the "manmade" God.

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='Apr 10 2005, 07:27 PM'] True. And Melchisedec, I understand where you are coming from. I have the same kind of thoughts.

But, the fact is, Jesus is the only one of these Messiahs that is also recorded in secular history.

You have to also keep in mind that this messiah, the true one, created such a religious movement, larger than these other messiah myths, and has lasted into this age, the age of rationality.

Notice how the others died off.
This one did not.
And there is a reason for it.

I do not know why, if there was no purpose, that someone would endure persecution and, in the past, death, to be christian. There has to be some kind of reward.

Ah, well, you dont have to agree, but i know what you mean. [/quote]
I can definitely appreciate your reasons.

[Jaime]

You know Melchisidec there is a large amount of truth in what you are saying. There is an innate need within cultures to explain the unexplainable and there is a huge amount of psychology behind it. There is also a duality within the gods created in these cultures.

Take Roman mythology for example. All of the Gods serve dual purposes. Mercury was the god of speed and he was also the god of rape.

The Mayan culture is another one with dual roles. But they combine their own mythology with Catholicism. They have a mayan god called mashimon. He is by far their favorite god. Why? Because he has done every conceivable sin. Anything bad that you could do, he's done 7 times worse in 10 different ways. They actually have homes built for him in small towns in Guatemala, complete with housekeepers. The Mashimon celebration is much like Mardi Gras and happens prior to Holy Week. Then on Good Friday, they hang mashimon in front of the church because he represents Judas.

From a psychological standpoint, this duality is an outward transference of the human struggle with duality. The creation of these religions makes sense There isn't a duality in Christianity.

However here is the distinction between the pagan cultures and Judiasm and Christianity. Their religions are designed to improve their lives. Ours is to celebrate our suffering. From a psychological standpoint, this makes no sense. We don't just justify our suffering, we are taught to hold it sacred. Our suffering makes us holy.

From a psychological standpoint, this makes no sense.

Also here's the other distinction. Pagan religions believe that the gods exist to serve them. Bring the right sacrifice and you can get a blessing for yourself or a curse for someone else. Again from a psychological perspective, you now have resolution of how to control the unknown. Make the right sacrifice and manipulate the gods to do your bidding.

However, Judiasm and Christianity beliieve in stewardship of the earth and servitude to God. We give up any possibility to control the unknown. Again psychologically that don't make a whole lot of sense.

[theculturewarrior]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Apr 10 2005, 05:50 PM']

Some people seek belief when they are trying to cope with turmoil. I guess you needed a reasons to seek happiness. Luckily for me, love is abudant in my life.

[/quote]

My turmoil was the drama of not knowing God.

[quote]

I seek truth, and explanations are part of that truth.

[/quote]

I seek Truth, and accept the explanation He has given me.

[quote]

explain

[/quote]

Well, you can reason things out ad nauseum, and you can reduce any worldview through reason, but after a certain point, reason only takes you so far, and the history of philosophy demonstrates that. I did a paper on this once. One English empiricist speculated that only the mind is real. Then another contradicted him, speculating that nothing is real! They were using pure reason!

But the seat I'm sitting on now doesn't go away because of my worldview. To know reality is real requires faith. Any proof of reality being real that uses only reason...has been deconstructed a thousand times.

[quote]

example?

[/quote]

[url="http://www.vatican.va/spirit/documents/spirit_20000721_agostino_en.html"]http://www.vatican.va/spirit/documents/spi...gostino_en.html[/url]

^ That's for examples of the Fathers inferring Truth from Beauty.

As far as Catholic theologians inferring theology from science, I think Catholic bioethics in general does this. If you want sources, let me know.

[quote]

I've got alot of material. Id love to do a correspondence with you. Maybe you can get the admins to reinstate my private messaging privelages. Ill send you some stuff over. [/quote]


I don't think that's going to happen. I don't know if the debate table would let you do a thread with just me and you, if so, I'm game.

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Apr 10 2005, 08:07 PM'] However here is the distinction between the pagan cultures and Judiasm and Christianity. Their religions are designed to improve their lives. Ours is to celebrate our suffering. From a psychological standpoint, this makes no sense. We don't just justify our suffering, we are taught to hold it sacred. Our suffering makes us holy.
[/quote]
You've described budhism essentially. I never really thought of christianity as celebrating an indivuals suffering. Its a very interesting analysis. These matters fascinate me.

[Melchisedec]

[quote]Well, you can reason things out ad nauseum, and you can reduce any worldview through reason, but after a certain point, reason only takes you so far, and the history of philosophy demonstrates that. I did a paper on this once. One English empiricist speculated that only the mind is real. Then another contradicted him, speculating that nothing is real! They were using pure reason![/quote]

I'd love to read the paper. I'm not into metaphysics, and I know some philosophy and Im furthering my knowledge of it. So I don't know what or whom your referring to. But I stand by reason and logic.

