Two things:

1) Never watch an odd numbered Star Trek movie

2) If you're talking about a God who is an individual being (which I am not sure I believe in) then why is using evolution any different than simply making us with clay?  Why'd he need the clay?  Why'd it take seven days and not one?  Why'd he speak and say things like "let there be light" rather than simply thinking it into being? 

You have to remember that if you're talking God, you're talking about eternity too.  Evolution takes exactly zero seconds on a scale measured by eternity.  There is as much "time" left after a bazillion years of evolution as there was before it started: forever.  There will always be exactly forever left.  Thus, evolution, on God's scale, would take no time at all.  Thus, it wouldn't be a long drawn out process (like making roof trusses with a hammer), but would take zero minutes and zero seconds.  Evolution is as good as speaking it into being as far as He'd be concerned.

1) God created the universe and everything in it in six days. He rested on the seventh.

2) I believe God is sovereign. He can do anything He wishes, it's His creation.

1) Fair enough

2) Yep, and that includes using evolution if he darn well pleases, correct?

If one is inclined to believe in evolution, you bet. However, one could argue that evolution is still creation because God "started the whole process." I believe Dr. Francis Collins, PhD believes this to be true. I do not hold that particular view as I am a creationist

Hello zerlina.........God bless you....

I watched every star trek movie there was...I enjoyed them all and some of them did push the envelope so to speak lol..lol...it is like stargate that is on now...could the day come when we would use stargates to travel from one universe to another...anything is possible with God...good imaginations who think this stuff up...

But for real...I doubt God needs anything and if He does it would be our benifit for sure....something to help us humans move a long in the world and the universe...but I think the things of star trek are far beyond what we could accomplish in many many generations....but I do believe because I have such a wonderful imagination...that all things are possible ..when it comes to God...

IJL:bg

Why not?

I'd second Witch's question, "Why not?"

I might add in there - could God have decided to self-limit?

Christ's peace - r

Fair enough.  I don't have any problem with people believing in creationism.  I just find it sickening when those same people think evolution has to mean "no God."  That's telling God what It can and can't do, and how It is allowed to do Its thing.  If one believes in a God beyond ones own understanding, I always find it distasteful for the same person to be putting God into little boxes that make them feel like they understand everything God does.  If God is beyind understanding, all powerful, and eternal, Evolution is as viable an option for him to use as six day long creation.  It's all the same when you're eternal.

Yep. I agree with you on many points here. I believe in a sovereign God who is involved with His creation. If I did believe in evolution (which I do not) it would not shake my belief in a sovereign, Almighty God. I would certainly need to look at a few things in a diferent light, such as the nature of sin. That perhaps sin was a gradual process, something that was learned over time, rather than inherited. BUT, for me, that would still mean we need a Savior and would make Jesus' death and resurrection no less important, necessary or literal.

cf, I forget, are you a young-Earth creationist or old-Earth? Just wondering.

Zerlina, from what I have learned in school, evolution is a chaotic and unguided process, based on environmental conditions and accidents in DNA transcription. Evolution isn't about all organisms slowly getting better and better, far from it. It's just "whoopsee, my hemoglobin is shaped ever so slightly differently than everyone elses (because the DNA for it was coded in my mom's egg cell improperly), but now each tertiary structure can carry two O₂ or CO₂ molecules instead of just one, making me twice as efficient at respirating as everyone else". (This is not a mutation that has ever happened as far as I know, but this is just an example).

Accidents happen during DNA replication that cause slight changes in anatomical structure or in protein structure. When they happen in a sperm or egg cell, they will be passed on to the child (if that cell is lucky enough to be fertilized and eventually born). If the mutation does does something positive, like legs on a predator animal structured better for running or eyes on a nocturnal creature with higher sensitivity to light, then the individual will be better at competing for resources and will be more likely to survive to adulthood. If the mutation does something negative, like a wolf with no eardrums or a digestive protein that doesn't fold properly, the individual will be more likely to die before it has a chance to mate.

If evolution is a too of god, it is definitely not an active tool. It's like a Ronco Rotissery, just set it and forget it.

We should have a place in the Wondercafe to park quotes like these and then have a vote to select the Quote of the Year.

Another one I would submit was from another thread today: 

Hi killer. I am an Old Earth creationist. To God, a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like a day. I believe in the absolute sovereignty of Almighty God. He could create the universe in 6 days or millions or billions of years. He is God, who am I to question how He does things? He is not bound to time or space.

