In all truth and honesty, I have to disregard science in many cases.

[Arsen]

I've been reading into the supposed parallels between Jesus Christ and all the other myths and fables which he is compared to as of late. There is one for Buddha, Horus, and even this Greek God named Dionysus. Each and every one of these is from my mentioning and perspective, a rather far fetched view of someone trying to persistently incur that Christianity is fraudulent. The only true comparisons is that Jesus had a mother and these other characters had a mother.

Science has for itself, has, can and will be only proven in the eyes of man to a certain extent. What is now considered to be accurate information will one day become something that will be shunned and proven false. Even further on into the future THAT itself will be proven false, and so on and so on.

I have to contest that fictional characters can be put side by side with other real life individuals as well. I can be compared to a character by today's standard.

I firmly believe that Christianity originally started out, then all of these other beliefs sprouted from that exact religion. All the ancient Greek, Roman, Norse, Egyptian even, contain some reference or similarity to a tale of early Judaism and contain characters that resemble Christ down to the core, yet become tainted figures in their worship of sinful devices and pleasures.

And for that matter only Judaism has true historical reverence which corresponds to its texts.

Thoughts, opinions, yatterings?

Edit - I also have to contest whether or not the dates of certain past religions are accurate as well. Then again once you put the Son of God on the same page as another "god or goddess" the line become insistently blurred.

 

[Lunar Shadow]

I've been reading into the supposed parallels between Jesus Christ and all the other myths and fables which he is compared to as of late. There is one for Buddha, Horus, and even this Greek God named Dionysus. Each and every one of these is from my mentioning and perspective, a rather far fetched view of someone trying to persistently incur that Christianity is fraudulent. The only true comparisons is that Jesus had a mother and these other characters had a mother.

Science has for itself, has, can and will be only proven in the eyes of man to a certain extent. What is now considered to be accurate information will one day become something that will be shunned and proven false. Even further on into the future THAT itself will be proven false, and so on and so on.

I have to contest that fictional characters can be put side by side with other real life individuals as well. I can be compared to a character by today's standard.

I firmly believe that Christianity originally started out, then all of these other beliefs sprouted from that exact religion. All the ancient Greek, Roman, Norse, Egyptian even, contain some reference or similarity to a tale of early Judaism and contain characters that resemble Christ down to the core, yet become tainted figures in their worship of sinful devices and pleasures.

And for that matter only Judaism has true historical reverence which corresponds to its texts.

Thoughts, opinions, yatterings?

Edit - I also have to contest whether or not the dates of certain past religions are accurate as well. Then again once you put the Son of God on the same page as another "god or goddess" the line become insistently blurred.

I wanna point out that The Buddha was a real person, whether or not you believe what he said is true or the whole metaphysical parts of Buddhism. He was a prince ,from what is now Northern India I believe, named Siddhartha Guatama.

As for the science debunking itself, that only happens if it is wrong in the first place and we find that out. Science describes the world as we observer it, and if previous observations are wrong they are revised and if they aren't they won't be.

 

[Gooble]

There are just so many things wrong with the OP that I can't be bothered to rant about all of them.

 

[Katherine Kerensky]

well, it's your view.
just consider that Christianity has only been around just over 2000 years.
where as I can believe science or my 10,000 year old system. (Which involves science)

 

[Bigeyez]

There are just so many things wrong with the OP that I can't be bothered to rant about all of them.

This...the largest flaw in your arguement is you trying to state somehow all religions came from Christianity or Judaism.../sigh

 

[Proteus214]

I...uh...wow...I can't even think of a good response my brain is screaming so much.

Good luck with that OP.

 

[Arsen]

There are just so many things wrong with the OP that I can't be bothered to rant about all of them.

This...the largest flaw in your arguement is you trying to state somehow all religions came from Christianity or Judaism.../sigh

OR could have borrowed ideas later on down the road despite their original sources being something else entirely different. We never know truly what has happened throughout time in certain incidents of certain stories. We can only speculate on a physical matter.

 

[iggyus]

Great another religious thread, and a potential flame war just what we needed

 

[Joshimodo]

There are just so many things wrong with the OP that I can't be bothered to rant about all of them.

Agreed.


Christianity and Jesus came after plenty of the ancient religions. It's proven. You know, by time. Hell, the ancient Greeks had their gods and pantheons over a century before Jesus was born.

Even the Romanised version of Dionysus came 200 years prior to the birth of Jesus.

 

[Nincompoop]

The fact that there are so many religions that are similar to some extent, makes me think that there are a whole lot'a misunderstandings. I don't believe Christianity was the first, but it may be so. I genuinely believe that God exists, but I don't necessarily trust the Bible.

--

Science is polluted. It's too easy to classify something as science.

Religion, the class in school, is science, but you can't make conclusions, nor make observations that can help come to a one result.
I would call Chemistry a just science, seeing that you can observe, theorize and come with a result, that works.

