Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Mastrap · Oct 25, 2005, 09:50 AM

Originally Posted by Kevin

AGAIN, not something I am arguing.

Just because it was USED BEFORE, doesn't equate = copied.

The cross is a very basic symbol.

Oh, I see what you mean now. Yes, that's probably true, especially due to the fact that Jesus was actually crucified.

bad_quote · Oct 25, 2005, 09:59 AM

Originally Posted by Kevin

You cannot in ANY WAY prove this man was the first person to talk about the concept of heaven and hell.

Yes you can. Before him, the concept did not exist. After him, religions such as Christianity, Judaism, and Islam used ideas almost identical to his.

Kevin · Oct 25, 2005, 10:31 AM

Originally Posted by bad_quote

Yes you can. Before him, the concept did not exist.

Come on Rob, tell the class. How do you know it didn't exist? And please show the class the text where it says what you claim it does.

I am betting it's worded as an IDEA, and NOT a fact. But since you LIKE the IDEA, and AGREE with it, you decided to treat it as FACT.

Just like you accuse Christians of doing.

After him, religions such as Christianity, Judaism, and Islam used ideas almost identical to his.

Rob, since the people that are actually in the know about such things (Not you) even claim there is no way to be able to tell when the religion or idea that Abraham practiced started. No one knows when such ideas or stories began or came from.

Tell us how YOU suddenly know, and it's factual!

Rob, what you do, is read bits and snippets of things you go along with, and therefore you decide it's the truth!

Regardless of facts surrounding it.

So go on. Prove what you say is true to the class.

bad_quote · Oct 25, 2005, 10:49 AM

I don't have to. There is no record anywhere in history of zoroastrain concepts BEFORE zoroaster. Period. If you disagree, please feel free to prove me wrong. I'm telling you again, that hte heaven hell concept WAS NOT AROUND before him, and afterwords other religions had it. Use your brain. He was also monotheistic when most religions at the time were polytheistic.

paul w · Oct 25, 2005, 11:08 AM

It's not only a crucifix, it's an mp3 player and flash hd. Yay!

Mastrap · Oct 25, 2005, 11:13 AM

Originally Posted by bad_quote

I don't have to. There is no record anywhere in history of zoroastrain concepts BEFORE zoroaster. Period. If you disagree, please feel free to prove me wrong. I'm telling you again, that hte heaven hell concept WAS NOT AROUND before him, and afterwords other religions had it. Use your brain. He was also monotheistic when most religions at the time were polytheistic.

A good book to read: A History of God

It clears up many misconceptions. The god of Abraham was actually a god existing in a polytheistic universe. Monotheism happened much later.

bad_quote · Oct 25, 2005, 11:28 AM

Sounds like a neat book. I'll see if I can get it at the library.

I think it's kinda interesting how religion evolves just like government, music, art, and evolution in general.

Railroader · Oct 25, 2005, 11:29 AM

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

The Crucifix is not worn on one's neck. It is kept in places where you pray. It is to remind one of Crist's suffering and sacrifice. You are very correct on the empty cross.

It is a symbol of life, resurrection, hope, renewal, sacrifice and divinity. It is a core symbol of Christianity and it is sad to see the Heretics deny it. Heresy is running rampant in N-America. Why don't they call themselves something else than Christians? Because misinformation suits the devil.

cheers

W-Y

Well, I've never been called a heretic before. Call me what you will if it makes you feel comfortable or helps you in your walk with Christianity.

I'm certainly not worried what you think of me.

I'll tell you one thing important thing: Christianity is NOT about symbols. It's about abandoning symbols.

EDIT: Cheers!

Warung · Oct 25, 2005, 11:40 AM

Originally Posted by Kevin

Just because it was USED BEFORE, doesn't equate = copied.

Unfortunately for you, in this case it does.

Warung · Oct 25, 2005, 11:41 AM

Originally Posted by Railroader

Christianity is NOT about symbols. It's about abandoning symbols.

No, actually it's about self denial. But nevermind.

Railroader · Oct 25, 2005, 11:47 AM

Originally Posted by Warung

No, actually it's about self denial. But nevermind.

Worshipping self as a symbol is a sin. See, the symbol is self, and you abandon the worship of it. It's a mite complicated, try to wrap your head around it for a while and you just might get it.

Kevin · Oct 25, 2005, 11:49 AM

Originally Posted by bad_quote

I don't have to.