I do not believe in evolution as in one species to another (which I don't believe evolution is to begin with. Am I right in that understanding?). I do believe though that species adapt to their environment which would account for the many differing species we see.

Some would say that Old Earth creation is really just evolution. From the research I have done, I would say it is not. Old Earth creation is a belief in creation. When I read in Genesis 1 that "In the begining God created the heavens and the earth," I believe that to be true.

I guess if God has limits than He is just an advanced being but not really a god?

lol, thanks Neo. I thought it was pretty funny.

That's cool. I only ask because the oldest rock on Earth was carbon dated at about 6 billion years old, and the oldest fossils (of really primitive bacteria) are dated at about 3.8 billion years old so young-Earth is definitely out of the question.

Evolution is not species to species per se. It's extremely gradual so you might not see speciation for a hundred thousand years. Lions and tigers have been evolving seperately (from a common ancestor) for about 60,000 years but they are still able to produce children (although, those children are infertile). Basically, just take your idea of species slowly adapting to their ever-changing environments, and think about what will happen after a billion years. You're going to have completely different kinds of organisms hanging around and the ones that were around a billion years before will be extinct. You have the right idea, you just need to think about how it works in the long-term.

I think old-Earth is able to agree with evolution, but it obviously doesn't have to. If the planet was magically created and then life just randomly came about (or if god made a basic cell to start things off) and it randomly mutated and stuff, then both belief systems can coexist just fine.

I am not just having difficulty with the whole creation/evolution issue it is just one of the issues that I am grappling with.

I am having serious doubts about the existence of God.

1.  The Virgin Birth.  Paul did not know about it.  Mark did not write about it.  John did not write about it.  What if that story is only a myth?

2.  Why would God create a world in which people died?  It is so heartbreaking to lose a loved one?  Isn't that cruel? 

3.  What about parents who lose their children to accidents or to cancer?  How can God "choose to limit himself" in a case like that? 

When we are young we think that our parents are gods.  We think that they are invincible.  We think that they can fix everything.  Sometimes parents choose to limit themselves such as not paying for a broken window and making the child pay for a broken window.  But if the child breaks their arm the parent cannot fix the broken bone the child has to wear the cast until the arm is healed and won't be able to participate in some activities while the arm is broken.  Yet, when the child skins their knee Dr.  Mom can put on a band aid and wash the cut.

What if as we grow older we find that our parents cannot fix everything?  Just as we find out that Santa is not real one day we must ask ourselves if God is real as well or just a "myth" like Santa, the Toothfairy, and the Easter Bunny?

Is there any difference from a human POV between a God with no limits, and a God whose only limits are so beyond our ability to comprehend, that we would not be able to express them?

In practice, no limits is pointless. Can God create a rock so large that he himself could not lift it? A limitless God would have to include a yes and a no answer at the same time, which is logically impossible. A God which is unlimited in lifting ability is therefore limited in creating ability, and vice versa.

In another vein, even the most literal of fundamentalist Christians commonly place limits on God. Ever hear the premise that God cannot allow sin in His presence? That is a limitation. Ever hear the premise that god is 'just" and therefore must punish Sin? That is a limitation.

Even if God has limitations, he could still eb the most powerful being in the Universe. Would he not then be God? Indeed in my faith Gos is all the Universe and more, and so He is God, despite any insignificant limitations.

Hi killer. Thanks for your response. I believe that many Christians believe that species change and adapt to their environment and that a dog, let's say a million years ago (just for an example) is still a dog today, just different, depending on their environment. Small changes over time in a dog, still results in a dog. I think a lot of people get caught up in the whole micro vs. macro evolution thing.

As far as creation it's self is concerned. God is not bound by time and space and would most certainly see these things much differently than us finite humans would. So, since I believe creation to be true and that Moses wrote Genesis, perhaps he wrote the creation account through God's eyes because to God, creation only took 6 days. For me, that is compatable with an Old Earth creation belief and still takes the Genesis account of creation to be a literal event.

Yep. I would agree. The major differences between Old Earth creation and Evolution then would not necessarily cancel each other out. Those who would believe that Old Earth creation is a form of Evolution would still believe it is creation because God began it all, still taking that, "In the begining, God created," as a literal event. I believe that there are many Christians who hold this belief.

I myself still believe that Old Earth creation is creation and not Evolution and that God was directly involved every step of the way in His creating the universe and everything in it (was that a run on sentence?). But as you stated above, the two could co-exist without everybody getting all work up and still maintain a Biblical world view.

