Today's Daily Devotional

[cliffy1]

I have made it clear that I doubt he ever existed in the flesh, that the story is a composite of much older myths.

Yes, you've demonstrated several times that you're a conspiracy theorist. May the Zeitgeist be with you.

I have studied comparative religions, their histories and many other subjects related to spirituality and religion for over 40 years. The story of the composite Christ has been known for many centuries. I was aware of it decades before Zeitgeist came out. Just take Krishna. It is very close to sounding like Christ and the stories are almost identical only the Krishna myth is three or four thousand years older. Read some of the works by scholars that have studied comparative religions, who know how to read ancient Greek and Hebrew and have read the original texts of the Bible. You will find similar conclusions being drawn. Read archaeological studies of ancient cultures and find many cross references and similarities. If all you ever read is the bible, it would be the equivalent of sticking you head in a paper bag.

[coffeeFreak]

The "Pagan Christ" is an interesting read.

Also here is a link to the documentary:

http://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/doczone/2008/paganchrist/

There are 2.1 billion Christians on the planet - roughly one third of the entire human population. At the heart of their religion is the New Testament and the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. To Christianity, the written word is the glue that binds the faith of its followers.

So, what if it could be proven that Jesus never existed? What if there was evidence that every word of the New Testament - the cornerstone of Christianity - is based on myth and metaphor?

Based on Tom Harpur's national bestseller, The Pagan Christ examines these very questions. During his research, Harpur discovered that the New Testament is wholly based on Egyptian mythology, that Jesus Christ never lived, and that - indeed - the text was always meant to be read allegorically. It was the founders of the Church who duped the world into taking a literal approach to the scriptures. And, according to Harpur, this was their fatal error - and the very reason Christianity is struggling today.

The mission of The Pagan Christ is not to accelerate Christianity's slow demise, but to breathe new life into its holy book and, in the process, bring the world a richer, more spiritual faith.

[coffeeFreak]

I often wonder just what it is that makes some people lash out at those who do not share their views. Does it not show a lack of true commitment to one's own beliefs if the thought that they are not shared by everyone sparks a need to condemn?

That comment is an interesting one because it can apply to people on both sides of the argument, and I might add, although some deserve it, Christians take a real beating on this forum, so who is lashing out at whom?

And yes I am well aware that Christians have brought on much negativity through their judgmental and self-righteous attitudes and actions, but how can returning contempt with ridicule and mocking be justified (not in your comment here, but in general)?

[fluffy]

That comment is an interesting one because it can apply to people on both sides of the argument...

Exactly my point. Most, not all but most of the discussions here tend to end up at the I'm-right-and-you're-not end of the spectrum. Given that spiritual beliefs, or absence thereof, are a deeply personal thing and deal with something that with our current level of knowledge is firmly anchored in the realm of the unknowable, how can there be any right or wrong? There can only be what I believe and what you believe and both of us are just operating on the best theory we have concocted to date. It's just that some of us tend to believe louder than others.

[coffeeFreak]

It's just that some of us tend to believe louder than others.

Isn't that the truth fluffy but it would be nice if some of the comments were a little less cutting, but then again, imagine how boring this forum would be if we all agreed with one another.

[Glacier]

Given that spiritual beliefs, or absence thereof, are a deeply personal thing and deal with something that with our current level of knowledge is firmly anchored in the realm of the unknowable, how can there be any right or wrong? There can only be what I believe and what you believe and both of us are just operating on the best theory we have concocted to date.

This is true to a certain extent, but I would submit that there is a right and wrong answer to everything no matter how unknowable it may be. Also, there are many non-spiritual claims made by all sides within a religious debate that can easily be affirmed or falsified. For example, the claim that Jesus never existed or that he was made up from previous Egyptian gods are pretty easy to refute. Whether or not someone's spiritual beliefs (or lack thereof) are truth is a whole other matter.

[fluffy]

...but I would submit that there is a right and wrong answer to everything no matter how unknowable it may be.

True, but if the answer is unknowable at this particular point in time what then the word of the day would be "acceptance", would it not? It seems to be a huge step for people to say "I just don't know for sure". I mean is there not a lot of futility in arguing over what might or might not be? I'm not talking about discussing possibilities here, I'm talking about those who take a position based on theory and putting it forward as fact.

[5VP]

True, but if the answer is unknowable at this particular point in time what then the word of the day would be "acceptance", would it not? It seems to be a huge step for people to say "I just don't know for sure". I mean is there not a lot of futility in arguing over what might or might not be? I'm not talking about discussing possibilities here, I'm talking about those who take a position based on theory and putting it forward as fact.

