frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





Islam, Catholicism, Christianity, and Religion in general.

2»



Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  

    ***** Catholicism has never been Christian


    Right , yet it’s called the “one true faith “ traditionally at least when I was one ,and it’s incredible that American nut jobs like you think your actual Westboro style cult is the one true faith


    Interesting also your American style version of Christianity thinks babies dying of cancer is wonderful as it’s paying back a debt owned to god 



    ****Atheism is a religion of the psychotic. 


    Says a nut who thinks a father who hears voices in his head telling him to place his son on a slab and run a knife through as a sacrifice to god is not a prime example of who in fact is psychotic 


    Atheism is still not a religion 


    ****When engaging the atheist in conversation or debate relevant to their worldview, the atheist fails to acknowledge the overwhelming, irrefutable, evidence of our supernatural Universe as empirical, extant, substantive, evidence for design and a mandated Designer. 


    Zero evidence so far , if it’s irrefutable how come you haven’t got a Nobel prize for proving such?



    ***Evolution is a religion of Naturalism mandating great faith in that which has never been observed 


    Evolution is still not a religion , Evolution is a fact you do not know the difference between a fact and fiction as you think a water walking Zombie called Jesus was born,  so that he could impregnate a Palestinian virgin so that he could die on a cross to be resurrected to save us from sin that we haven't even committed yet ......Why not run these “facts “ by a Nobel committee of eminent scientists and see how you fare out?


  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5970 Pts   -  
    On the Middle East people also constantly argue over which is the true version of Islam: Sunni or Shia. They have waged many wars over it, including civil ones. Each believes that their version is right and their opponents' version is wrong, even though, objectively speaking, the differences between the two are negligible. The only significant difference in theory seems to be that Sunni relies on authority of a single entity, and Shia formally relies on the authority of a group of enlightened people - but in practice both bow to one single tyrant, be it the Saudi king or the Iranian Supreme Leader.

    The differences between various branches of Christianity seem a bit more profound, and arguably Orthodox Christianity is the most barbaric one, and the Protestant Christianity is the most contemporary one - but the differences seem to ultimately come down to slightly differing interpretations of certain Biblical passages. The overall framework is still the same.

    People who believe that only their narrow religious branch is the true one, and all other branches are heresy - have a spectacular lack of self-reflection.
  • RickeyDRickeyD 953 Pts   -  
    @Dee ; If you studied you would know better...but you're wise in your own mind.  Why not study the genesis of Catholicism from a source other than heretical Catholicism?






  • RickeyDRickeyD 953 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar ; You obviously speak from a lack of knowledge concerning the Scriptures. As opposed to inventing your own argument from nonsense, why not rebut my explanation of authentic Christianity by using the actual Scriptures...you're free to use the Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, as well. Prove anything I have stated in the OP is contrary to sound, Biblical doctrine. Your comment is false and offered with a lack of knowledge.


  • TKDBTKDB 694 Pts   -  
    @RickeyD

    You're being lured in to play the "Atheist" game.

    The game of they, using your arguments, as fodder, for their Atheist arguments.
    smoothie
  • RickeyDRickeyD 953 Pts   -  
    @Dee ;

    Like any religion, atheism is somewhat difficult to accurately define. There will always be self-identified adherents who disagree with a single definition. Christianity, for example, could be defined as “those who believe in Jesus Christ.” This definition could also include, however, Christian Witches who see Christ as the God and another deity as Goddess. Most self-identified Christians, however, would not consider these Christian Witches to be true Christians. A more detailed definition of Christianity, however, could accidentally include Protestantism, for example, but exclude Catholicism.

    Most definitions of atheism are rather simple, but they are widely accepted by both atheists and non-atheists. These definitions generally include what can be called the three tenets of atheism: 1) God or gods do not exist, 2) there is no life after death, 3) this material world is all that exists. Some self-identified atheists will accept that there are spiritual beings of some sort but reject any notion of a creator God or gods. Most atheists, however, reject any idea that there is a world beyond this one or beings beyond the natural. As such, the three fold definition of atheism is the one that will be used here.

    Religious scholars have struggled for years to agree on a single definition that answers the question “what is religion?” Early attempts at a definition claimed that religion was simply a belief in God. This, of course, was not a definition that could encapsulate the religions of the East. Buddhism, for example, does not hold to belief in a single creator god, but no one today would claim that Buddhists are not religious. As such, the definition of religion continued to evolve over the years.

    Based on some of the earliest definitions of religion, atheism is not a religion. Neither, however, is Buddhism, Hinduism, Goddess worship or, by some early definitions, Catholicism. Other early definitions, however, would also exclude atheism, but they would also count common superstitions, childhood nightmares, nationalism and the products of psychotic breaks or hallucinations as religions. Most people today would not call these religions either.  According to later, more nuanced definitions of religion, however, atheism is a religion.

    “By religion, then, I understand a propitiation or conciliation of powers superior to man which are believed to direct and control the course of nature and of human life.” – James George Frazer

    Frazer’s “Golden Bough” is an older work that studied religion and had a number of flaws, many of which are unsurprising in hindsight considering when the book was written. His definition of religion, however, continues to make its way into secular universities today.