I believe that if one looks at many things that the writers of the Bible wrote, that they wrote through God's eyes, many things that we as Christians squabble and argue over could be reconciled without compromising what we believe as individuals.

That being said. There are also many things that I believe are foundational to the Christian faith and of the greatest importance.

Hi cf,

If that were true then we would have fossils of dogs that are as old as fossils of dinosaurs. The fossil record is very conslusive about major changes occuring given a major amount of time. Scientists have found fossils of dinosaurs and giant birds and dinosaurs with feathers in between. Every year we get more and more evidence that evolution is a fact and if you just look at the evidence I don't see how you can disagree.

I agree that old-Earth is not evolution. It has nothing to do with evolution. Both forms of Christian creationism are only out to explain the start of life, not what happened between then and now; that's what evolution tries to explain. Young-Earth can't agree with radioisotope dating though so it isn't compatible. Old-Earth can agree with evolution because it doesn't conflict with it, but you are absolutely right that they are different beliefs.

Hi Zerlina. You mentioned Santa in part that I didn't quote. I hope you'll bear with me for an analogy to your challenge.

Whem my sons began to doubt the existence of Santa Claus I knew that they had matured enough to be ready to start grappling with abstract thought. So we began, while they still set out cookies, milk and apples for the reindeer, to talk about what the "spirit of Santa" meant. We talked about generosity and compassion and what it meant to give something to someone else. Over the course of a couple of years, Santa went from being some guy that you asked to give you stuff, to a motivation to give of themselves to others.

The same is true of God. When we're young, its okay to believe in simple, literal ways. As we grow however, we need to leave those things of our youth behind. Even Paul (who I'm no big fan of) acknowledged that "when he was a child he thought like a child. When he grew up, he put those things away"

My kids could have, when they discovered there was no guy in a sleigh coming down the chimney, become disillusioned and decided that there was no point in believing in anything. Or, as I'm happy to say happened, they could grow in understanding and embrace a less literal, but much more powerful, way of seeing the world.

Santa is alive and well in my family, and not one of my kids has ever sat on his knee.

BTW, I'm not in any way suggesting my kids are saintly, or even involved in some sort of weird cult. They simply reach out to people when they see the opportunity to do so.

This story was a myth before Jesus was even born:

• Horus was the son of Osiris and the Virgin Isis. The birth was announced by three wise men, symbolized by the three stars of the Orions Belt. Horus was placed in a manger during the winter solstice.
   
• Hercules was born to the god Zeus and the virgin Alcmena.
   
• Mirtha was worshipped by the Persians. He was a sun-god, born to a god father and a human virgin mother named Anahita, "The Immaculate Virgin Mother of Lord Mirtha". He was born in a cave on December 25, an event witnessed by shepherds who brought gifts.
   
• Krisha born to the human virgin Devaki and the god Vishnu on the winter solstice. According to Hindu scripture, Krishna was born in a cave, an event heralded by a star.
   
• Buddha, born as Siddhartha Gautama, is said to have been born of a virgin mother named Maya. An event witnessed by wise men. 
   
• Quetzalcoatl, was worshipped by the Aztechs of ancient Mexico in the 10th century AD. He was a great Toltec deity, a son of the virgin goddess Coallicue.
   

And the list goes on. All the above are examples of saviours, said to have been born of Spirit (Father) and Matter (Mother).

Because you really can't die. This is one of the lesson's we're here to learn. Life comes full circle in both the smaller and the larger wheels. Our temporary appearance on this Earth is an illusion because (1) time is an illusion caused by our consciousness being focussed in the physical brain and (2) the very molecules of our own bodies are an illusion and temporary, like energy 'frozen' in time.

The same reason. We really don't lose anyone. They still exist, they've just disappeared temporarily from our time and space.

This is the way I see life. The Human Race is growing in awareness through time (but in a larger wheel) just like a child grows up in time. And just like the maturing child, the Human Race is beginning to question who or what God is. What we used to think God was during the early years of the Human Race is not what we think God is today, and I would bet you dollars for donuts that what we think God is today will not be what we will think God is in the future. But God hasn't changed, only our perception of God is changing. We are the relative factor here and every one of us perceives the Centre in their own way and in their own time. The Centre, however, remains.

- Neo
 

It's not really a run on.  A run on sentence is actually a sentence with too many ideas in it (they also happen to generally be poorly punctuated).  Yours has a couple ideas, and I like to stick to a mostly "one sentence = one idea" rule where possible.  However, two ideas in one sentence isn't exactly "run on." 