Physics is doubtful. Electronic physics (dunno what it's called) can be used in practice, so I would call that science. But String Theory or Quantum Mechanics? I'm sorry, it may be a neat idea, and also may be true, but there is no way you can prove it. Thusly I wouldn't really call String Theory or Quantum Mechanics science.

Having said that, the definition of the word science is; The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

That pretty much allows everything I 'object' against to be qualified as science. But I think it should either be more strict, or use another word for the science that is a 100% true, and cannot be doubted.

This is my opinion.

 

[oliveira8]

Explain me this..how can Christianity started everything if Christ came AFTER! all those religions you mentioned.

Also Judaism and Christianity have different beliefs, and Judaism is as old as Egyptian religion. Is inf act one of the oldest Monotheistic religions still in practice today. If anything Christianity and also Islam borrowed alot of Judaism.

And technicaly what science says is that most of the Christian holidays(Easter and Christmas for example) are taken from pagan and other more well known religions rituals. Science doesn't say Horus and Jesus are the same. Crazy people on internet says that. Science just says theres similarities.

Also Buddah was a real person and in Buddhism there is no real God.

 

[Arsen]

There are just so many things wrong with the OP that I can't be bothered to rant about all of them.

Agreed.


Christianity and Jesus came after plenty of the ancient religions. It's proven. You know, by time. Hell, the ancient Greeks had their gods and pantheons over a century before Jesus was born.

Even the Romanised version of Dionysus came 200 years prior to the birth of Jesus.

This is what I am talking about. We've only speculated that far. There is no true proof of this claim.

 

[Deacon Cole]

The OP is all over the place and really has little to do with the subject title.

Also the OP is heavily biased. Note how he states that he believes his religion is true despite contrary evidence, and has thus decided to prove this contrary evidence is false.

It reminds me of someone's personal experience. The wrote "god" on the ground and then prayed that if god existed, the word would still be there the next day. It was not and this simply strengthen his resolve to prove god was real. Can you believe that, he got the very answer he asked for to prove god was not real, and didn't believe it anyway. this kind of bias is difficult to overcome. I hope the OP manages to do so and thus see more clearly.

 

[Calobi]

I firmly believe that Christianity originally started out, then all of these other beliefs sprouted from that exact religion.

So you think that a relatively new religion gave birth to religions that are scientifically proven to be older? And why can't it be that Jesus was borrowed from some other religion, rather than vice versa?

 

[Joshimodo]

[This is what I am talking about. We've only speculated that far. There is no true proof of this claim.

No proof, expect calendars, dates, carbon dating, and, you know...the passage of time.

Not to mention it's recorded that the Roman's heavily borrowed from the Greek mythos, as well as their culture, long before their crucifixion of Jesus.

Do some research.

 

[pipboy2010]

There are just so many things wrong with the OP that I can't be bothered to rant about all of them.

Agreed.


Christianity and Jesus came after plenty of the ancient religions. It's proven. You know, by time. Hell, the ancient Greeks had their gods and pantheons over a century before Jesus was born.

Even the Romanised version of Dionysus came 200 years prior to the birth of Jesus.

This is what I am talking about. We've only speculated that far. There is no true proof of this claim.

No true proof of what claim? Even the bible, the core text of Christianity, says that Jesus was persecuted by the Romans... so surely they came before him, correct? And since there is plenty of real evidence, scattered across the whole of the mediterranean, that the Romans believed in other gods, surely this is proof in itself?

 

[Antlers]

I was surprised this got so many replies that didn't just say 'eh?'. Flowery writing = bad. Clear writing = good.

Is the essence that science is not really proven? Because... Well the whole point of science is that it improves as more and more things are discovered. So I just don't get what you're trying to say at all.

 

[Calobi]

Agreed.

Christianity and Jesus came after plenty of the ancient religions. It's proven. You know, by time. Hell, the ancient Greeks had their gods and pantheons over a century before Jesus was born.

Even the Romanised version of Dionysus came 200 years prior to the birth of Jesus.

This is what I am talking about. We've only speculated that far. There is no true proof of this claim.

Wow, I missed this set of posts which is exactly what I said. Hooray me.

As for not proving these point, I believe we have with carbon dating proved the age of certain tablets which are indeed older than the start of Christianity and most likely Judaism. I understand that you believe (or at least it came across this way) that science is inherently wrong and will be proven so later, but I stand by the people who say "This rock was carved during this time frame."

 

[Xojins]

I want to bang my face against a wall every time a religion thread comes up. All it does is invite arguments and flamers (I don't mean gay people).

OT: I'm confused as to what your point is; is it that christianity is correct, or that other religions rip it off? That aside, there was no such thing as christianity before Jesus Christ (it was Judaism before that), who was born long after the creation of Egyptian gods. How could they have ripped off christianity? It didn't even exist at that point. I'm actually pretty sure Greek, Roman, and Egyptian gods existed before the creation of christianity.

I'm just confused overall by this thread.