Religion II

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

The last sentence is circular reasoning. "The body did exist because Jesus never existed" is circular!

Fallacy of the outright lie! You are deliberately misinterpreting what I posted to suit your own agenda.

Originally Posted by boxcar

You're the one making the claim that Jesus never existed, but the lame theory is so intellectually bankrupt that you have yet come up with one first century source that agrees with you.

Irrelevant! You are unlikely to come up with a first century source that agrees with Evolution, Relativity or Quantum Mechanics. But these are all fact.

Originally Posted by boxcar

... all secular extra-biblical sources presume Jesus' existence.

Didn't understand M=W's definition of presume did you. Did you even read it?

Originally Posted by boxcar

And there is not so much as one first century source that calls into question Jesus' existence.

Irrelevant. See above.

Originally Posted by boxcar

If Jesus didn't exist and his disciples were preaching fake news, everyone would have known it because the disciples were on fire for Christ from Pentecost on -- just 10 days after Jesus ascended into heaven. Their gospel message would not have been received by anyone because no one would have ever seen Christ. And all the miracles that Christ performed would have been non-existent as well. The disciples would have never gotten to first base with their fake news to their contemporary countrymen if Jesus never existed.

Try to understand. The disciples did not exist either. Pentecost never happened. And religions based on "fake news" can and do propagate, e.g., Mormonism and Scientology.

Originally Posted by boxcar

As far as the Greek language -- this was the common and virtually universal language of the ANE.

So you've changed your position on this issue since it was first discussed in Religion I. We're making progress.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Lastly, Acts is a verifiable source because the book is in harmony with the rest of scripture, and the extra-biblical writings of the Early Church Fathers also affirm much of Acts.

Scripture is not internally consistent. Even it it were scripture still proves nothing because internal consistency proves nothing.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Context. I thought we were discussing the existence of the founder of Christianity.

To the exclusion of all other subjects related to religion? Would you rather move on to something else?

Originally Posted by boxcar

Why do you even post here?

I have personal reasons.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Hmm...so this guy "syncretism", who founded Hinduism, is fact or fiction?

You didn't look the word up did you?

[VigorsTheGrey]

“Men do not long dispute on objects that are cognizable to their senses, and which they can submit to the test of experience. The number of self-evident truths on which men agree is very small; and the fundamentals of morality are among this number.

It is obvious to all men of sense, that beings, united in society, require to be regulated by justice, that they ought to respect the happiness of each other, that mutual succor is indispensable; in a word, that they are obliged to practise virtue, and to be useful to society, for personal happiness.

It is evident to demonstration, that the interest of our preservation excites us to moderate our desires, and put a bridle on our passions; to renounce dangerous habits, and to abstain from vices which can only injure our fortune, and undermine our health.

These truths are evident to every being whose passions have not dominion over his reason; they are totally independent of theological speculations, which have neither evidence nor demonstration, and which our mind can never verify; they have nothing in common with the religious opinions on which the imagination soars from earth to sky, nor with the fanaticism and credulity which are so frequently producing among mankind the most opposite principles to morality and the well-being of society.”

From ‘Letters to Eugenia” by Baron D’Holbach.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by Buckeye

I lost track of this, but I do agree there is no such thing as free will.

There are forces controlling everything (Good and Evil) not Free Will.

No need to complicate it.

That's just nutty.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Fallacy of the outright lie! You are deliberately misinterpreting what I posted to suit your own agenda.

No, it isn't. You accused my premise as being circular. Yet, your premise that there was no resurrection because Christ didn't exist is circular. You have to prove your premise.

Irrelevant! You are unlikely to come up with a first century source that agrees with Evolution, Relativity or Quantum Mechanics. But these are all fact.[/quote]

A really stupid non-sequitur since we're not talking about science. The topic is someone's existence.

Didn't understand M=W's definition of presume did you. Did you even read it?

Main Entryre£sume
Pronunciationri-*z*m
Function:verb
Inflected Formre£sumed ; pre£sum£ing
Etymology:Middle English, from Late Latin & Middle French; Late Latin praesumere to dare, from Latin, to anticipate, assume, from prae- + sumere to take; Middle French presumer to assume, from Latin praesumere— more at CONSUME
Date:14th century

transitive senses
1 : to undertake without leave or clear justification : DARE
2 : to expect or assume especially with confidence
3 : to suppose to be true without proof *presumed innocent until proved guilty*
4 : to take for granted : IMPLY
intransitive senses
1 : to act or proceed presumptuously or on a presumption
2 : to go beyond what is right or proper
–pre£sumed£ly \-*z*-m*d-l*, -*z*md-l*\ adverb
–pre£sum£er noun

And the definition of "presumption" is:

Main Entryre£sump£tion
Pronunciationri-*z*m(p)-sh*n
Function:noun
Etymology:Middle English presumpcioun, from Old French presumption, from Late Latin & Latin; Late Latin praesumption-, praesumptio presumptuous attitude, from Latin, assumption, from praesumere
Date:13th century

1 : presumptuous attitude or conduct : AUDACITY
2 a : an attitude or belief dictated by probability : ASSUMPTION b : the ground, reason, or evidence lending probability to a belief
3 : a legal inference as to the existence or truth of a fact not certainly known that is drawn from the known or proved existence of some other fact

Irrelevant. See above.

No, it's not. It proves you have zero proof to back up your brain-dead theory.

