RE: Mu (Was Re: CT article: Darwinists, not Christians, stonewalling the facts)

From: Glenn Morton <glennmorton@entouch.net>
Date: Sun Apr 03 2005 - 18:29:30 EDT

Ok, I will take full responsibility for starting it up again. Why, I am
not sure. What the punishment is, I am not sure.
 
 To me, the question I asked is a real, valid question. Without some
grounding in REALITY, there is NO way to know that these scriptures are
THE Scriptures. All religions ask us to have faith in their vision of
theology. The way one becomes a muslim is simply to believe that Allah
is the only god and Mohammed is his prophet. Simple faith. The way
most protestants say one becomes a christian is faith in Jesus as Lord
and savior. To become a Mormon, one must have faith that the book of
mormon is telling you the way.
 
Historical information is not enough to know whether or not a set of
scriptures is THE Scripture. From our perspective, we can't prove the
resurrection. All we have is some support for it. And clearly the
resurrection itself is not so persuasive as to have converted the entire
Roman empire who suddenly said, Wow, that guy got up from the dead!.
Thus, the evidence for the resurrection, even in the First Century is
not a logical necessity.
 
While the resurrection may be the foundation of the Christian faith, it
can't be the foundation for knowing that THIS religion is THE religion.
My complaint is that your approach ultimately rests on fideism which
excludes the possibility that other religions might be the true
religion. That is why I say that the more liberal approach is doing the
same as the YEC--never risking the possibility that the entire show
might be false. Only by risking that, do we have a chance of determining
its truth. For instance, there are many other resurrection religions
Horus, Attus, Mithra, Zoroaster, etc.
Here is what zoroaster taught:
 
--Zoroaster was born of a virgin and "immaculate conception by a ray of
divine reason."
--He was baptized in a river.
--In his youth he astounded wise men with his wisdom.
--He was tempted in the wilderness by the devil.
--He began his ministry at age 30.
--Zoroaster baptized with water, fire and "holy wind."
--He cast out demons and restored the sight to a blind man.
--He taught about heaven and hell, and revealed mysteries, including
resurrection, judgment, salvation and the apocalypse.
--He had a sacred cup or grail.
--He was slain.
--His religion had a eucharist.
--He was the "Word made flesh."
--Zoroaster's followers expected a "second coming" in the virgin-born
Saoshynt or Savior, who is to come in 2341 CE and begin his ministry at
age 30, ushering in a golden age.
 
And Mithra
 
Mithra of Persia

--Mithra was born of a virgin on December 25 in a cave, and his birth
was attended by shepherds bearing gifts.
--He was considered a great traveling teacher and master.
--He had 12 companions or disciples.
--Mithra's followers were promised immortality.
--He performed miracles.
--As the "great bull of the Sun," Mithra sacrificed himself for world
peace.
--He was buried in atomb and after three days rose again.
--His resurrection was celebrated every year.
--He was called "the Good Shepherd" and identified with both the Lamb
and the Lion.
--He was considered the "Way, the Truth and the Light," and the "Logos,"
[Word] "Redeemer," "Savior" and "Messiah."
--His sacred day was Sunday, the "Lord's Day," hundreds of years before
the appearance of Christ.
--Mithra had his principal festival on what was later to become Easter.
--His religion had a eucharist or "Lord's Supper," at which Mithra said,
"He who shall nto eat of my body nor drink of my blood so that he may be
one with me and I with him, shall not be saved."
--"His annual sacrifice is the Passover of the Magi, a symbolical
atonement of pledge of moral and physical regeneration."

     Furthermore, the Vatican itself is built upon the papacy of Mithra,
and the Christian hierarchy is nearly identical to the Mithraic version
it replaced . . .
. . . Virtually all of the elements of the Catholic ritual, from miter
to wafer to altar to doxology, are directly taken from earlier Pagan
mystery religions.
the above from http://www.geocities.com/inquisitive79/godmen.html#mithra
 
 
 
Is he, Zoroaster or is Jesus the one? This is a really important
question that you wipe off the table by simply starting out by ruling
this kind of question out of bounds or never really addressing it. This
is why I raised Mu, this is why I talk about how both YEC and Libs tend
to play the same game, never risking the discovery that the whole game
might be a pseudo-theological joke from the 5th century BC. You don't
ever address the real issue about WHY I look so hard at Genesis. It is
the only place I can find that one has any hope of answering the above
question, or at least getting some indications of an answer.
 
