I don't believe you

[Jodie.Lynne]

2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I can't say anything much  without sounding patronising or condescending,

Why stop now?

[danydandan]

5 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Not necessary  No two humans have an EXACT same construct about anything or any body. 

Will's works for him. Mine works for me.

The only people I will argue with are those who believe gods don't exist, or that humans do not require beliefs to be complete, OR those who argue for a harmful/destructive religion or personal belief 

There is no more one BEST god for all, than there is one BEST woman (or man), for all.

We all have different needs and requirements, and must; take, shape, or perceive,  a god who meets those needs and requirements. (Or decide we can live without one at all.)   

So are you happy to defend anyone's claims relating to God as long as they believe in God?

 

[Habitat]

3 hours ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

They don't. Period. End of sentence.

People delude themselves, or are mentally damaged into believing woo.

Not trying to change your beliefs, this is my personal, subjective, materialistic, rational belief. Please feel free to add any other "anti god" pejoratives I may have omitted.

All of which is just dogmatic assertions based on your delusion of being able to divine ultimate truths, there is no science in it, but a great deal of ego. But, I'm not silly enough to think you are near 100% convinced, despite the tone of the bluster, the doubts need to be quelled !

[danydandan]

10 minutes ago, Habitat said:

All of which is just dogmatic assertions based on your delusion of being able to divine ultimate truths, there is no science in it, but a great deal of ego. But, I'm not silly enough to think you are near 100% convinced, despite the tone of the bluster, the doubts need to be quelled !

I noticed you didn't give a response to the OP. Why are you engaging in such frivolous pursuits?

[Habitat]

7 minutes ago, danydandan said:

I noticed you didn't give a response to the OP. Why are you engaging in such frivolous pursuits?

Of course it is apposite, I explained why the OP continues to argue the case. Because of doubt, despite there being no doubts expressed.

[Unfortunately]

48 minutes ago, Habitat said:

All of which is just dogmatic assertions based on your delusion of being able to divine ultimate truths, there is no science in it, but a great deal of ego. But, I'm not silly enough to think you are near 100% convinced, despite the tone of the bluster, the doubts need to be quelled !

There is currently no verifiable evidence supporting the existence of an omnipotent being. I can't say that god's do or don't exist, but I can state that given the lack of evidence the existence of such beings is currently improbable at best.

Anyone that definitively attempts to state that gods do or do not exist has access to more knowledge than what is available to the public or myself.

[Habitat]

1 minute ago, Unfortunately said:

There is currently no verifiable evidence supporting the existence of an omnipotent being. I can't say that god's do or don't exist, but I can state that given the lack of evidence the existence of such beings is currently improbable at best.

Anyone that definitively attempts to state that gods do or do not exist has access to more knowledge than what is available to the public or myself.

"They don't. Period. End of sentence. "  That was what the OP said.

[Unfortunately]

1 hour ago, Habitat said:

"They don't. Period. End of sentence. "  That was what the OP said.

Just as you stated that you'd argue with anyone who says gods don't exist.

I wasn't attempting to point fingers. If one goes solely on the basis of verifiable evidence what Jodie states is the logical conclusion.

I'm personally keeping an open mind as I guess there's still a chance some evidence could be found in the future, however improbable it may be. Once evidence has been found that proves/disproves gods I'll reevaluate my opinion, but until then I have to make do with what I can find.

I didn't say it was wrong for someone to state their belief definitively, I said that they must have access to knowledge that I don't. It isn't worth pointing fingers at specific people otherwise this thread will dissolve into meaningless rabble.

[danydandan]

2 hours ago, Habitat said:

Of course it is apposite, I explained why the OP continues to argue the case. Because of doubt, despite there being no doubts expressed.

How is your explanation or your hypothesis of why the OP argues a certain case relevant to the question that was asked initially? 

[Habitat]

1 hour ago, danydandan said:

How is your explanation or your hypothesis of why the OP argues a certain case relevant to the question that was asked initially? 

Anyone with half a brain is all over the OP's modus operandi, read post #50 to refresh your memory, and the usual half-wits of the "team" support such rubbish ! Poor devils trying to convince themselves that materialism is all, but never getting there. But, continue to lie to yourselves that that isn't your agenda ! 

[danydandan]

9 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Anyone with half a brain is all over the OP's modus operandi, read post #50 to refresh your memory, and the usual half-wits of the "team" support such rubbish ! Poor devils trying to convince themselves that materialism is all, but never getting there. But, continue to lie to yourselves that that isn't your agenda ! 

Again with the off topic nonsense. 

[Habitat]

13 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Again with the off topic nonsense. 