    Atheism fits Frazer’s definition of a religion. Most atheists believe in the proven laws of physics and scientific theories such as evolution and natural selection. These natural laws are beyond human control and are seen as controlling the material world.

    “[Religion is] the feelings, acts and experiences of individual men in their solitude, so far as they apprehend themselves to stand in relation to whatever they may consider the divine.” –William James

    Atheists do not believe that there is a divine. This, however, does not mean that James’ definition of religion does not hold true for atheism.

    James makes it a point to explain that religion is about action as well as belief. Atheists do not believe in a god or in gods, and they act accordingly. So, they feel a lack of belief and experience only this world, which leads them to act as though there is no world but this one.

    Note as well that James points out that these experiences are individual. A belief system does not need a structured hierarchy to be a religion. It just needs to be a collective set of beliefs and experiences. Those beliefs can certainly be a belief that this material world is all that exists, and those experiences can be the experience of a lack of any sort of divinity.

    “[Religion is] a system of symbols (creed, code, cultus) by means of which people (a community) orient themselves in the world with reference to both ordinary and extraordinary powers, meanings, and values.” –Catherine L. Albanese

    The creed of an atheist can be described in three points: there is no divinity, there is no afterlife and this material world is all that exists. Many atheists would tack “and this material world is governed by natural, understandable laws” onto the end of that creed. This creed, when laid out in simple terms, looks a great deal like the tenets of any other religion. These tenets, then, are how atheists in general “orient themselves in the world.” These three beliefs govern atheists’ lives and are used to help them make sense of both everyday phenomenon and to study that which is not yet understood. In the same way as other religions, atheists work to fit the entirety of their experience into their worldview. What other people experience as miracles, atheists turn inside out in an effort to explain with natural law, and they insist that there is a way to explain the unexplainable with their creed. Other religions attempt to make sense of the world in the same way.

    “A religion is a system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, pervasive and long-lasting moods in men by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing those conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic.” –Clifford Geertz

    “Symbols” is a somewhat vague term, but the rest of the definition is clear. Religion is a pattern of thought in people that helps them understand the world and becomes so ingrained in them that anything else seems unnatural. This is atheism to a tee.

    Atheism has “conceptions of a general order of existence.” Those conceptions are generally the natural laws that science has identified. Just like some of the basic tenets in other religions, most atheists do not question these basic underlying assumptions. They cannot bring themselves to question neither natural laws nor the idea that life is based solely upon them even when those natural laws have been shown to be flawed and imperfect. When confronted with that fact, atheists will do the same mental gymnastics to justify their beliefs that they accuse Christians of doing when confronted with an unpleasant Bible verse.

    Atheists also fit the second part of Geertz definition perfectly.  “The moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic.” Atheists often claim that believing in deities is like believing in fairy tales. Their religion, the religion of atheism and natural law, is the only one that is rational or based in reality. Their beliefs, experiences and feelings seem to be “uniquely realistic.”

    Atheism in Practice

    Atheism fits many theoretical definitions of religion, and it is also practiced like other religions. In daily conversation, atheism is equated with other religions. When asked, “Are you a Christian?” most atheists will respond with “No, I’m an atheist.” Atheist, then, becomes a religious label just like “No, I’m a Buddhist.” Atheists also evangelize, though they do not want to use that word to describe their conversion attempts. “Evangelize” is most commonly used in relationship to Christianity, but it can be used to describe other religion’s attempts to gain converts, and atheism aggressively seeks to create new converts. Many atheists feel a sense of obligation or desire to “open people’s eyes” to what they see as the folly of other religions. There is no difference between an atheist attempting to get a Jew to admit there is no God and a Christian seeking to get a Hindu to denounce the idea of reincarnation. Both people are trying to convert a person from one belief system to another. Atheists’ conversion attempts are also blatantly religious because they are focused on beliefs about and in God.

    Zealotry and Theological Debates

    Like adherents of all religions, atheists run the gamut from moderate to zealous. Many atheists are happy to live out their beliefs quietly. Others, however, are zealots who insult, degrade and curse other religions. They see other religions as a plague on the earth that needs to be destroyed and replaced with worldwide atheism. Many of these are personally offended or angered by any signs of other religions, especially in a public area. As such, they seek to remove these reminders that other religions exist either through working to enact laws unfriendly to other religions or through vandalism and threats.

    Atheists will also argue in favor of their beliefs until they are blue in the face, and they are often unable to bring themselves to empathize or understand the religious beliefs of another. This is because their own beliefs are so deeply ingrained that they struggle to contemplate that another set of beliefs might contain some truth. “That isn’t logical” becomes much the same sort of rote response of denial that atheists mock when Christians claim something “isn’t in the Bible.” Similarly, atheists will only accept what their religion values as “proof.” The rejection of all evidence beyond what their own belief system accepts is once again a sign of a zealous, and, in some cases, fanatical, religious adherent.