Horus was not born of a virgin. Isis put the pieces of her dead and butchered husband Osiris back together except she couldn't find his wang. So she made a fake dong, brought Osiris back to life just long enough to copulate with him and presto, here comes baby Horus. Miraculous birth for sure but nothing virginal about it. It's almost necrophilia. From what I have read, Horus was visited by 3 kings not wisemen. The Bible never says that Jesus was visited by 3 wisemen, just that the wisemen brought 3 gifts. Also, Isis was never refered to as Isis-Meri. There is no such person as Anup the Baptiser. Horus is said to have been born on December 25. Horus was born some time in November.

All the accounts I know of Mithra says that he sprung, as a full man from a rock. Other accounts say it was an egg. If you want to say that the rock was a virgin, then sure, it's a virgin birth. Jesus was not born on December 25, nor does the Bible support this. The vast majority of what is known about Mithra comes from sources that post date the New Testament. Also, since Mithraism was such a secretive religion, nothing much was writen down. Most of what is known about Mithra comes from art work, that also post dates  Christianity.

Devaki and Vishnu had other children so could Devaki be a virgin with so many children born to her before Krishna?  It has been admitted even by Hindu scholars that Hindu scriptures have been added to and changed over the years.

Buddha's father was named Suddhodana and his mother was indeed named Maya. There is no mention in any of accounts of Buddha's life I have read to suggest that Maya was a virgin. If she was married, could that even be expected?

It is interesting to note that the vast majority of what we know about all those mentioned above in Neo's post comes from sources that post date Christianity. Christ myth conspiracies are very popular but they really do not hold water.

It has also been admitted by Christian scholars that Christian scriptures have been added to and changed over time. Why do you believe the Hindus so easily when they say this and not the Christians? Could there be some personal feelings hindering your objective judgement?

If Mary and Joseph were married, could it even be expected that they didn't have sex to begat Jesus?

 Beats me.  But the evidence all points to him using evolution.  God works in mysterious ways.

RichardBott: That would actually explain a lot.

Frommian said:If one believes in a God beyond ones own understanding, I always find it distasteful for the same person to be putting God into little boxes that make them feel like they understand everything God does.

Little boxes on the hillside, Little boxes made of tickytacky
Little boxes on the hillside, little boxes all the same
There's a green one and a pink one and a blue one and a yellow one
And they're all made out of ticky tacky and they all look just the same.

And the people in the houses all went to the university
Where they were put in boxes and they came out all the same,
And there's doctors and there's lawyers, and business executives
And they're all made out of ticky tacky and they all look just the same.

And they all play on the golf course and drink their martinis dry,
And they all have pretty children and the children go to school
And the children go to summer camp and then to the university
Where they are put in boxes and they come out all the same.

And the boys go into business and marry and raise a family
In boxes made of ticky tacky and they all look just the same.

Sorry, I just love that song.

Neo: That is a great idea!  We must have a quote contest!

I nominate kilnerad for: "Sorry, I'm a Christian and I don't do the generic thing, merry Christmas".

consumingfire: Nothing in evolution ever implied that in the beginning God didn't create the heavens and the Earth.  You're mixing it up with astrophysics.

From what I've heard of it, Old-Earth creation sounds like it can be creation and evolution AT ONCE.  Your debate with kr is kind of meaningless.

Zerlina said: 2.  Why would God create a world in which people died?  It is so heartbreaking to lose a loved one?  Isn't that cruel? 

Oh!  Oh!  I have a theodicy!

What if God is a storyteller of some sort?  A good story can't be all happiness and love.  Its essence is conflict - between characters, or a character and fate or nature or society.  It can be beautiful as a whole... but that's only the way we look at it from outside...

What if God considers us all to be fictional?

Zerlina alsö said:   Just as we find out that Santa is not real one day we must ask ourselves if God is real as well or just a "myth" like Santa, the Toothfairy, and the Easter Bunny?

Then we can go through a disbelief period, and then return to post-critical naïveté.

I believe post-critical naïveté has been explained on another topic, one of the ones where I was arguing about Santa Claus.  It's basically when, like, in the case of Santa Claus some people return to believing in adulthood, just because they love the Santa Claus myth, or often because of the joy they see it bringing to their children.

It's different from blind faith because one has still learned something from the critical stage, and one can only consider it a personal truth, not an objective truth, as you have realized the logic is BS.