Was post #50 off-topic ? I saw a rant in there that announced officially that there was no God, and that mentally damaged people credit "woo". That is what I was answering. Do you have any inkling of what is going on in people's heads that makes them want to blurt out that stuff ? It has to be the sheer frustration in being unable to achieve a desired result, of final victory over "woo". I'll tell you when that will come. Never. This is a problem of people preferring their preconceptions ahead of the truth, and the truth is, you just don't know what the status of these mysteries is. Stick with what you know, and be happy that there is more to know !

[Davros of Skaro]

@Doug1o29

"Because the bishops couldn't decide, Constantine chose Mythra's birthday.  So now Christians celebrate Jesus' birth on Mythra's birthday."

Please cite your source for Mithras being born on December 25th, and Constantine III specifically choosing Mithras's birthday.

"And they explain the origin of Jesus' miracle stories.  Whoever wrote the Bible stories had been to Qumran and had seen the priestly ceremonies presented there.  Jesus' resurrection is also explained in those same scrolls - he didn't actually die on the cross - the resurrection was apparent, not factual."

There's no need to specifically need the Quran community's writings to get ideas for Jesus's miracle narratives. Cite a miracle that only the Dead Sea scrolls provide for ideas please.

Show how the scrolls/ceremonies explain the resurrection. Let me guess it involves the sun, and the zodiac? Right?

@Jodie.Lynne

"That being said, I have a burning desire to know WHY people believe in the things that they do. What do they gain from these beliefs?"
 

 

[Will Due]

3 minutes ago, MERRY DMAS said:

Please cite your source for Mithras being born on December 25th

 

Here's one.

 

Quote

"Mithra or Mitra is...worshipped as Itu (Mitra-Mitu-Itu) in every house of the Hindus in India. Itu (derivative of Mitu or Mitra) is considered as the Vegetation-deity. This Mithra or Mitra (Sun-God) is believed to be a Mediator between God and man, between the Sky and the Earth. It is said that Mithra or [the] Sun took birth in the Cave on December 25th. It is also the belief of the Christian world that Mithra or the Sun-God was born of [a] Virgin. He travelled far and wide. He has twelve satellites, which are taken as the Sun's disciples.... [The Sun's] great festivals are observed in the Winter Solstice and the Vernal Equinox--Christmas and Easter. His symbol is the Lamb...."

https://www.ohio.com/article/20141224/NEWS/312249168

 

 

[Doug1029]

48 minutes ago, MERRY DMAS said:

@Doug1o29

"Because the bishops couldn't decide, Constantine chose Mythra's birthday.  So now Christians celebrate Jesus' birth on Mythra's birthday."

Please cite your source for Mithras being born on December 25th, and Constantine III specifically choosing Mithras's birthday.

Here's one:

https://dancingfromgenesis.wordpress.com/2008/12/23/roman-emperor-constantine-started-established-christmas-celebration-with-pagan-festivals-of-mediterranean-osirian-sarturnalia-and-rites-of-persian-mithra-sun-fire-god-worship-merged-with-christmas-cel/

Here's another version:

https://didyouknow.org/christmas/history/

And here's another:

https://www.whychristmas.com/customs/25th.shtml

Here's one giving Mithra's birthday as December 25.

http://www.truthbeknown.com/mithra.htm

Admittedly, none of these are of the quality one would want if writing a scholarly tome.  But this is UM, not a peer-reviewed journal.  I don't understand why you had such trouble finding a reference.  That's what search engines are for.

 

59 minutes ago, MERRY DMAS said:

There's no need to specifically need the Quran community's writings to get ideas for Jesus's miracle narratives. Cite a miracle that only the Dead Sea scrolls provide for ideas please.

You have missed the point:  there is a one-to-one correspondence between the "miracles" of the Bible and the (non-miraculous) ceremonies at Qumran.  Qumran was the source of Jesus' "miracle" stories.

Thiering, B.  2005.  Complete pesher of the resurrection.  Sorry, I don't have the publisher.

I can't say that this is true, but then, I can't say that it's not.  But it certainly explains a lot about Jesus' position in history and it admits the possibility that there really was a man such as Jesus.

Doug

[Davros of Skaro]

6 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

Here's one:

https://dancingfromgenesis.wordpress.com/2008/12/23/roman-emperor-constantine-started-established-christmas-celebration-with-pagan-festivals-of-mediterranean-osirian-sarturnalia-and-rites-of-persian-mithra-sun-fire-god-worship-merged-with-christmas-cel/

Here's another version:

https://didyouknow.org/christmas/history/

And here's another:

https://www.whychristmas.com/customs/25th.shtml

Here's one giving Mithra's birthday as December 25.

http://www.truthbeknown.com/mithra.htm

Admittedly, none of these are of the quality one would want if writing a scholarly tome.  But this is UM, not a peer-reviewed journal.  I don't understand why you had such trouble finding a reference.  That's what search engines are for.