    Atheism fits some of the most widely used and highly respected scholarly definitions of religion, and it also acts as a religion in practice. Atheism influences every aspect of its adherents’ daily lives just as Christianity or Buddhism does for Christians and Buddhists. It is not, however, often considered to be a religion. The most common misconception that keeps people from correctly labeling atheism a religion is the idea that religion is confined to beliefs in God, not beliefs about God or the actions taken as a result of those beliefs. Were religion merely beliefs in God, then Christianity, Islam and Judaism would technically be the same religion, and no one with any sense is going to argue that those three are actually one religion. As such, perhaps it is time that the list of major world religions is expanded to include the latest serious player on the religious stage: atheism.



  • RickeyDRickeyD 953 Pts   -  
  • RickeyDRickeyD 953 Pts   -   edited December 2019
    @Dee ;  Evolution is a Religion, NOT Science...

    The writer has documented in two recent Impact articles1, 2 from admissions by evolutionists that the idea of particles-to-people evolution does not meet the criteria of a scientific theory. There are no evolutionary transitions that have ever been observed, either during human history or in the fossil record of the past; and the universal law of entropy seems to make it impossible on any significant scale.

    Evolutionists claim that evolution is a scientific fact, but they almost always lose scientific debates with creationist scientists. Accordingly, most evolutionists now decline opportunities for scientific debates, preferring instead to make unilateral attacks on creationists.

    Scientists should refuse formal debates because they do more harm than good, but scientists still need to counter the creationist message.3

    The question is, just why do they need to counter the creationist message? Why are they so adamantly committed to anti-creationism?

    The fact is that evolutionists believe in evolution because they want to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator. Evolutionism is thus intrinsically an atheistic religion. Some may prefer to call it humanism, and New Age evolutionists may place it in the context of some form of pantheism, but they all amount to the same thing. Whether atheism or humanism (or even pantheism), the purpose is to eliminate a personal God from any active role in the origin of the universe and all its components, including man.

    The core of the humanistic philosophy is naturalism—the proposition that the natural world proceeds according to its own internal dynamics, without divine or supernatural control or guidance, and that we human beings are creations of that process. It is instructive to recall that the philosophers of the early humanistic movement debated as to which term more adequately described their position: humanism or naturalism. The two concepts are complementary and inseparable.4

    Since both naturalism and humanism exclude God from science or any other active function in the creation or maintenance of life and the universe in general, it is very obvious that their position is nothing but atheism. And atheism, no less than theism, is a religion! Even doctrinaire-atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins admits that atheism cannot be proven to be true.

    Of course we can't prove that there isn't a God.5

    Therefore, they must believe it, and that makes it a religion. The atheistic nature of evolution is not only admitted, but insisted upon, by most of the leaders of evolutionary thought. Ernst Mayr, for example, says that:

    Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations.6

    A professor in the Department of Biology at Kansas State University says:

    Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.7

    It is well known in the scientific world today that such influential evolutionists as Stephen Jay Gould and Edward Wilson of Harvard, Richard Dawkins of England, William Provine of Cornell, and numerous other evolutionary spokesmen are dogmatic atheists. Eminent scientific philosopher and ardent Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse has even acknowledged that evolution is their religion!

    Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. 8

    Another way of saying "religion" is "worldview," the whole of reality. The evolutionary worldview applies not only to the evolution of life, but even to that of the entire universe. In the realm of cosmic evolution, our naturalistic scientists depart even further from experimental science than life scientists do, manufacturing a variety of evolutionary cosmologies from esoteric mathematics and metaphysical speculation. Socialist Jeremy Rifkin has commented on this remarkable game.

    Cosmologies are made up of small snippets of physical reality that have been remodeled by society into vast cosmic deceptions.9

    They must believe in evolution, therefore, in spite of all the evidence, not because of it. And speaking of deceptions, note the following remarkable statement.

    We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.10

    The author of this frank statement is Richard Lewontin of Harvard. Since evolution is not a laboratory science, there is no way to test its validity, so all sorts of justso stories are contrived to adorn the textbooks. But that doesn't make them true! An evolutionist reviewing a recent book by another (but more critical) evolutionist, says:

    We cannot identify ancestors or "missing links," and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions.11

    A fascinatingly honest admission by a physicist indicates the passionate commitment of establishment scientists to naturalism. Speaking of the trust students naturally place in their highly educated college professors, he says:

    And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal—without demonstration—to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary.12

    Creationist students in scientific courses taught by evolutionist professors can testify to the frustrating reality of that statement. Evolution is, indeed, the pseudoscientific basis of religious atheism, as Ruse pointed out. Will Provine at Cornell University is another scientist who frankly acknowledges this.

    As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.13

    Once again we emphasize that evolution is not science, evolutionists' tirades notwithstanding. It is a philosophical worldview, nothing more. Another prominent evolutionist comments as follows:

    (Evolution) must, they feel, explain everything. . . . A theory that explains everything might just as well be discarded since it has no real explanatory value. Of course, the other thing about evolution is that anything can be said because very little can be disproved. Experimental evidence is minimal.14

    Even that statement is too generous. Actual experimental evidence demonstrating true evolution (that is, macroevolution) is not "minimal." It is nonexistent!