No Rob, you don't have to. No one is going to make you, or arrest you for not doing it.
But if you actually want people to believe what you are saying, and if you want to change someone's mind, or prove what you say is true, you would.

I know if I was you I wouldn't want to have to "prove" it either.

There is no record anywhere in history of zoroastrain concepts BEFORE zoroaster. Period. If you disagree, please feel free to prove me wrong.

Well I would never argue that, and that isn't what we are arguing about.

You said his was the first ever idea of such a thing, and being so the Christians and the offspring of Abraham and so on ripped it off of him.

I am saying, since we dont know if his was the actual first concept, making such a factual statment is faulty.

I'm telling you again, that hte heaven hell concept WAS NOT AROUND before him, and afterwords other religions had it.

AGAIN, how do you know this?

Use your brain.

Ok Rob, we are going try a comparison story. Something very similar, but different.

Say it's the year 4000 AD. They want to find out where Cola products came from.

So a team searches all beaches and such and the OLDEST clue of cola products is an old 70s Pepsi bottle. They can't find anything older than that yet.

Now, using your "logic" that would mean that Cola did NOT exist before 1970 because the oldest reference said people found so far was said Pepsi bottle from 1970.

And Coke didn't invent cola, Pepsi did!

Do you see the faulty logic in that?

Kevin · Oct 25, 2005, 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by Warung

Unfortunately for you, in this case it does.

Please prove that he was the first one to ever think of such a thing.

You cannot. So such definite statements are absurd.

I am not saying WHO the first person was because I HAVE NO FACTUAL PROOF. Therefore me making any such definite statements would be wrong.

Having IDEAS, however is a completely different things altogether.

You can have an IDEA that he was the first person. No one would argue with that.

Warung · Oct 25, 2005, 11:53 AM

Originally Posted by Railroader

Worshipping self as a symbol is a sin. See, the symbol is self, and you abandon the worship of it.

Actually it's just the opposite. The symbol you worship is everything but your"self".

Self-denial is the shining sore on the leprous body of Christianity.

Kevin · Oct 25, 2005, 11:54 AM

Originally Posted by Mastrap

A good book to read: A History of God

It clears up many misconceptions. The god of Abraham was actually a god existing in a polytheistic universe.

I don't think anyone is actually going to argue that God existed before Abraham Mastrap.

Monotheism happened much later.

Actually no one KNOWS when Monotheism started. One does however know when Religious text were first written down.

Kevin · Oct 25, 2005, 11:56 AM

Originally Posted by Warung

Actually it's just the opposite. The symbol you worship is everything but your"self".

Christianty doesn't teach symbol worship.

Self-denial is the shining sore on the leprous body of Christianity.

Sefl denial? Christianity is ALL ABOUT Self Awarness. And not just in the flesh.

I am beginning to understand why certain people reject Christianity.

They simply don't understand what it's about.

Warung · 12:04 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

Please prove that he was the first one to ever think of such a thing.

Wha????

The cross is a very ancient symbol of (life=the "crossing/mating" of two beings). The early Christians unboutably knew about this and went "Hey, that fish symbol is getting kinda lame, - but I know about this other really cool symbol which stands for "life"...a "cross"...hey didn't Jesus die on the cross...woah..yeah..cool." I'm pretty sure it went something like that.

Warung · Oct 25, 2005, 12:00 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

Sefl denial? Christianity is ALL ABOUT Self Awarness.

You gotta be joking.

Warung · Oct 25, 2005, 12:04 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

Actually no one KNOWS when Monotheism started.

No. People have a pretty good idea that it started with "Aechnaton" in ancient Egypt. Is it absolutely impossible that it started earlier in history? No. But the research is pretty conclusive and solid.

And please don't start this bullsh1t spiel about "fact" and "opinion". It makes you look even more uneducated than you probably are.

Railroader · Oct 25, 2005, 12:12 PM

Originally Posted by Warung

Actually it's just the opposite. The symbol you worship is everything but your"self".

Self-denial is the shining sore on the leprous body of Christianity.

Could you rephrase that? I do NOT understand what you are saying. How is self denial wrong?

And to clarify things, I worship no symbols.

Railroader · Oct 25, 2005, 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by Warung

Wha????