Maybe the question isn't interesting to you, but that doesn't mean it
isn't very vitally important. I am convinced from the anthropic
principle that the odds are really good that someone created this
universe so that it could evolve. I am also convinced that something
very much like us would have been evolved if you played it again (This
is Conway Morris' view). But the question is, which, if any of the
multiple gods did it? I have faith in Jesus, but then, I have deluded
myself before by believing in YEC.
 
It doesn't seem enough to answer this question simply based upon the
religion my mother had (my father was an atheist). Nor does it seem
valid to answer it based upon my own conversion experience. One can
have an experience smokin dope or chewing mushrooms. And I know how easy
it is for me to delude myself--after all I was a publishing YEC writing
much nonsense. It would be very easy for you or me to fool ourselves
into believing that we are in the correct religion when we are not. My
view of genesis is an attempt to allay Pauls concern about if CHrist be
not risen, then we are most to be pitied.
 
I do share one thing with AiG. If a god is clueless about how the world
is created, then he isn't THE God. You won't consider that question
because you start with the fideist position that this IS the God and
work from there. I don't. this question of God's cluelessness is why
Genesis is so important.
 
As to your view of Genesis, you do pick and chose what is historical.
You have told me several times you don't accept talking snakes. If the
snake ain't real, then he is something like: allegorical or poetic, or
deeply meaningful. But if that is so difficult to accept, why is a
risen savior so easy to believe? It seems easier for a snake to talk
than for a brain without oxygen for 3 days to talk again. Your approach
is a terrible ad hoc methodology as far as I am concerned. Heads the
Christianity wins, tails all other religions lose.
 
But then, the YECs play the same game. Heads the Bible wins, tails
science loses.

-----Original Message-----
From: George Murphy [mailto:gmurphy@raex.com]
Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2005 4:22 PM
To: Glenn Morton; 'asa'
Subject: Re: Mu (Was Re: CT article: Darwinists, not Christians,
stonewalling the facts)

OK Glenn, you started it up again. I have NEVER said that scripture is
"unreal" even in the sense in which you use the word. I have ALWAYS
insisted that scripture contains historical information. In particular,
it contains historical information which provide reasonable support for
the claim that Jesus of Nazareth lived, was crucified and was raised
from the dead.
 
That is the foundation of Christian faith. It does not mean that
Genesis or any other part of scripture is irrelevant but the historical
truth of early Genesis is not the article by which the church stands or
falls. Your arguments, on the other hand, give the impression that you
share with AiG the belief that Christianity is based on the historical
truth of Genesis. Only the cartoons are missing. It's misleading to
suggest that the basic difference between us is that you think scripture
speaks of what's real and I don't. The difference is really more about
what's of primary importance.
 
& please stop suggesting (as below) that my view of Genesis is that it's
"allegory." It isn't. Rich F e.g., thinks Genesis is to be read as
allegory & you can argue with him about that, but it isn't my view.
 
Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

----- Original Message -----
From: Glenn <mailto:glennmorton@entouch.net> Morton
To: 'George Murphy' <mailto:gmurphy@raex.com> ; 'asa'
<mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2005 9:22 AM
Subject: RE: Mu (Was Re: CT article: Darwinists, not Christians,
stonewalling the facts)

And the serious question is: How do we know that the Scripture isn't the
funniest pseudo-theology every published?
 
 
That is why it must be real. If it there isn't reality in it, it is
pseudo-theology. And one thing the laity, who accept YEC are telling us,
is that REAL trumps so-called 'truth' in human psychology. That is why
they reject the allegorical approach and why they reject science.

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of George Murphy
Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2005 2:11 PM
To: Glenn Morton; 'asa'
Subject: Mu (Was Re: CT article: Darwinists, not Christians,
stonewalling the facts)

I said Glenn could have the last word this time but I would be cheating
others on the list if I didn't point out to others on the list that the
Mu books to which he referred are some of the funniest volumes of
pseudo-science ever published. (Most things of that sort are pretty
dreary.) If you have a chance to get James Churchward's The Lost
Continent of Mu (Paperback Library, 1968 - 1st published 1931) cheaply,
don't pass it up. It has wonderful scholarly footnotes like "Greek
Record" and a drawing of "An Ancient Maya Tablet" that looks remarkably
like a gumball machine.
 
Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
Received on Sun Apr 3 18:31:32 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Apr 03 2005 - 18:31:32 EDT