Wouldn't post-critical naïveté be an awesome stage for us as a species?  You know, I think I'm gonna go start a topic about that right now.

On God's limitations: This is basically the age-old paradox "if God is all-powerful, can He create a stone He cannot lift?"

I think there was a Gnostic sect that believed God was self-limiting.

1) That depends which scholars you read.

2) Mary and Joseph were not married when Mary became pregnant with Jesus, they were betrothed.  

cf, you're right, it does depend on the scholars. It is the scholars who are willing to exercise their criticical thinking skills on scripture that are noticing that the Gospels were works in progress for centuries.

As for Marry and Joseph, I remember learning in school that they were married under Roman law and waiting to get married under Jewish law. If that's the case then it is still a possibility that they could've had sex.

Just as we find out that Santa is not real one day we must ask ourselves if God is real as well or just a "myth" like Santa, the Toothfairy, and the Easter Bunny?

Have an open mind to more fairy tales?  People do not return to believing in Santa Claus in adulthoold they become part of the "Santa lie" but it not a bad lie.  It is part of the innocence and magic of childhood that we never really get back.   We are not open to Santa.

It's different from blind faith because one has still learned something from the critical stage, and one can only consider it a personal truth, not an objective truth, as you have realized the logic is BS.

That is why it is a meaningless myth now.

Hey Zerlina;

I believe in God.  Not a personal God.  I have not begun to decipher the Bible and I am not trying.  Creation, the Virgin Birth etc. don't enter my mind at all.  If God wants me to know anything He will clarify it.  Until then I will just live my life how I want to.

Why? I'm not following you.

I have none.

Only temporarily. But it's up to you.

Devaki and Vishnu apparently had 7 children before Krishna. Mary and Joseph are said to had 4 children after Jesus.

What your missing here, CF, is the magic in these stories. These are myths with more than one meaning. You have to read between the lines to perceive the real truth behind the stories.

Yes, King Suddhodana was the father of Siddhartha Gautama, later known as the Buddha. The Buddha was born of royalty, only to give up his riches in the end. The Christ was also said to have had regal heritage, (ancestor of King David wasn't he?).

So you figure that any myth that compares itself to Christ is a myth conspiracy? Hmmmm. I guess it's an easy way out and a simplistic way of denying history. Have you every compared the similarities between the life of Krishna and the life of Christ, or that of Horus and the life of Christ. Are you suggesting that all these myths have been made up since Christ as some kind of conspiracy? Do you also suspect that the devil planted the dinosaur bones, just to fool us?

But the fact is, it's a myth now! This is how myths are born, over time. It doesn't matter if it really happened, it's the meaning behind the stories that matters. One has to use one's intuition and discriminative processes to see meaning in myth. They're not meant to be taken literally.  

You're discriptive story about Isis and her husband's 7 parts is indeed a big part of the myth. But the story behind the myth is that Osiris was a sun god. Every night when the sun went down it was removed from sight and spread across the land in 7 pieces. And every morning, Isis, the eternal mother of the earth, reassembles the day and gives birth to Horus, the god of the sky.
 

This is an old story and in retrospect looks rather amusing to us today, but at the time the humanity living in ancient Egypt could see the wisdom in such a myth.

If you're suggesting that the Christian scriptures were not added to, removed from, and changed over the years then you're only fooling yourself. I would think than almost all Christian scholars agree with this fact, (unless, of course, that's a conspiracy also)

Well, the scholars that I read such a Dr. Norm Geisler, PhD, most certainly do use their critical thinking skills.

I have never heard that about Mary and Joseph. The Bible never says that they were considered married under Roman law. What was the source of that information?

Neo. I guess it all depends as to whether or not you believe that Jesus is a myth. If you do, then everything else you believe will reflect that. As for me, I certainly do not believe that Jesus or anything the Holy Bible says about Him are a myth. So in turn, everything else I believe reflects that.

For me the evidence all points to Jesus being the unique Son of God who died on the cross and was resurrected. I have done the research, considered the evidence and I came to the conclusion many years ago that Jesus is God the Son and my Lord and Savior. Nothing will EVER change that. I will NEVER sell out Jesus.

Neo. And to answer your rediculous and redundant question, no I do not believe that Satan planted dinosaur bones just to fool us. I am an Old Earth creationist and most certainly believe that dinosaurs existed.

Your question is a fallacious argument.

Neo. The fact remains that:

Horus, Krishna and Mithra were not born of a virgin.