[quote]But the seat I'm sitting on now doesn't go away because of my worldview. To know reality is real requires faith. Any proof of reality being real that uses only reason...has been deconstructed a thousand times.
[/quote]

I must have faith on what Im perceiving is real? Is this what the vedas referred to as 'maya' or illusion. Sounds like the teachings of don juan books. I'd like to hear you reason away the sky for me.

[quote]
I don't think that's going to happen. I don't know if the debate table would let you do a thread with just me and you, if so, I'm game.[/quote]

Debate what:
who made who, god or man?

Thats a heavy burden to prove. Is there some book written by god that I am not aware of. I'm game. Or you wish to debate the existence of god? IF you prove that, than get ready to collect your nobel prize. But im not one to engage in the god doesn't absolutely exist debate. I honestly think there could be a creator, but my position on it is agnostic. I'm not a fan of strong atheism. I don't believe we know enough about the universe to know its absolute origins. As far as my position on the gods of the various scripture, my position on that is. I do not believe men were working through god to bring forth his words. I dont have faith in that.

[theculturewarrior]

Actually, I was just thinking of conducting our correspondence in that way. I really don't see why you can't provide sources in this thread.

I'll answer your questions later. I've got work to get done.

[theculturewarrior]

Just one last thought...I never said that I could prove the sky didn't exist, but that any proof that it does exist at some point rests on faith. I would need from you a proof that the sky exists, before I can deconstruct it or demonstrate that its first princibles are taken on faith.

Happy hunting!

[theculturewarrior]

Why do you remind me of a certain history professor, Melchisedec?

[Jaime]

And with Simon as your avatar, I read all your comments with a british accent.

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='theculturewarrior' date='Apr 10 2005, 10:39 PM'] Just one last thought...I never said that I could prove the sky didn't exist, but that any proof that it does exist at some point rests on faith. I would need from you a proof that the sky exists, before I can deconstruct it or demonstrate that its first princibles are taken on faith.

Happy hunting! [/quote]
Sources you say, here are just a few things that you can dig up and check out yourself:

A massive source for information is:

[url="http://www.infidels.org/library/index.shtml"]http://www.infidels.org/library/index.shtml[/url]

Books that discuss pagan myths and the similarities to christianity in my collection:

ancient pagan and modern christian symbolism by tomas inman
christianity before christ by john jackson
Worlds saviors by charles vail
The jesus mysteries by timothy freke
forgery and christianity by joseph wheless

If you want a more concise source list, its going to take me a couple of days and will span a couple of pages. This doesn't include all my various encyclopedias on myths and gods. If you want my email, just let me know.

I forgot to address your challenge... in next post I shall.

Edited April 11, 2005 by Melchisedec

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='theculturewarrior' date='Apr 10 2005, 10:39 PM'] I would need from you a proof that the sky exists, before I can deconstruct it or demonstrate that its first princibles are taken on faith.
[/quote]
You've basicly made an argument out of ignorance.

[i]Argumentum ad ignorantiam means "argument from ignorance." The fallacy occurs when it's argued that something must be true, simply because it hasn't been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that something must be false because it hasn't been proved true.[/i]

Now you asserted to me that you can use reason to deconstruct my reality , and relegate it to a faith based worldview. I asked you, to reason away the sky for me. Now you have asked me to prove that the sky exists first.

[i]The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise[/i]

The burden of proof lies in your corner since you made the assertion. I can say, prove to me that elves do not live in the center of the moon. Can you disprove this? You see where this leads us. Now the sky is a proven thing, and you have the burdern of reasoning the sky away. So I am listening. But like I had mentioned before, our discussion would be more better suited as a private correspondence , than to digress this thread further.

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Apr 11 2005, 08:54 AM'] And with Simon as your avatar, I read all your comments with a british accent.

[/quote]
safe

[theculturewarrior]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Apr 11 2005, 10:41 AM'] You've basicly made an argument out of ignorance.

[i]Argumentum ad ignorantiam means "argument from ignorance." The fallacy occurs when it's argued that something must be true, simply because it hasn't been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that something must be false because it hasn't been proved true.[/i]

Now you asserted to me that you can use reason to deconstruct  my reality , and relegate it to a faith based worldview.  I asked you, to reason away the sky for me. Now you have asked me to prove that the sky exists first. 

[i]The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise[/i]

The burden of proof lies in your corner since you made the assertion. I can say, prove to me that elves do not live in the center of the moon. Can you disprove this?  You see where this leads us.  Now the sky is a proven thing, and you have the burdern of reasoning the sky away. So I am listening. But like I had mentioned before, our discussion would be more better suited as a private correspondence , than to digress this thread further. [/quote]
I haven't asserted that I could reason away the sky for you. You're putting words in my mouth. I also haven't asserted that I could replace it with a "faith-based worldview." When did I say that?

What I said was that any philosophical proof that reality is real that uses reason alone has been deconstructed a thousand times. You want me to prove that the sky isn't real. I never said it wasn't. I was talking about [b]proofs having been disproved.[/b]

For that, I will provide you with a bibliography on the history of philosophy and the failure of pure reason.

Good enough?

[Melchisedec]

sure

[theculturewarrior]

In the meanwhile...

How do you know that the sky is real?