First off the bold text is an insult to many UM posters that are actual professionals that contribute here.

Secondly when I stated earlier that I find Atheists can be just as biased as Theist/believers. I find you in that club.

You're the one that needs training in doing searches. The Mithras Dec 25 thing is bad scholarship from the 19th century, and perpetuated recently from the likes of Acharya S.

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/mithras/display.php?page=mithras_and_christianity

We know very little of the Mithras cult in reality.

6 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

You have missed the point:  there is a one-to-one correspondence between the "miracles" of the Bible and the (non-miraculous) ceremonies at Qumran.  Qumran was the source of Jesus' "miracle" stories.

Thiering, B.  2005.  Complete pesher of the resurrection.  Sorry, I don't have the publisher.

I can't say that this is true, but then, I can't say that it's not.  But it certainly explains a lot about Jesus' position in history and it admits the possibility that there really was a man such as Jesus.

Doug

I'll just leave this Wiki article, direct people to "Work", and "Academic reception". I'll let people figure it out themselves (hint: Thiering was a parallel-O-maniac).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Thiering

Unless you want to provide an actual example so I can compare it to it's actual OT source?

Also I would like to challenge you in your interpretation of the "Gerasene Demoniac" Mark 5:1-20.

You pm your full interpretation, and I will put it to mine in a poll that I will post in S vs S. See which version, or none above people see as making the most sense.

1 hour ago, Will Due said:

Here's one.

The UBBS settles it.

Not!

That's one of the gazillion reasons I know it's bunk.

[Essan]

7 hours ago, Unfortunately said:

There is currently no verifiable evidence supporting the existence of an omnipotent being. I can't say that god's do or don't exist, but I can state that given the lack of evidence the existence of such beings is currently improbable at best.

Anyone that definitively attempts to state that gods do or do not exist has access to more knowledge than what is available to the public or myself.

Before that they need to specify exactly what they mean by god ......

One of the problems with most theological/spirituality discussions if we argue about the answer, but we don't know the question.

I usually take God (capital g) as meaning the character from the Bible.  Whereas many today seem to think he might not actually be a physical entity, let alone live on top of a mountain!  And created billions of galaxies (meaning he probably has more than eyes just in the back of his head to be able to watch them all at once).

Although, of course, in most cases, if you substitute the world god with (mother) nature it all makes perfect sense       So all we really have to do is define (mother) nature and whether or not we agree (mother) nature exists.  And is she is a god .......

[Will Due]

17 minutes ago, MERRY DMAS said:

The UBBS settles it.

Not!

That's one of the gazillion reasons I know it's bunk.

 

Check the link. It isn't to the UB. 

 

 

[Davros of Skaro]

8 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

Check the link. It isn't to the UB. 

"Three times a day they worshiped, with special weekly ceremonials on the day of the sun-god and with the most elaborate observance of all on the annual festival of Mithras, December twenty-fifth. It was believed that the partaking of the sacrament ensured eternal life, the immediate passing, after death, to the bosom of Mithras, there to tarry in bliss until the judgment day."

http://www.urantiabook.org/newbook/ose-sections/ppr098_5.html

"The modern study of Mithras begins just before 1900 with Franz Cumont's Textes et Monuments (TMMM). This two volume work collected all the ancient evidence. Cumont presumed that Mithras was merely the Roman form of the ancient Indo-Persian deity Mitra or Mithra. In the mid-50's Cumont's pupil Maarten Vermaseren published a new collection of monuments, the CIMRM, which added the archaeological discoveries of the last 50 years, but also highlighted how poorly the archaeology supported the Cumontian theory. At the 1971 international conference on Mithraic studies, Cumont's theory was abandoned in favour of a Roman origin for the cult. Vermaseren himself rejected Cumont's theory in 1975.¹

The ancient writer Justin Martyr referred to one of the ritual meals of the cult as being a parody of Christianity. In some speculative passages Cumont sometimes tried to interpret some Mithraic ideas in Christian terms. Consequently various modern myths came into being. These appear as fact in older scholarly literature, and sometimes in non-specialist academic literature even today. For the most part these errors appear in non-scholarly literature."

