Dear So And So,
Let's get serious. I've been studying the Bible since I was fifteen. Questioning, yes, god-forbid, questioning why are there so many religions and gods out there. This is what I have found.
All religions are man-made. Sin is man-made. There is no such thing as a God and no such thing as sin. Day/Night. Good/Evil. Day/Night. God/Satan. Day/Night. Heaven/Hell. Ancient guesses by primitive men trying to explain the world we live in.
Ancient primitive men who were ignorant of the science we have today, (since they did not have modern science to explain the world around them) were scribes and these "religious" people created religions, including the Bible, to explain what science could not. To explain the world around them. To give a so-called purpose for living and in addition, they added their own bigotry, intolerance and hate to their texts.
Adding bigotry, intolerance of others and hatred to a "spiritual" text is not inspired from an all powerful god who knows the past, present and future. An all powerful god who knows the future would one day know the masses would learn to read and know the masses would easily recognize the lack of wisdom, a book that is not timeless and a book that lacks continuity and has inconsistencies.
Faith is simply a guess. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John did not even know Christ. They wrote about Christ some 30 years after Christ died. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John used "god-like" characteristics from Greek and Egyptian mythology (and who knows what other mythology they used from the Middle East) to create Christ's "god" characteristics.
There are many messiah/saviors who lived before Christ--who have the same characteristics of Christ.
There is an Egyptian God called Horus. He lived around 3000 B.C. There are approximately thirty (30) characteristics that are the same between Horus and Christ, such as: born of a virgin, born in late December, birth announcement by angels, an attempt to murder him as a baby, no information between 12 and 30 years of age, baptized at 30, had twelve disciples, walked on water, cast out demons, healed the sick, restored sight to the blind, death by crucifixion, descended into hell for three days and resurrected after three days. These are some of the characteristics that both Horus (Egyptian Sun God who lived in 3000 B.C.) and Christ (1-33 A.D.).
Here are more messiah/saviors who were written about before Christ lived:
Attis, Greece, 1200 BC
Born of a virgin
Born on Dec 25th
Crucified
Dead for 3 days
Resurrected
Mithra, Persia, 1200 BC
Born of a virgin
born on Dec 25th
had 12 disciples
performed miracles
dead for three days
resurrected
Sunday was the worship day
known as the Truth, the life
Krishna, India, 900 BC
Born of a virgin
Born on Dec 25th
Start in the East
Performed Miracles
Crucified
Resurrected
Dionysus (Greek god of wine.)
Born of a virgin
born on Dec 25
performed miracles
was a traveling teacher
Known as the King of Kings, the Alpha and Omega
Crucified
Resurrected
Need more messiah/saviors who had similiar characteristics of Christ who also lived before Christ?
Chishna of Hindostan
Budha Sakia of India
Salivahana of Bermuda
Zulis (or Zhule), Osiris, Orus of Egypt
Odin of the Scandinavians
Crite of Chaldea
Zoroaster and Mithra of Persia
Baal and Taut (The only begotten of God) of Phoenecia
Indra of Tibet
Bali of Afghanistan
Jao of Nepal
Wittoba of the Bilingonese
Thammuz of Syria
Atys of Phrygia
Xamolxis of Thrace
Zoar of the Bonzes
Adad of Assyria
Deva Tat and Sammonocadam of Siam
Alcides of Thebes
Mikado of the Sintoos
Beddru of Japan
Hesus (or Eros) and Bremrillah of the Druids
Thor (Son of Odin) of the Gauls
Cadmus of Greece
Hil and Feta of the Mandaites
Gentaut and Quexalcote of Mexico
Universal Monarch of the Sibyls
Ischy of the island of the Formosa
Divine Teacher of Plato
Holy One of Xaca
Fohi and Tien of China
Adonis (Son of the virgin Io) of Greece
Ixion and Quirinus of Rome
Prometheus of Caucasus
Mohamud (or Mahomet) of Arabia
You believe in prayer, right? Matthew 18:19 (New International Version), Christ said, 19"Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven."
Okay Don, get one thousand (1,000) born-again Christians (who just asked to be forgiven) and get one (1) person who has quantity one (1) pinky finger that was amputated.
Now, have all 1,000 Christians pray that the finger on this amputee be healed. Do you know why the amputee will not be healed? Christian answer: I have to make an excuse as to why my all powerful god can't do something as simple as heal an amputated limb. Realist answer: God is imaginary.
I can't believe you have gone all these years and not searched for the real truth about the world we live in. If I said to you, go 90 mph in your car and hit a wall and you won't be hurt, you'd say, forget it, you have to prove it to me.
