoctrinate their children.
Are there no circumstances where children should obey without question?
0 Replies
 
Coolwhip
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jun, 2007 02:22 pm
Children aren't fit to take care of themselves, therefore they are in the custody of their parents. Obviously.

But if the parents wanted to, it would be immensely easy to manipulate the child into believing almost anything. Home school the child and it's guaranteed. The child would most likely never be free of said belief.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jun, 2007 02:27 pm
Coolwhip wrote:
Children aren't fit to take care of themselves, therefore they are in the custody of their parents. Obviously.

But if the parents wanted to, it would be immensely easy to manipulate the child into believing almost anything. Home school the child and it's guaranteed. The child would most likely never be free of said belief.
Like a cheap blanket, your statement leaves a few parts uncovered.
0 Replies
 
Coolwhip
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jun, 2007 02:37 pm
To put it in simpler terms...

Brainwashing. Is that a-ok?
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jun, 2007 02:39 pm
Just observing that your statement, while generally valid, is not universally true.
0 Replies
 
Coolwhip
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jun, 2007 02:43 pm
True, you still have to preserve the freedom of the individual family.

This may sound like a utopian ideal, but I think all children should have equal opportunities.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jun, 2007 02:50 pm
Agreed. Now where is Bubba when you want him?
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jun, 2007 03:24 pm
I really liked that video..
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/21/2024 at 07:01:13