The cross is a very ancient symbol of (life=the "crossing/mating" of two beings). The early Christians unboutably knew about this and went "Hey, that fish symbol is getting kinda lame, - but I know about this other really cool symbol which stands for "life"...a "cross"...hey didn't Jesus die on the cross...woah..yeah..cool." I'm pretty sure it went something like that.

You come up with that all by your lonesome? Because I've never heard such a hilarious "theory".

Doofy · Oct 25, 2005, 12:15 PM

Originally Posted by Warung

No. People have a pretty good idea that it started with "Aechnaton" in ancient Egypt. Is it absolutely impossible that it started earlier in history? No. But the research is pretty conclusive and solid.

You mean "Amenhotep IV", 1367 - 1350 BC?
...which was a little way after a lot of the Old Testament was written?

Kevin · Oct 25, 2005, 12:19 PM

Originally Posted by Warung

Wha????

The cross is a very ancient symbol of (life=the "crossing/mating" of two beings). The early Christians unboutably knew about this and went "Hey, that fish symbol is getting kinda lame, - but I know about this other really cool symbol which stands for "life"...a "cross"...hey didn't Jesus die on the cross...woah..yeah..cool." I'm pretty sure it went something like that.

You have an idea you mean. No facts.

I have no problems with ideas.

Originally Posted by Warung

You gotta be joking.

Why did you even reply to the post when all you were going to post was this?

I mean really.

Originally Posted by Warung

No. People have a pretty good idea

People have an idea. The part about it being good or not is subjective.

But you are correct. People have an idea. No facts, but an idea.
My only problem with Rob is, he was treating an idea as a fact. The very thing non-religious people get all pissy about when Christians do.

that it started with "Aechnaton" in ancient Egypt. Is it absolutely impossible that it started earlier in history? No. But the research is pretty conclusive and solid.

Conclusive? maybe. Solid? Hard to tell. Unless you have ALL the evidence, nothing is even close to being solid.

And since we DO KNOW we don't have every bit of evidence..

And please don't start this bullsh1t spiel about "fact" and "opinion".

Uh, there is no spiel, you don't treat an "idea" you have as a fact when you have no absolute proof to back it up with. That is no spiel. That is just the facts. Not up for subjection.

It makes you look even more uneducated than you probably are.

Do you always add personal attacks to your posts? Esp ones that are baseless and silly?

Do you think it does anything for your argument?

One who is uneducated is more likely to revert to such things no?

Warung · Oct 25, 2005, 12:20 PM

dbl post

Warung · Oct 25, 2005, 12:21 PM

Originally Posted by Railroader

How is self denial wrong?

I dunno. You tell me.

Warung · Oct 25, 2005, 12:22 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

You have an idea you mean. No facts.

No, actually it is you who has no "facts" and the same lame-a55 argument over and over again.

Warung · Oct 25, 2005, 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

You mean "Amenhotep IV", 1367 - 1350 BC?
...which was a little way after a lot of the Old Testament was written?

Yeah, so what? You think they were working on the "King James" version of the Biiiaable at the time?

Railroader · Oct 25, 2005, 12:25 PM

Originally Posted by Warung

I dunno. You tell me.

Please rephrase your previous statement. I do not understand what you are saying.

Here it is so you don't have to look it up:

Actually it's just the opposite. The symbol you worship is everything but your"self".

Self-denial is the shining sore on the leprous body of Christianity.

And concerning self denial: Self denial is not wrong. It is a commandment of Christ. John 15:13 NASB Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.

Kevin · Oct 25, 2005, 12:26 PM

Originally Posted by Warung

No, actually it is you who has no "facts" and the same lame-a55 argument over and over again.

Warung, well it's a good thing I never claimed to have the FACTS. I do however have an Idea.

You are right about the lameness of the argument though.

Wish you people would stop bringing it up.

Railroader · Oct 25, 2005, 12:26 PM

Originally Posted by Warung

Yeah, so what? You think they were working on the "King James" version of the Biiiaable at the time?

WHAT?!?! Are you serious? This is your argument? You have proven that you cannot be taken seriously when discussing Christianity (and religion in general) with this statement.

Kevin · Oct 25, 2005, 12:29 PM

Originally Posted by Railroader

WHAT?!?! Are you serious? This is your argument? You have proven that you cannot be taken seriously when discussing Christianity (and religion in general) with this statement.

With just that statement?

Doofy · Oct 25, 2005, 12:30 PM

Originally Posted by Warung

Yeah, so what? You think they were working on the "King James" version of the Biiiaable at the time?

Umm... That puts your Amenhotep IV suggestion too late for him to be the "inventor" of monotheism.

Warung · Oct 25, 2005, 12:30 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

Warung, well it's a good thing I never claimed to have the FACTS. I do however have an Idea.

Actually, there more you post, the more apparent it becomes that you have NO idea.

Warung · Oct 25, 2005, 12:32 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Umm... That puts your Amenhotep IV suggestion too late for him to be the "inventor" of monotheism.

Bwahhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaa, do you actually believe that the Hebrews invented "monotheism"?

Kevin · Oct 25, 2005, 12:36 PM

Originally Posted by Warung

Actually, there more you post, the more apparent it becomes that you have NO idea.

Yeah, that's what I thought.

Kevin · Oct 25, 2005, 12:36 PM

Originally Posted by Warung

Bwahhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaa, do you actually believe that the Hebrews invented "monotheism"?

I wouldn't believe that. How can they invent something they had no control over?

Warung · Oct 25, 2005, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by Railroader

WHAT?!?! Are you serious? This is your argument? You have proven that you cannot be taken seriously when discussing Christianity (and religion in general) with this statement.

Why? Do you actually the believe that the Tora is some kind of magical "scripture" that has stayed unchanged for nearly 5000 years?

This forum his hilarious. First Hitler is a socialist and a "leftie", now people claim that the Hebrews invented montheism. What next...the earth is 6000 years old, flat and the sun revolves around it?

Kevin · Oct 25, 2005, 12:38 PM

Originally Posted by Warung

Why? Do you actually the believe that the Tora is some kind of magical "scripture" that has stayed unchanged for over nearly 5000 years?

The strawmen are deep and thick today.

Doofy · Oct 25, 2005, 12:38 PM

Originally Posted by Warung

Bwahhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaa, do you actually believe that the Hebrews invented "monotheism"?

Do you actually believe that any of us is going to take notice of you when you can't even spell the names of the people involved in the discussion?

Warung · Oct 25, 2005, 12:38 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

I wouldn't believe that. How can they invent something they had no control over?

Errrr, deliberately vague and spineless again?

Warung · Oct 25, 2005, 12:39 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Do you actually believe that any of us is going to take notice of you when you can't even spell the names of the people involved in the discussion?

Errr, like who?

Doofy · Oct 25, 2005, 12:40 PM

Originally Posted by Warung

What next...the earth is 6000 years old, flat and the sun revolves around it?

Technically, the Sun does actually revolve around the Earth. It's entirely dependant on whatever you're taking as the reference point.

Kevin · Oct 25, 2005, 12:40 PM

Originally Posted by Warung

Errrr, deliberately vague and spineless again?

I was? No. Doofy did you understand what I posted?

I don't think I am posting in any secret code, or being "mysterious"

Doofy · Oct 25, 2005, 12:42 PM

Originally Posted by Warung

Errr, like who?

Originally Posted by Warung

"Aechnaton"

Amenhotep IV

Warung · Oct 25, 2005, 12:43 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Technically, the Sun does actually revolve around the Earth. It's entirely dependant on whatever you're taking as the reference point.

Uhhhuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

Kevin · Oct 25, 2005, 12:43 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Amenhotep IV

I think it may be in Warung's best interest to stay out of such discussions from now on.

Originally Posted by Warung

Uhhhuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

I mean anyone can make retard sounds and post emoticons.

Warung · Oct 25, 2005, 12:45 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Amenhotep IV

Errrr, I used the German spelling. If you wanna get nit picky, start using ancient Egyptian symbols.

Doofy · Oct 25, 2005, 12:45 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

I was? No. Doofy did you understand what I posted?

<checks IQ>
No, sorry Kev, much too hidden a meaning for me.

<checks IQ again, gets reading over 60>
Wait, no. I understood it.

Warung · Oct 25, 2005, 12:47 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

I think it may be in Warung's best interest to stay out of such discussions from now on.

I mean anyone can make retard sounds and post emoticons.

Pfff. You're such a fu<kin' loser.

Running outta arguments, eyh? Of course you're having a ball ganging up on somebody. Really suits a spineless little twit like you.

Doofy · Oct 25, 2005, 12:48 PM

Originally Posted by Warung

Uhhhuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

Note to self: Warung doesn't understand the basics of relative movement between two objects. Remember not to post such complicated matter in the future.