Try to understand. The disciples did not exist either. Pentecost never happened. And religions based on "fake news" can and do propagate, e.g., Mormonism and Scientology.

But Mormonism and Scientology have founders. Real people. They existed. AND...the founders all had their disciples (believers).

But if the disciples of Christ never existed either, then you need to explain to us how Christianity has become the world's largest religion - all based on fake news and non-existent believers in Christ. You also need to explain the origin of the NT since it wasn't written by believers either. All this would be UNPRECEDENTED in world history.

So you've changed your position on this issue since it was first discussed in Religion I. We're making progress.

I haven't changed anything. You're lying. It's a well known, historical fact that the Greek language was widely spoken in Christ's day. And there were plenty of Hellenistic Jews who spoke the lingo.

Scripture is not internally consistent.

Prove it.

Even it it were scripture still proves nothing because internal consistency proves nothing.

In this case, it would because 40 or so writers are involved in the writing of the canon. How can 40 writers' books all harmonize with each other?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

To the exclusion of all other subjects related to religion?

If you don't stick to the immediate topic at hand, you're liable to introduce more than a few non sequiturs into the discussion.

Would you rather move on to something else?

I don't feel the call of nature at the moment; but if you do, please feel free to find the nearest outhouse.

I have personal reasons.

And not one of them honorable, I bet.

You didn't look the word up did you?

Answer my question: Is syncretism real or fiction?

Did Hinduism have any founder?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

And not one of them honorable, I bet.

Enough. Your posts have degenerated into a series of ad hominem attacks. I will not follow suit. I will continue to post here since I have something to say but I will not specifically address my comments to you.

[TJDave]

Originally Posted by Actor

Enough. Your posts have degenerated into a series of ad hominem attacks. I will not follow suit. I will continue to post here since I have something to say but I will not specifically address my comments to you.

Bravo!

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Actor

Enough. Your posts have degenerated into a series of ad hominem attacks. I will not follow suit. I will continue to post here since I have something to say but I will not specifically address my comments to you.

It took you 1,669 posts...but you finally saw the light.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Enough. Your posts have degenerated into a series of ad hominem attacks. I will not follow suit. I will continue to post here since I have something to say but I will not specifically address my comments to you.

And how often have you accused me of lying when I never have?

Oh...you thin-skinned, hypocritical liberals, skeptics, infidels, whatever.... But then I suppose if it weren't for your hypocrisy, duplicity, equivocations and all your non sequiturs, what other dubious virtues would you have for which you could boast?

May I suggest that if any of your "personal reasons" had even the thinnest of chances that they would survive critical scrutiny for being sincere, honest and real, you would have revealed it to us to show us what a noble, upright person you are? But instead, you hide behind your mask of phony incredulity.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by TJDave

Bravo!

Indeed. He groped his way to find that outhouse I mentioned earlier. He really did need to have that movement, after all.

[TJDave]

Boxcar loses playmate.
Throws tantrum.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

It took you 1,669 posts...but you finally saw the light.

Because the "lamp of his body" is bad, his "light" is darkness (Mat 6:22-23).

[Light]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Answer my question: Is syncretism real or fiction?

Did Hinduism have any founder?

I'll help Actor out.

Religious Syncretism is a mix of 2 or more religions. Hinduism consists of 4 branches:

Shaivism is the second largest branch of Hinduism.Shaivites worship Shiva as the supreme God, the God of destruction. Shiva is not a malicious destroyer, but a transformer.

Vaishnavas worship Vishnu as the supreme God. Vaishnavism is, by far, the sect with the most followers worldwide. The Society for Krishna Consciousness (Hare Krishnas) are a Vaishnava organization. They also believe that Vishnu is the beginning and end of everything in the world. They even believe that Brahma, the Hindu creator god, was actually born from Vishnu's navel, coming out of a lotus flower, meaning that Vishnu created the creator.

Smartha are followers of the philosophy of unity. The Smarta tradition is aligned with Advaita Vedanta, and regards Adi Shankara as its founder or reformer. The term Advaita refers to its idea that the soul (true Self, Atman) is the same as the highest metaphysical Reality (Brahman).

Shaktism is the worship of the divine in a feminine form. She is typically called ''Devi,'' though ''Shakti'' is another common name. Devi manifests herself over and over again eternally so that she can protect the world, like a mother protects a child.

Founder

A founder implies that someone has brought into existence a new faith or formulated a set of religious beliefs, principles and practices which were not existing before. That cannot happen with a faith such as Hinduism, which is considered eternal.

Hinduism is not founded by a person or a prophet. Its source is God (Brahman) himself. Hence, it is considered an eternal religion (Sanatana dharma). Its first teachers were Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. Brahma, the creator God revealed the secret knowledge of the Vedas to gods, humans and demons in the beginning of creation.

It is also said that Hinduism has no founder and no missionary goals because people have to come to it either by providence (birth) or personal decision due to their spiritual readiness (past karma).

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by TJDave

No takers?

Hi, TJ.

Didn't see this. I have certainly built up my resolve in a scenario that would include defending my family, or being personally challenged to participate in deviant, abominable behavior. But I agree that a calculated choice to renounce or die causes me to recoil at the prospect.

But I am weak when compared to Maria Goretti or Maximilian Kolbe, or Jamie Schmidt ("Catholic Supply" murdered victim who would not submit to deviant sexual behavior at gunpoint, just blocks from my home).

And I certainly believe the victims in Scorsese's "Silence" were historical.