    The concept of evolution as a form of religion is not new. In my book, The Long War Against God,15 I documented the fact that some form of evolution has been the pseudo-rationale behind every anti-creationist religion since the very beginning of history. This includes all the ancient ethnic religions, as well as such modern world religions as Buddhism, Hinduism, and others, as well as the "liberal" movements in even the creationist religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam).

    As far as the twentieth century is concerned, the leading evolutionist is generally considered to be Sir Julian Huxley, primary architect of modern neo-Darwinism. Huxley called evolution a "religion without revelation" and wrote a book with that title (2nd edition, 1957). In a later book, he said:

    Evolution . . . is the most powerful and the most comprehensive idea that has ever arisen on earth.16

    Later in the book he argued passionately that we must change "our pattern of religious thought from a God-centered to an evolution-centered pattern."17 Then he went on to say that: "the God hypothesis . . . is becoming an intellectual and moral burden on our thought." Therefore, he concluded that "we must construct something to take its place."18

    That something, of course, is the religion of evolutionary humanism, and that is what the leaders of evolutionary humanism are trying to do today.

    In closing this summary of the scientific case against evolution (and, therefore, for creation), the reader is reminded again that all quotations in the article are from doctrinaire evolutionists. No Bible references are included, and no statements by creationists. The evolutionists themselves, to all intents and purposes, have shown that evolutionism is not science, but religious faith in atheism.





  • RickeyDRickeyD 953 Pts   -  
    @TKDB ; Thanks...
  • TKDBTKDB 694 Pts   -  
    @RickeyD

    You're welcome sir.
    RickeyD
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5970 Pts   -  
    RickeyD said:
    @MayCaesar ; You obviously speak from a lack of knowledge concerning the Scriptures. As opposed to inventing your own argument from nonsense, why not rebut my explanation of authentic Christianity by using the actual Scriptures...you're free to use the Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, as well. Prove anything I have stated in the OP is contrary to sound, Biblical doctrine. Your comment is false and offered with a lack of knowledge. 
    Happy to do so. That is, after you explain why Ancient Egyptian, Ancient Greek and Ancient Roman gods are false - in Ancient Egyptian, Ancient Greek and Latin respectively, of course. Then I will explain why your interpretation of Christianity is not any more authentic than the other millions existing interpretations.
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @RickeyD

    *****.  Like any religion, atheism

    If Atheism is a “religion” then using your “logic” not collecting stamps is a hobby 



  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @RickeyD

    I think it must be great for you to be a “Christian “ as it gives you a license to say really things ......




  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @RickeyD

    You post up an article and do not even give the authors name as you know  the minute you do I will expose him as the charlatan he is.


    *****Evolutionists claim that evolution is a scientific fact, 

    It is fact denial of such is only done so by a variety of religious nuts around the world of which the U S is represented by nuts like you 


    ****but they almost always lose scientific debates with creationist scientists. 

    That’s never happened because creationists have not got between them even one peer reviewed paper that demonstrates Evolution is false , the reason being there are none because a evolution is indeed fact 

    BTW “creationists science” is actually classed as “pseudoscience “ along with Astrology , Crystal gazing , remote viewing , Reki , Aromatherapy etc , etc , and rightfully so 

    *****Accordingly, most evolutionists now decline opportunities for scientific debates, 

    Yes and they should decline such debates with religious nuts who think creationism is “scientific 

    ****preferring instead to make unilateral attacks on creationists.

    Yes of course teaching facts is a “unilateral attack” on you proving yet again your lunacy and persecution complex need addressing by medical professionals immediately if not sooner 

  • RickeyDRickeyD 953 Pts   -  
    @Dee ; How does a servant of Satan, the father of lies, prove anything false? Only the fool would take you seriously and seek death for their soul in the process. https://www.icr.org/article/455/
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
  • RickeyDRickeyD 953 Pts   -  

    “Was Jesus a Copy of Horus, Mithras, Krishna, Dionysis and Other Pagan Gods?”

    This question is often asked especially in light of the viral film ‘Zeitgeist’ a mega-popular documentary about the New World Order and Illuminati. The movie spent over 30 minutes attacking the Bible and the Christian faith and specifically the idea that the story of Jesus Christ in the Gospels is nothing more than a copy of the story of the Egyptian God Horus, Mithras and other pagan gods. Additionally Dan Brown author of the DaVinci Code, one of the most blasphemous, Anti-Christian books ever written, stated “nothing in Christianity is original” as he promotes the idea these mythological figures served as the basis for the Gospel accounts of Jesus Christ (Brown’s latest book, ‘The Lost Symbol’, takes this idea to the extreme – an article on this book and the upcoming movie will be posted soon). This article will show that not only are these claims incorrect and lack any substantive evidence, but that they are part of a greater spiritual agenda that Dan Brown, the Zeitgeist film and others have in common.

    Was Jesus a Copy of Horus?