Jesus was not born on December 25 so any comparison to other "deities" in this regard is rediculous. Just because a lot of Christians celebrate Jesus' birthday on this date is not proff that He was actually born then.

Jesus was visited by wisemen of an untold number. The Bible only records the number of gifts they brought. It could have only been 2 wisemen or 20 or five.

I am not claiming any kind of conspiracy. I will say however that many people set out to discredit Christianity (if you believe otherwise, your only fooling yourself). Zeitgeist part one certainly does it's best, but fails.

The sources that these claims come from are from sources that post date Christianity. There are no sources that pre-date the New Testament that provide evidence for the claims attributed to Horus, Krishna or Mithra.

 Of the more that 5, 000 copies of the New Testament that are in existance, they all agree on doctrine. Differences in spelling, punctuation etc...do not discount that there are no doctrinal discrepancies among them.

Homer's Iliad was writen around 800 B.C. The earliest copies date to around 400 B.C., a gap of 600 years. There are only about 643 copies of  Iliad in existence.

Tacitus' Annals were writen around 100 A.D. The earliest copies date from around 1100 A.D., a gap of about 1000 years. There are only 20 copies of Annals in existence.

Pliny Secundus wrote Natural History between 61-133 A.D. the earliest copies date from around 850 A.D. , a gape of 750 years. There are only 7 copies of Natural History  in existence.

The New Testament was writen between 50-100 A.D. There are 5, 366 copies in existence. The earliest copies date as follows:

Fragments: 114 A.D. for a gap of about 50 years

Books: 200 A.D. for a gap of 100 years

Most of the New Testament: 250 A.D. for a gap of 150 years

The Complete New Testament: 325 A.D. for a gap of 225 years.

Most Historians agree that the closer copies date to the orginal documents, the more reliable and accurate the copies are.

The only thing that can be disputed that has been added to the New Testament would be 1 John 5:7 which reads:

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

This verse comes from a different set of discovered manuscripts of the New Testament call the Received Text which the King James Version is translated from. The verse is admittedly of uncertain origin. But, it does suggest that the Trinity is not a relatively modern belief. There are many verses that are omitted from the manuscripts that Westcott and Hort worked from, which versions such as the NIV and NASB are based on. But as stated above, there are no doctrinal discrepancies among the two different sets of manuscripts.

2 Timothy 4:3 (New International Version)

When killer and I engage in debate, it is anything but meaningless.

Old Earth creation can be viewed as creation and evolution at once. Or it can be viewed as either or, so there is much to debate, and none of it meaningless.

The story has been overused so many times that it has lost its meaning.

That is too bad.  I wanted to believe you.

It is not up to me.  It is up to the Universe or to the person who died or to the person who killed the person who died.  Sometimes people are taken by cancer or other diseases than it is up to the cancer.

I have spent my time on Santa's lap.  I have pictures of Santa and I from before I could walk up until grade five which was the last year my mother was able to come up with a bribe big enough to get me to sit on his lap.   I think the reason I sat on his lap the one last time was for my younger siblings because I was part of of the "Santa lie" by this time in helping keep the secret and they would have taken my word over my parents' word at that time.   I think Santa, Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer, Frosty the Snowman, The Easter Bunny, and the Toothfairy belong to the magic of childhood.  I am happy to participate in all those "lies" of childhood.  I give to Santa's Anonymous every year as well in the "spirit of giving".   For me I do not do it because of the spirit of Santa (which if you type it too quickly becomesSatan)  I do it because I think every child has the right to be a child and grow up thinking that someone (even if it is only Santa) cares about them a great deal.  I do this knowing that their parents will depend  on the Christmas hamper and spend their welfare money on booz or drugs or themselves because they know that their kids will be taken care of.  I realize that not every family is like this but most are in my area.

The problem with God is that God (if He exists) does not have the same character as the God in the Bible.  The God of the Bible stood beside Shadrach, Meeshack, and Abednego in the fiery furnace and saved their lives.  The God of the Bible sent His Son to save the world from their sins and adopted humanity.  The God of the Bible rescued Peter from prison.  The God of the Bible heals the sick.  The God of the Bible created the World.  The God of today does nothing.  Literally, He/She does nothing.  We make excuses for this God though.  We say that He/She needs tools.  We say that we have the Bible and the people of the Bible did not so they needed the miracles.  We say that the miracles never actually happened that they were myths.  We say that God did not need a virgin to bear his Son.

ConsumingFire;

You are good at pointing out the holes in the myths.  You are almost persuading me to go back to that place of belief but I cannot.  