Now you say, based on a guess, that you know the CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE? Are you nuts?
"Religion is the one area of our discourse where it is considered noble to pretend to be certain about things no human being could possibly be certain about." -Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris, 2007, page 67.
So And So, you are already an atheist to all religions other than your own. You don't believe in the "Allah" as God (Islam) or Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism or Taoism, right? You are an atheist to all these other faiths, except your own. I am simply an atheist to all religions.
It's time to get serious and take a realistic look at the false testimony of your so-called god and the false testimony of all religions who proclaim to know or have knowledge of any god.
If there was an all powerful god he/she would not be afraid to show him/herself. Let's be honest with each other on this point.
It's time to see the real truth about religion. Please take a look at these www.youtube.com videos, the websites listed below. Also, I'd recommend you read the book listed below also.
www.youtube.com videos:
10 questions that every intelligent Christian must answer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDHJ4ztnldQ
Prove to yourself that Jesus is imaginary in less than 5 minutes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUj8hg5CoSw
Proving that prayer is superstition
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BH0rFZIqo8A
The best optical illusion in the world! (About the superstition of prayer)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk6ILZAaAMI
Websites:
http://www.godisimaginary.com
http://www.whywontgodhealamputees.com
Book:
-"Letter to a Christian Nation" by Sam Harris, 2007, New York: Alfred A Knopf
I think it's time to seriously take a look at the real truth about all religions, don't you think?
Sincerely,
Mike
2 comments:
Mike,
Just a few of my thoughts about your current rant:
Some of us do take a serious look at the questions you raise and still come down on the side of faith. Not all of the assumptions or "reasoned" arguments that are expressed by athiests hold up to scientific study. Sometimes athiests, just like Christians, see what they want to see in evidence because it supports their bias.
The problem is that it is easy to see the ignorance and bias in someone else, but fail to see the ignorance and bias in oneself. I find many athiests just as blind, arrogant, ignorant, and biggoted as they claim people of faith are.
Dave Jones
BTW, it is too strong of a statement to claim that the authors of the Gospels did not know Jesus. There is little evidence one way or another.
Currently, most scholars believe there was a pre-existing compilation of the sayings and stories of Jesus which is referred to in scholarship circles as "Q". Because the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke relate much of the same material in such a strikingly similar fashion, they are called the synoptics (Greek for "seeing with one eye") It appears that they used "Q" as their source material. Some have even suggested that "Q" is the book of Mark, though I find it unlikely.
Nevertheless, my point is simply this: you have drawn some firm, dogmatic conclusions about the origins of the Gospels that support your athiesm but which are not necessarily supported by scientific research of the texts. Be careful of overstating your case to make and bolster your point: that's what some of the Christians do of whom you are so critical.
Scholarship of ancient texts is a difficult science, and it virtually always leaves room for disagreement and debate. Of course, the same could be said of all science.
There is rarely complete agreement in the conclusions of what evidence reveals to us. Why? First: Because we all bring with us a bias that may, but not necessarily does, lead to a faulty interpretation of data. Second: because we rarely have a complete set of data, regardless of the scientific topic of debate.
An excellent example of this is "Global Warming." Al Gore presents this as a scientific fact agreed upon by every respectable scientist who isn't under the pay of greedy oil companies. Yet, nearly 50% of those scientists that Al Gore uses as evidence that the scientific community is in agreemtent have distanced themselves from Al Gore's work. Why? The reasons are many and varied. Some suggest that Al Gore's conclusions are politically motivated, and science should not be abused in such a manner. Others suggest that they agree that there is global warming, but are not convinced that the evidence suggests that it is human made. Still others have concluded that the interpretation of the data is completely wrong, and that we are actually going through a cooling phase: a mini-ice age.
The only unreasonable people are those who do not recognize that there still needs to be a lively debate. The other side of these debates should never be silenced.
Just think, if atheistic and humanistic scientists had had their way, we would not believe in the "Big Bang" theory. Bet you didn't know that?
A Roman Catholic priest/scientist named Georges Lemaitre came to the conclusion, in 1927, that the evidence for the creation of the universe pointed to a big bang that occured billions of years ago. His conclusions were resoundingly ridiculed and rejected by humanistic scientists, and there were many attemps to silence his voice in the scientific community.
In fact, as late as 1949, a very respected humanistic scientist refered dirisively to Lemaitre's theory as the "big bang." What amazes me, no one knows who Lemaitre was, but everyone recognizes the name Hoyle.
In conclusion, dogmatism, whether of faith or a particular scientific point of view is dangerous. I am contending that because of your dogmatism, you are just the opposite side of the same coin of those with whom you are critical.
Post a Comment