    Horus  Was Jesus a Copy of Horus

    The Egyptian God Horus.

    The Zeitgeist film makes a number of wild statements about Horus to attempt to prove that Jesus is a copy. But let’s look at the claims against actual Egyptian mythology:

    “Horus was born on December 25th”  — According to Egyptian mythological history, Horus’s birthday is celebrated in the season of Khoiak, which runs in the months of October and November, not December 25th. Furthermore, the date of December 25th is never mentioned in the Bible as the date of Jesus’ birth and thus has no relevance to the account of Jesus’ life. So right away, the claims of “plagiarism” look completely baseless.

    “Horus was born of a virgin”  — There are two accounts of Horus’ birth. The most famous by far, was that Horus was born from his mother Isis, who was not a virgin, but rather a widow of the slain Osiris. Through sorcery, Isis, assembled the body of Osiris and was impregnated with his phallus. Clearly this was a sexual union and not a virgin birth. The “Hymn to Osiris” which records this account states: “[Isis] made to rise up the helpless members [phallus] of him whose heart was at rest, she drew from him his essence [DNA material], and she made therefrom an heir [Horus].” (Source and Source).

    “Three Wise Men Came to Adore the New Born Savior”– No source is provided by the documentary for this claim. Additionally, the Bible does not say “three wise men” came to see Jesus. It never tells us the number of wise men. And they did not come at Jesus’ birth in a manger. They came to his family home when he was a toddler.

    “Horus was a child prodigy teacher at 12” — The movie offers no pre-New Testament sources that state this.

    “Horus had 12 Disciples” — Historian Glen Miller writes: “But again, my research in the academic literature does not surface this fact. I can find references to FOUR “disciples”–variously called the semi-divine HERU-SHEMSU (“Followers of Horus”) [GOE:1.491]. I can find references to SIXTEEN human followers. And I can find reference to an UNNUMBERED group of followers called mesniu/mesnitu (“blacksmiths”) who accompanied Horus in some of his battles [although these might be identified with the HERU-SHEMSU in GOE:1.84]. But I cannot find TWELVE anywhere…]”

    Additionally, some of have said the 12 signs of the zodiac are the “disciples” of Horus. Even if this were the case, they are just stars and not actual people who followed Horus, preached about him or recorded his life. This is another empty and false claim.

    “Horus was crucified. Dead for three days. And Resurrected” — There is no historical record in any credible Egyptian mythology of Horus being crucified. Additionally, crucifixion was a method of execution invented by the Roman Empire thousands of years after the time of the Horus myth. Whereas the accounts of Jesus’ crucifixion exist in thousands of manuscripts from the century after his death. Additionally, as we detailed in our article “Did Jesus Really Exist? Proving Jesus without The Bible” there are many secular historical sources that record His crucifixion as described in the Bible.

    If you are wondering how Zeitgeist could make such wild claims, that have no real historical evidence, they benefit from the Skeptic’s Fallacy: in short, when it comes to attacking the credibility of the Bible it is assumed that the skeptic is completely credible. So the Zeitgeist creators know most people will not research their attacks and just take it as factual (just as Dan Brown did with the numerous inaccuracies of the DaVinci Code). If one takes the time, they will also notice that Zeitgeist gets almost all of its information from one source, a book called “The Christ Conspiracy” by a woman named Acharya S. (we will address her later).

    Was Jesus a Copy of Mithras? 

    Mithras born from a rock  Was Jesus a copy of Mithras

    Ancient art depicting Mithras being born out of a rock.

    Zeitgeist continues as do the skeptics with the idea that Christianity itself is a copy of the cult of Mithras, which was popularized in Rome in the 1st to 4th Century AD (note that it sprung up in Rome after the death of Christ and centuries after the Old Testament prophecies of the Coming Messiah). The movie states:

    “Mithras was born of a virgin” — There are almost no early writings about the cult of Mithras and most of what is known is based on artwork (as opposed to Jesus Christ, of whom thousands of ancient manuscripts exist that describe His life, death and resurrection in detail). But according to historians, Mithras was born from a rock, not from a virgin or from a person at all.

    “Mithras was born on December 25.” — Once again, the date of December 25th is not mentioned in the Bible and thus holds no significance to the story of Jesus Christ.  Additionally, in Mithraism there is no date of Mithras’ birth.

    Mithras with shepherds Was Jesus a copy of Mithras

    Mithras with “shepherds.”

    “Mithras was attended to by Shepherds” — This claim is based on the relief above. The earliest existing account of Mithras’ birth is found in a relief depicting him emerging from a rock with the assistance of men who certainly appear to be shepherds (which is interesting considering his birth was supposed to have preceded the creation of humans!). Such a blatant inconsistency should show a serious flaw in Mithraism research, but the Zeitgeist team again overlooks this.  Furthermore, this relief dates to 4th century A.D., well after the Gospels had been written and distributed over most of the known world.

    Mithras with stars 12 disciples  Was Jesus Christ a copy of Mithras

    Mithras and his “12 disciples.”