Acceptance ? GREAT!

Whatever floats one's boat; but these are pretty loaded theoretical statements too which while appearing to be open ended questions are, in fact, definitives.

Where are the lines for the rightness and the wrongness for you as an individual? Therein lies the truth in the matter and it is eternally different for each of us.

The wholistic spiritual value of a faith is where the source of the power is.

How can we all be on the same page?

[cliffy1]

True, but if the answer is unknowable at this particular point in time what then the word of the day would be "acceptance", would it not? It seems to be a huge step for people to say "I just don't know for sure". I mean is there not a lot of futility in arguing over what might or might not be? I'm not talking about discussing possibilities here, I'm talking about those who take a position based on theory and putting it forward as fact.

Acceptance ? GREAT!

Whatever floats one's boat; but these are pretty loaded theoretical statements too which while appearing to be open ended questions are, in fact, definitives.

Where are the lines for the rightness and the wrongness for you as an individual? Therein lies the truth in the matter and it is eternally different for each of us.

The wholistic spiritual value of a faith is where the source of the power is.

How can we all be on the same page?

We are all from the same source. It doesn't matter what your particular beliefs are, we are all brothers and sisters of the same source. Call it god, goddess, the universe, big bang, cosmic energy, it really doesn't matter, we are all united in our physical and spiritual sameness. Everything else is just mental masturbation.

[fluffy]

Whatever floats one's boat; but these are pretty loaded theoretical statements too which while appearing to be open ended questions are, in fact, definitives.

I'm open for discussion, can you elaborate on this?

Where are the lines for the rightness and the wrongness for you as an individual? Therein lies the truth in the matter and it is eternally different for each of us.

That's just my point, when assessing right and wrong in realms of the unknown such as the existence of a God and the source of the universe, where does one hold the measuring tape? There is no way that anyone can claim ultimate knowledge, at best all we can have is a theory, yet many will claim that they know for a fact the existence of something for which there can be no positive knowledge. Belief in an unprovable theory, no matter how strong, does not make that theory fact, therefore it remains just a theory.

[cliffy1]

That's just my point, when assessing right and wrong in realms of the unknown such as the existence of a God and the source of the universe, where does one hold the measuring tape? There is no way that anyone can claim ultimate knowledge, at best all we can have is a theory, yet many will claim that they know for a fact the existence of something for which there can be no positive knowledge. Belief in an unprovable theory, no matter how strong, does not make that theory fact, therefore it remains just a theory.

And that is why I say the truth is relative to the beholder. Every one of us sees reality/truth/god/universe from our own personal perspective. There are no universal truths, just personal ones. Everything outside of our minds is just someone else's theory and opinion. Nobody is right to anybody else. That is what makes life interesting. If you can't accept that, then it becomes very frustrating.

[Glacier]

Huh? People deny that other people hold different opinions? What do you mean by truth? Surely truth is absolute,no? This thread is starting to sound very strange indeed.

[cliffy1]

Huh? People deny that other people hold different opinions? What do you mean by truth? Surely truth is absolute,no? This thread is starting to sound very strange indeed.

Why is it strange? There are no absolute truths. The existence of god is just a personal belief and has no evidence whatsoever, so how can it be true? You may believe it is true, but to the next guy it is just your opinion. Reality plays out in the synapses of your brain. Everything you experience is nothing more than a hologram projected out by your brain cells that translate incoming data to make it seem like reality is out there but it all takes place in your mind. That is what neuroscience has shown. Everybody translates their data differently based on past experience and no one has had the same life experiences.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fWtBq8uWKE&feature=related[/youtube]

[/quote]

[Glacier]

Why is it strange? There are no absolute truths. The existence of god is just a personal belief and has no evidence whatsoever, so how can it be true? You may believe it is true, but to the next guy it is just your opinion.

Whether or not someone believes or disbelieves something to be true does not absolve the fact that truth is absolute. You might say God exists and Johnnytwoshoes might say she doesn't, but the truth of the matter is you both can't be right.

[fluffy]

Huh? People deny that other people hold different opinions? What do you mean by truth? Surely truth is absolute,no? This thread is starting to sound very strange indeed.

I'm talking more in relation to truth that is yet unknown to us. I don't doubt that there is an absolute truth as to the existence of God, or where the universe came from, but I accept that at this time those truths are unavailable to us. So I guess the absolute truth of that matter is that we truly don't know the truth. True?