I think that there is a progression.  I think that at  first one is a Fundamentalist.  Then they gradually become more liberal.  The first step I think is to accept other religions equal to Christianity.  Then there are a couple of ways to go.  1.  All ways lead to Heaven even that of the Atheist.  2.  Actually, becoming an atheist.  3.  Agnostic=not sure and don't really care.

Sorry Consumingfire, I have heard fundamentalists make this claim. I should've given you more credit than this.

Dr. Geisler may use his critical thinking skills in debates and when reading papers, but does he use them on scripture? If he is as big on aplogetics as his website makes him out to be then I would guess not.

I think I remember hearing this about Mary & Joseph in grade 10 religion. I think back then you had to be married under Roman law no matter what so the Jews would get married that way first and then under Jewish law after. If that is incorrect then feel free to say so.

ConsummingFire, I certainly don't believe that Jesus was a myth. But I do believe that Christians, old and new, have over inflated Christs importance in the Universe. Yes, He was a son of God, as are all of us, at least potentially. The difference, I believe, between us and someone like The Christ is that the latter knew Himself to be one with God, we only believe it, (we'll, some of us do anyways). 

I'm not sure how you can be so confident that the "sources that these claims come from are from sources that post date Christianity. There are no sources that pre-date the New Testament that provide evidence for the claims attributed to Horus, Krishna or Mithra." It's just a claim you're making without any evidence of your own. I know that you've quoted a bunch of dates, to which I can't prove or deny at this point, but I have to ask what the publishing dates of Pliny Secundus' Natural History or Tacitus' Annals have to do with the myths of ancient India or Egypt?

Despite your doubts, the fact remains that the myths of Horus, Krishna, Mithra, etc., all pre-date Christianity. I can't say what's been added to, changed or deleted since but I'm thinking that the similarities between the myths of these characters and Christ is so obvious that it's hard to deny, unless, as you pointed, there's been a world wide conspiracy for the last 2,000 years to copy or mimic parts of the Bible into other religious scripture just for the sake of .., just for the sake of ..., ...; why would anyone want to do this?

What is different, however, with the myths of virgin births pre-dating Christianity is the fact that almost all of these virgin myths were not about real, everyday people. There were gods, or demi-gods like Horus and Hercules. If the birth of Jesus actually was a virgin birth then it would've been much more than a mere myth or story of a god being born chaste. But the concept is the same and that's my point. Many of the stories and events of Christ's life were fashioned from myths that had already been in circulation.

When Hercules took the weight of the world from Atlas and carried it upon on his own shoulders, it was to me, a myth or a concept that was carried forward in Christianity with the claim the Christ carried the sins of the world. These myths are not, in my opinion, here to discredit the life of Christ but rather to support it.  

You probably should've done your homework before making this comment. Mark 16 9-20 are probably the most disputed passages in the Bible. See http://www.religioustolerance.org/mark_16.htm for typical example of the controversy surround this part of the Bible.

Anyways ConsumingFire, I really don't mean to getting into some sort of a pi**ing contest with you here. Yes, there are those who are out to discredit Christianity, I fully understand that. But the story and myths of Christ are as old as the world. And all these myths and stories about saviours in the past were, in my opinion, leading up to the very day that Christ, a son of man who knew himself to be a son of God, said the words "Your will Father, not mine". This marked a new era for mankind, an era that we're only know about the realize.

This reminds me of a saying in the computer industry, "There are 3 types of people in the world, those that know binary and those that don't"

Cheers Zerlina.

Wow Neo, I didn't know that you treated the Gospels as mythos. I find that they offer so much more when they are treated as such as well. The claim of inspirations from Greek mythos is very interesting.

Neo. i am not saying that the myths of Horus, Mithra and Krishna do not pre-date the New Testament. please read my posts more carefully. I am saying that the Christ myth theories post date Christianity.

If you can find ANY primary source material on Horus that document that He was born December 25, that there was a person called Anup the Baptiser, that Isis was called Isis-Meri, that his birth was of a virgin, that he had 12 disciples etc.....please inform me and I will most certainly take a look.

Even many liberal scholars say that these claims do not hold water and come from sources that post-date the New Testament. Even atheist Richard Carrier says on infidels.org that Kersey Graves book, The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors: Or Christianity Before Christ  is unreliable. Carrier also says of the book that:

• Graves often does not distinguish his opinions and theories from what his sources and evidence actually state.
• Graves often omits important sources and evidence.
• Graves often mistreats in a biased or anachronistic way the sources he does use.
• Graves occasionally relies on suspect sources.
• Graves does little or no source analysis or formal textual criticism.
• Graves' work is totally uninformed by modern social history (a field that did not begin to be formally pursued until after World War II, i.e., after Graves died).
• Graves' conclusions and theories often far exceed what the evidence justifies, and he treats both speculations and sound theories as of equal value.
• Graves often ignores important questions of chronology and the actual order of plausible historical influence, and completely disregards the methodological problems this creates.
• Graves' work lacks all humility, which is unconscionable given the great uncertainties that surround the sketchy material he had to work with.
• Graves' scholarship is obsolete, having been vastly improved upon by new methods, materials, discoveries, and textual criticism in the century since he worked. In fact, almost every historical work written before 1950 is regarded as outdated and untrustworthy by historians today.

Kersey Graves book is often cited as a reference for the Christ myth theories. As it stands, the claims of Graves, Zeitgeist part one, D.M. Murdock (aka Achyarya S) and a host of others are misleading and use source matieral that post-dates Christianity. Their claims do not stand. It is they that are making erroneous claims. They wish to discredit Christianity and will go to any lengths to do so, including grasping at staws to try and support their claims.

Oh. And about my "homework". On closer inspection, yes there are other debated verses no question. But as I stated above there are many verses that do not appear in the texts that Westcott and Hort edited. Mark 16:9-20 in many Bible translations is bracketed to indicate that it may be a later addition or is omitted all together. Mark 16:9-20 in the Recieved Text which the KJV is based on, is present.

Regardless. There are no doctrinal issues between the two sets of texts. Trust me, I have done my homework.

With all due respect, I would have to say that your claim that the "Christ myth theories post date Christianity" seems kind of obvous, if you know what I mean.

I can't point to the part of the Bhagavad that claims Krishna was born near the winter solstice, nor do I possess a Rosetta Stone and so can't point to the Hieroglyphics that claim that Horus was born at this time of year also. I am, like you (I'm assuming) relying on second hand news through authors that are making this claim.

It seems pretty obvious to me that there are many, many claims throughout history that where a deity or special 'saviour' has come to this world with qualities and life experience that seem to mirror that of Christ's life, i.e. being born chaste near the winter solstice, usually accompanied by a Star, or being known as a saviour performing miracles, and even being raised from the dead three days after being killed. And since almost all of these deities pre-date the life of Christ, it makes more sense to me that perhaps, just maybe, the authors and editors of the Bible also mirrored the life of Jesus after these saviours, as opposed to your claim that people are retro-fitting the myths and stories of their saviours to that of Christ. I'm not sure which is worse, a conspiracy theory or a cover up.

Hercules, representing the 'Soul of Humanity', was instructed to reverse the direction of the wheel he was on during his labours. From Aries, the sign of the 'resurrection', Hercules began his 12 labours, (there's that number again), but this time from Aries to Pisces via the sign Taurus. In the Leo, Hercules experienced Individualization for the first time. From the heart of the Sun the "Coming of Mind" was expressed through Hercules. Man had become 'The Thinker'. It was then that the birth or the seed of the Christ principal was immediately experienced through the next sign, Virgo, the Virgin. This birth of Christ began to grow in the next sign with the discrimination between the pairs of opposites. Libra is the opposite sign of Aries and marked culmination point where the 'straight and narrow way' directed Hercules to the battle ground of the Soul in the sign Scorpio. It's in Scorpio that Humanity finds itself today, a battle ground of control between the Soul and it's personality. From there on in Hercules was a one pointed disciple.  Sagittarius leads the way to the biggest initiation of all, the descending into Hades to rescue Prometheus, the one suffering for 'stealing fire'. Hercules then went on to becoming the World Server in Aquarius and the World Saviour in Pisces.

The story of Christ is same for those with a mystical eye. The fact that Christ reproduced this story with His very life is one of the most important things, I believe, that can be gleamed out of the Gospel story. What was only represented in myth, and therefore on the mental and emotional planes of nature, is now reproduced by Christ in the physical plane.

*****************

See the video on http://www.prevalhaiti.com/messages.php/5131 for some interesting "claims" on the life of Horus. Everyone knows that the Egyptians watched and followed the path of the Sun very closely. It would only make sense that they were keenly aware of the winter solstice and would attribute the birth of god like Horus with the return of the Sun at winter solstice.