    “Mithra had 12 disciples.” — This is based on the carving above which shows Mithras surrounded by 12 signs of the Zodiac. There is no reason to conclude that signs of the Zodiac are “disciples.” Remember, there is no written record of Mithra’s existence from the 1st to 4th centuries when the cult thrived. The earliest writings are from outsiders recording their observations. So most of the wild assertions of Zeitgeist are just being based on this piece of art. Franz Cumont, considered the first great researcher of Mithras claimed that the disciples in the relief were actually people dressed up as Zodiac signs, showing how ludicrous the effort to link Mithras to Jesus can get.

    “Mithras was crucified. Dead for three days. And then resurrected.” — This charge in particular reveals the insincerity of the claims of plagiarism against Christianity. In Mithraism, Mithras never dies. He completed his earthly mission and returned to the skies in a chariot (ironically similar to the story of the Prophet Elijah in the Bible’s Book of 1 Kings, written 800 years earlier). In Mithraism there is no historical mention of crucifixion, burial or resurrection in any artwork or text. In a critique of this theory, researcher Ronald Nash writes:

    “Allegations of an early Christian dependence on Mithraism have been rejected on many grounds. Mithraism had no concept of the death and resurrection of its god and no place for any concept of rebirth—at least during its early stages.” In his book Image and Value in the Greco-Roman World, Richard Gordon writes that there is “no death of Mithras,”  and thus there is no resurrection of Mithras.

    • Dr. Edwin Yamauchi states: “We don’t know anything about the death of Mithras…We have a lot of monuments, but we have almost no textual evidence, because this was a secret religion. But I know of no references to a supposed death and resurrection.”

    It is also important to note that for all of the research Franz Cumont did on Mithras, his overriding conclusion was that unlike Jesus Christ, who was a real person, Mithras did not exist.   Thus a basic examination of the factual evidence shows that the Bible did not plagiarize from the story of Mithras.

    Was Jesus Christ an Imitation of Dionysis?

    Dionysus  Was Jesus Christ a copy of Dionysus

    Dionysus the Greco Roman god of wine.

    Dionysus (also known as Bacchus) was a Greek and Roman god of wine. One of the boldest claims of Jesus being a copy of Dionsyus was a book called ‘The Jesus Mysteries’ which featured the amulet pictured below. on its cover. The authors claimed that the amulet was a depiction of the god Dionysus on a cross, and thus, they concluded, Christianity must have copied the crucifixion account from the Greek god. However, upon basic scrutiny, the claim falls apart.

    Dionysus amulet on a cross  Was Jesus a copy of Dionysus

    Dionysus pictured on a cross.

    The authors of “The Jesus Mysteries”  Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy had their sources for their information critiqued:

    When dealing with ancient sources they are even more blatant. On the basis of some third century pictures of crucifixions, the authors claim Bacchuus [Dionysus] was crucified and Christians copied the idea. This is their piece de resistance and they even put one of the pictures on the cover of their book. But suppose there existed an earlier source who stated categorically that no pagan godman was crucified. That would destroy their case and reading the Jesus Mysteries you would assume that neither Freke or Gandy knew of such a source even if it existed. You would be wrong.They quote from Justin Martyr many times about his concerns that pagans and Christians had some similar rituals (they did and modern scholarship is totally unsurprised by this). He is a second century writer who therefore predates all the pictures of pagan godmen being crucified and he writes:

    “But in no instance, not even in any of those called sons of Jupiter, did they imitate the being crucified; for it was not understood by them, all the things said of it having been put symbolically.” Justin Martyr ’s First Apology LV.

    No honest scholar would simply fail to quote this vitally important contradiction to their thesis. Gandy did attempt to explain away this passage when it was presented to him but failed utterly and certainly could not say why he ever felt he could simply miss it out of his book. (source)

    Even if the amulet was real, it’s dated to over 300 years after the crucifixion of Christ. By the 4th century tens of thousands of New Testament manuscripts were in circulation all over the world and the Roman Empire made Christianity its official religion. So the story of Christ’s crucifixion was very well-known. Thus the idea that a 4th century amulet was the inspiration for the Crucifixion in the Gospel’s makes no sense. We cited the Roman historian Tacitus who in 115 AD wrote:

    “Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. (source)

    So again, the account of Jesus’ crucifixion at the orders of Pontius Pilate, just as the Bible details, was well-known even in non-Christian circles.

    “Dionysus was born of a virgin” — Again, this blatantly flies in the face of mythology surrounding this pagan god. The two most common stories of Dionysus’ birth involve the god Zeus, his father, either impregnating the mortal woman Semele, or impregnating Persephone (the Greek Queen of the underworld).  In either instance, it is not a virgin birth (and it also gives allusion to the Bible’s description of fallen angels impregnating human women, something written in the book of Genesis 2,000 years before the myth of Dionysus).

    “Dionsysus was born on December 25th” — Once again, there is no pre-Christian manuscript or evidence of this. And of course the date of December 25th is not significant since it’s not in the Bible.  Some point to Dionysus’ ability to create wine as a sign that Jesus was a copy (since Jesus turned water to wine at a wedding) but Dionysus was the god of wine. Jesus was the Son of God and humanity’s Savior. And while there is non-Christian evidence and proof that Jesus existed, there is none to support that Dionysus was a real person who actually existed.  And Jesus Christ was clearly not a copy of Dionysus.