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/mithras/display.php?page=main

This Romulan knows the truth about the UBBS;

 

[Will Due]

4 minutes ago, MERRY DMAS said:

"Three times a day they worshiped, with special weekly ceremonials on the day of the sun-god and with the most elaborate observance of all on the annual festival of Mithras, December twenty-fifth. It was believed that the partaking of the sacrament ensured eternal life, the immediate passing, after death, to the bosom of Mithras, there to tarry in bliss until the judgment day."

http://www.urantiabook.org/newbook/ose-sections/ppr098_5.html

"The modern study of Mithras begins just before 1900 with Franz Cumont's Textes et Monuments (TMMM). This two volume work collected all the ancient evidence. Cumont presumed that Mithras was merely the Roman form of the ancient Indo-Persian deity Mitra or Mithra. In the mid-50's Cumont's pupil Maarten Vermaseren published a new collection of monuments, the CIMRM, which added the archaeological discoveries of the last 50 years, but also highlighted how poorly the archaeology supported the Cumontian theory. At the 1971 international conference on Mithraic studies, Cumont's theory was abandoned in favour of a Roman origin for the cult. Vermaseren himself rejected Cumont's theory in 1975.¹

The ancient writer Justin Martyr referred to one of the ritual meals of the cult as being a parody of Christianity. In some speculative passages Cumont sometimes tried to interpret some Mithraic ideas in Christian terms. Consequently various modern myths came into being. These appear as fact in older scholarly literature, and sometimes in non-specialist academic literature even today. For the most part these errors appear in non-scholarly literature."

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/mithras/display.php?page=main

This Romulan knows the truth about the UBBS;

 

 

Lol DMAS. What you gonna do? 

Burn it or drink its blood? 

 

 

 

[Doug1029]

32 minutes ago, MERRY DMAS said:

First off the bold text is an insult to many UM posters that are actual professionals that contribute here.

I apologize to the professionals.  Even professionals post things on UM that are not properly researched (Including me.).  But in the subject of religion, I am an amateur like nearly everybody else on this thread, so please forgive my amateur mistakes.

37 minutes ago, MERRY DMAS said:

Secondly when I stated earlier that I find Atheists can be just as biased as Theist/believers. I find you in that club.

I don't recall ever saying that I was an atheist.  You are making unwarranted assumptions.  So much for your scholarship.

I am an agnostic.  I neither believe nor disbelieve.  That applies both to god(s) and to the issue of Jesus' ever having been a living person.  But, all-in-all, I think what evidence exists weighs more for Jesus having been a real person or persons than it does for him never having existed at all.  But whichever way that cookie crumbles, the evidence is extremely weak.

Beyond that, I really don't care what club you think I belong in.

47 minutes ago, MERRY DMAS said:

You're the one that needs training in doing searches. The Mithras Dec 25 thing is bad scholarship from the 19th century, and perpetuated recently from the likes of Acharya S.

If you had actually read those articles, you'd know that the third one mentions that Mithra's birthday was celebrated on December 25th years before Constantine's declaration.  As I said, so much for your scholarship.  How about dropping the pretense that you're such a great researcher - that's two amateur mistakes in one thread.

56 minutes ago, MERRY DMAS said:

I'll just leave this Wiki article, direct people to "Work", and "Academic reception". I'll let people figure it out themselves (hint: Thiering was a parallel-O-maniac).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Thiering

I am always suspicious of religious "scholars."  It seems their findings are heavily-dependent on what they believed to begin with.  And to be perfectly honest, if I approached religion the way I approach forestry/climate research, I would start from a position of no assumptions, then look for any available evidence.  That, of course, leads to a finding from the atheistic viewpoint (Because one has to prove god, before one can use him/it as a source of knowledge.).  The only relevant question is:  what does the evidence say?

As for the rest:  Moses and the Exodus are the only biblical topics I have made a serious study of.  I have done some speculating about Jesus on UM, but have not gone into the issues in the depth I would like.  Maybe I have interpreted the story of the demons (named "Legion") correctly and maybe not.  2000 such demons is half a Roman Legion, about the size of the Jerusalem garrison in 120 AD.  And if the Bible is viewing them favorably, it would not have chosen the term "pigs" to describe them.  Even the choice of location:  the east shore of Lake Galilee was settled by Greeks who had no problem keeping pigs.  And there is an oak forest near the lake on the east side, suitable for pig foraging.  I submit that a Jew reading that in 120 AD would know exactly what the story was about.

In the meantime, I am working on two serious research papers:  one on the reasons that eastern red-cedar is invading the Great Plains and one on measuring problems associated with plots that straddle the stand boundary.  I really don't have time for a highly-speculative topic like the Bible.  Maybe after I retire.

Doug

[Davros of Skaro]

22 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

Lol DMAS. What you gonna do? 

Burn it or drink its blood? 

The UBBS authors took faulty scholarship, and ran with it. Time and time again your shown the errors of it's history as well as it's science. Yet you keep citing it like a factual divine record.

5 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

I apologize to the professionals.  Even professionals post things on UM that are not properly researched (Including me.).  But in the subject of religion, I am an amateur like nearly everybody else on this thread, so please forgive my amateur mistakes.

I don't recall ever saying that I was an atheist.  You are making unwarranted assumptions.  So much for your scholarship.

I am an agnostic.  I neither believe nor disbelieve.  That applies both to god(s) and to the issue of Jesus' ever having been a living person.  But, all-in-all, I think what evidence exists weighs more for Jesus having been a real person or persons than it does for him never having existed at all.  But whichever way that cookie crumbles, the evidence is extremely weak.

Beyond that, I really don't care what club you think I belong in.

 

5 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

If you had actually read those articles, you'd know that the third one mentions that Mithra's birthday was celebrated on December 25th years before Constantine's declaration.  As I said, so much for your scholarship.  How about dropping the pretense that you're such a great researcher - that's two amateur mistakes in one thread.

"The Roman Festival of Saturnalia took place between December 17th and 23rd and honoured the Roman god Saturn. Dies Natalis Solis Invicti means 'birthday of the unconquered sun' and was held on December 25th (when the Romans thought the Winter Solstice took place) and was the 'birthday' of the Pagan Sun god Mithra. In the pagan religion of Mithraism, the holy day was Sunday and is where get that word from!"

Holy Cow! You're right.

I'm so sorry for my two horrible mistakes.

5 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

I am always suspicious of religious "scholars."  It seems their findings are heavily-dependent on what they believed to begin with.  And to be perfectly honest, if I approached religion the way I approach forestry/climate research, I would start from a position of no assumptions, then look for any available evidence.  That, of course, leads to a finding from the atheistic viewpoint (Because one has to prove god, before one can use him/it as a source of knowledge.).  The only relevant question is:  what does the evidence say?

As for the rest:  Moses and the Exodus are the only biblical topics I have made a serious study of.  I have done some speculating about Jesus on UM, but have not gone into the issues in the depth I would like.  Maybe I have interpreted the story of the demons (named "Legion") correctly and maybe not.  2000 such demons is half a Roman Legion, about the size of the Jerusalem garrison in 120 AD.  And if the Bible is viewing them favorably, it would not have chosen the term "pigs" to describe them.  Even the choice of location:  the east shore of Lake Galilee was settled by Greeks who had no problem keeping pigs.  And there is an oak forest near the lake on the east side, suitable for pig foraging.  I submit that a Jew reading that in 120 AD would know exactly what the story was about.

In the meantime, I am working on two serious research papers:  one on the reasons that eastern red-cedar is invading the Great Plains and one on measuring problems associated with plots that straddle the stand boundary.  I really don't have time for a highly-speculative topic like the Bible.  Maybe after I retire.

Doug

Too bad. I wanted to make the comparison, and put it to a poll. If you ever feel the urge? Write it up and pm it to me. I want to see the Boar head standard used in that unit of Roman soldiers describing the possesed pigs again.

[Doug1029]

8 minutes ago, MERRY DMAS said:

Too bad. I wanted to make the comparison, and put it to a poll. If you ever feel the urge? Write it up and pm it to me. I want to see the Boar head standard used in that unit of Roman soldiers describing the possesed pigs again.

I think your poll would be quite useless.  It doesn't matter whether you can win a popularity contest.  Only the strength of your reasoning.  So why do you not think the story of the pigs was actually written about 131-135 AD?

Doug

[Will Due]

29 minutes ago, MERRY DMAS said:

The UBBS authors took faulty scholarship, and ran with it. Time and time again your shown the errors of it's history as well as it's science. Yet you keep citing it like a factual divine record.

 

Do you want to burn me at the stake? 

 

 

[Davros of Skaro]

1 hour ago, Doug1o29 said:

I think your poll would be quite useless.  It doesn't matter whether you can win a popularity contest.  Only the strength of your reasoning. 

It's about disinformation, and my distaste of it's spread.

Quote

So why do you not think the story of the pigs was actually written about 131-135 AD?

Doug

Maybe Mark was written then, but I personally suspect the early 90's. It's very problematic. 

Mark was conveying God, and his firstborn in a mystery, not history.

46 minutes ago, Will Due said:

Do you want to burn me at the stake? 

No. I want you to take a creative writing class, and also some basics of journalism. 

Edited February 22, 2019 by MERRY DMAS