    Was Jesus Christ a Copy of Krishna?

    Krishna  Was Jesus a Copy of Krishna

    The Hindu God Krishna.

    As the Devine Evidence blog states:

    In Hinduism, Krishna is believed to be the eighth avatar of Vishnu, the second aspect of the Hindu trinity. Almost every correlation between Krishna and Jesus can be traced to Kersey Graves, a 19th century author who believed Christianity was created from pagan myths. Though his works have been proven by scholars to be false and poorly researched (Source), many still ignorantly refer to his arguments not knowing they are easily disproved by simply comparing the Bible to the Hindu texts.

    Zeitgeist Debunked

    “Krishna was born of a virgin named Devaki” — The basic story of Krishna’s origin makes this claim laughable: In mythology researcher Joseph Campbell’s book, Occidental Mythology, he writes of Krishna’s origin:

    “In India a like tale is told of the beloved savior Krishna, whose terrible uncle, Kansa, was, in that case, the tyrant-king. The savior’s mother, Devaki, was of royal lineage, the tyrant’s niece, and at the time when she was married the wicked monarch heard a voice, mysteriously, which let him know that her eighth child would be his slayer. He therefore confined both her and her husband, the saintly nobleman Vasudeva, in a closely guarded prison, where he murdered their first six infants as they came.”

    So from the basic origin story of Krishna, his mother had seven children before he was born, so she was clearly not a virgin. Additionally, the book of Isaiah, which prophesied that a virgin would give birth to the Messiah of the Bible, was written 700 years before Christ and at least 100 years before Krishna.

    “There was Infant massacre in all the land at the time of Krishna’s birth” – In the Gospel accounts, King Herod, upon hearing the Jewish Messiah has been born, orders all Jewish male infants to be killed. Skeptics claim a similar occurrence happened with Krishna but as the account above shows, only his six brothers were killed.

    “Krishna was crucified. Died for three days. And was resurrected.” – This again is just a blatant mistruth in the face of Hindu mythology. The explanation of Krishna’s death is stated clearly: ”

    “A fierce hunter of the name of Jara then came there, desirous of deer. The hunter, mistaking [Krishna], who was stretched on the earth in high Yoga, for a deer, pierced him at the heel with a shaft and quickly came to that spot for capturing his prey.” Mahabharata, Book 16, 4

    Not only was Krishna not crucified, his story sounds much more familiar to the account of the death of Achilles in Greek mythology than the account of Jesus’ crucifixion.

    There are later Hindu texts that do draw more close parallels between Jesus Christ and Krishna. But these texts were written centuries after the New Testament. In fact, the Bahagavad Gita, one of the main Holy Books of Hinduism, is now thought by Hindu scholars to have been drastically changed in 800 AD. The present day Bahagavad Gita has 700 verses. The original, called Gita had 84 (imagine the documentaries and books that would be made if it were discovered that the Bible went through such a drastic re-write!).  In the book, The Gita As It Was: Rediscovering the Original Bhagavadgita, the author, Dr. Phulgenda Sinha, writes:

    Around 800 A.D. , the original Gita was interpolated and ended up having 700 verses. The name was changed from Gita to Bhagavad Gita. The concept of one single Almighty God, or Supreme, Bhagavan, was introduced to Indian society.

    Till then, before 800 A.D., Indians believed in God. But they believed in polytheism. They were also nature worshippers. They worshipped earth, stone, trees, rain, wind, fire, sun, moon etc.

    Jesus is clearly not an imitation of Krishna and the Bible did not plagiarize pagan gods.  Unlike the New Testament, which has been verified by manuscript evidence to be the most reliable and substantiated document in antiquity, the holy book of Hinduism went through drastic changes centuries after it was written. But of course, the Zeitgesit producers, Acharya S. and Dan Brown ignore all of this just to try to attack the credibility of the Bible. Why? Because they hate the Bible and want to push a Satanic agenda.

    Who Is Acharya S?

    Acharya S Christ Conspiracy  Was Jesus a Copy of Pagan Gods

    D.M. Moore, aka Acharya S.

    As we mentioned above, almost all of the sources cited by Zietgiest go back to Achraya S., author of “The Christ Conspiracy.” But who is she? First off, her name is Dorothy Murdoch. And in her own writings she cites “D.M. Murdoch” as a source, which is citing herself. This should be a huge red flag to her credibility. She has been debunked and criticized by many serious historical scholars.  But more importantly, where did xcasinobonuses Acharya S. get the information for her Christ Conspiracy book in the first place? It came from Gerald Massey and Madame H.P. Blavatsky.

    Blavatsky, the founder of the Theosophical Society, is one of the main inspirations for the modern New Age Movement. She was also an ardent Luciferian. Blavatsky wrote her books via automatic writing” in which a spirit possessed her and used her body to write her books on mysticism and Luciferian New Age beliefs. Blavatsky believed that through esoteric, occult magical practices, mankind could ascend and evolve to god-like status. All with assistance from “the hierarchy” — angelic beings who could guide those with proper knowledge. This of course is the first lie of Satan in the Garden of Eden, who lured Even into sinning with the promise that “ye shall be as gods..” The idea of achieving godhood and “ascension” is at the heart of the New Age movement today. Those special, enlightened ones could then form a super race that would rule over humanity.
    She was a friend of Satanist Aleister Crolwey and her writings inspired Adolf Hitler. Blavatsky makes no secret of her allegiance:

    “One of the most hidden secrets involves the so-called fall of Angels. Satan and his rebellious host will thus prove to have become the direct Saviours and Creators of divine man. Thus Satan, once he ceases to be viewed in the superstitious spirit of the church, grows into the grandiose image. It is Satan who is the God of our planet and the only God. Satan (or Lucifer) represents the Centrifugal Energy of the Universe, this ever-living symbol of self-sacrifice for the intellectual independence of humanity. “(The Secret Doctrine, Volume II, Pages 215, 216, 220, 245, 255, 533).

    She was also the publisher of Lucifer Magazine. Massey was a writer for Lucifer magazine.  Her closest student, Alice Bailey, took over the reigns of the Theosophical Society as well as started the publishing company called Lucifer Trust (it is now known as Lucis Trust). Her stated goal was the preparation of the minds of society to receive “the Christ”, who is not Jesus but a great ascend wise master who will unite all the religions of the world, teaching the enlightened followers to godhood, led by the true god, who Bailey openly identifies as Satan. And this is the basis for the information that went into making Zeitgeist. As shown in the video below on the Zeitgeist film, it is pushing the exact same idea.

    In The Lost Symbol, Dan Brown also takes the plunge as he proclaims that Christianity is just a spin off of ancient mystery religions. Do not be deceived. For those who are in the “truth movement” or “Anti-New World Order”, these ideas intend to assert that Christianity is just another form of control and was manufactured to manipulate people. But as shown, the charges are ludicrous with the slightest inspection. And at the end of the day, the same people who are putting out the idea of Jesus being a copy of pagan gods all get linked back to the same false god: Satan. This clever deception is helping to usher in the “New Order” that will be led by the Antichrist. Jesus warned of one of the key signs of the end times approaching:

    “the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.” (Matthew 24:3-5).

    Unprecedented deception would be a major sign and Zeitgeist, The Lost Symbol and books like the Christ Conspiracy are just a few of the examples. Jesus Christ did exist. Jesus Christ was born of a virgin. Jesus Christ had 12 disciples. Jesus Christ was crucified. But most importantly, Jesus Christ died for you. He chose to die to offer Himself as a sacrifice to pay the debt for the sins of humanity. And He is the only name which can be called on for salvation. It just takes belief in what He did to receive eternal life. Jesus said: “And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. “ No one else died on a cross for the sins of humanity. Jesus did. And it just takes belief in Him to receive eternal life and be freed from the punishment of hell. Which is why Satan has to work so hard to confuses the public and distort the message of the Bible. No other religious figure receives close to the scrutiny that Jesus does. And yet the Bible still stands as true. So if you now believe that Jesus was not just a copy of a pagan god, maybe it is time to start believing that He is indeed the Son of God who wants to spend eternity with you.


    https://beginningandend.com/jesus-copy-horus-mithras-dionysis-pagan-gods/


  • RickeyDRickeyD 953 Pts   -  
    @Dee ; Atheism is a religion for fools, sexual perverts, deviates, pedophiles, antisocial miscreants, liars, narcissists, ...nothing more, nothing less.


  • RickeyDRickeyD 953 Pts   -  
    @Dee ; When communicating with an atheist....ridiculousness is par for the course.



  • So why do you hate God so much?



  • RickeyDRickeyD 953 Pts   -  
    @ZeusAres42 ; I love my Lord Jesus Christ and I am indebted to Him for all He has done for me.  I hate your god, Satan, who is a murderer and the father of lies and atheism.


  • @RickeyD

    I don't have any God or devil I believe in. So you basically hate something that doesn't even exist?



  • @RickeyD

    The Devi went around trying to preach to the world that he was the almighty and you're following in his footsteps. So what made you become a satanic worshiper!



  • RickeyDRickeyD 953 Pts   -  
    @ZeusAres42 ; When one is born again by grace through faith in Jesus Christ as Lord, they receive the indwelling Holy Spirit as the Seal and Guarantor of relationship with God the Father (Ephesians 1:13). It is the Holy Spirit that is the Wisdom, Counselor, Teacher, Truth, Tutor, Intercessor, for the believer as they mature in their faith via the process of Sanctification (Galatians 5:16; 1 John 2:27; John 14:16). It is the Spirit that teaches the believer the Truth of God and the tactics of the Devil i.e. the god of the Atheist; therefore, I have no fear of your spiritual father, Satan, for I know his schemes and his intentions.






Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch