Re: God is love.

"Andrew" <thecroft@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:2008072323493627544-thecroft@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On 2008-07-23 02:08:15 +0100, "rustynail" <aol@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> said:
>
>>
>> "Andrew" <thecroft@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>> news:2008072300552050878-thecroft@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> On 2008-07-19 18:22:56 +0100, "rustynail" <aol@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> said:
>>>
>>>>
>> <snip too long>>>
>>>> I'll grant that. It is not a direct copy.The similarities are too
close too 
>>>> ignore. Jesus/god does fit the pattern of Osiris and all the others. 
>>>> God/Jesus is a compilation of the gods that came before.
>>>> The virgin birth.
>>>> The dying a horrible death thing then coming back to life.
>>>> The way to eternal life.
>>>> Born of God so is God.
>>>> Miracles.
>>>> Power over the weather.
>>>> Power too heal sick.
>>>> Power to raise other dead people.
>>>> Was prophesied and fulfilled said prophecy.
>>>> All of this was common concepts long before the books of the bible
ever 
>>>> came along.
>>>> The literature I've posted is very convincing and those books are
only the 
>>>> tip of the ice burg. The only place you will find opposition too what
is in 
>>>> those books are from the theology world, and it's easy to see why the

>>>> opposition. It directly conflicts everything the Christian religion 
>>>> teaches.
>>>
>>> That's not entirely true. There is disagreement much more broadly than
that. 
>>> and the disagreement centres exactly around that word "concept". If
you keep 
>>> your 'concepts' broad enough, anyone can be made to sound like anyone
else - 
>>> especially if you're going to allow "compilation".
>>>
>>> For example: Napoleon
>>> Born in humble cir***stances
>>> Rose to power in unstable times in his country
>>> Gained absolute power
>>> Engaged on a programme of military expansion that captured most of
Europe
>>> Ordered an unsuccessful invasion of Russia
>>> Was defeated by an alliance of nations
>>>
>>> Using your argument I can now demonstrate that Hitler did not exist.
And, I 
>>> would suggest, the terms of description I've used are at least as
specific 
>>> as yours and I've avoided "compilation".
>>>
>>>>
>> The fact is you can not. The fact is the concept of a God or Gods is
not very 
>> broad. The faces names and cir***stances may have changed, but the
basic 
>> story and plot is timeless. Watch the movie "I am Legend" ( Will Smith
). It 
>> is based novel by Richard Matheson . That novel was made into three
movies, 
>> The Last Man on Earth in 1964, as The Omega Man in 1971, and again in
2007 as 
>> I Am Legend. None of them the same. Same concept, new story.
>
> Only because the concept the films use is very broad. It comes down to
"last 
> human alive". This, however, is NOT Matheson's concept, which was "last
human 
> survivor as monster". And this is the problem with the whole argument
here. 
> Trying to deal with 'concepts' separately from the context in which they
are 
> set comes down simply to a matter of the assumptions you want to make.
That's 
> why "The Golden Bough" is no longer taken seriously in anthropological 
> circles.
>

Original story reworked with artistic license. As who ever takes the
concept, 
that person creates what ever context the person wants to use. That IS
what the 
bible is.






>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Is the bible an actual record of god?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Corrrrrr ect
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Is the bible an actual record of events?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In parts
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Is god a trinity or a single being in a family?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> One being - 3 faces
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 'Three is more believable than one' an old saying that
>>>>>>>> possibly predates biblical times
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And the basis of that is?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Is god male or female?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then why all the 'He' said this and 'He said that ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> you mean you have it wrong?   [Had an idea you did long ago]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In English we have no way of communicating person other than
through 
>>>>>>> words that carry gender. The only a***ual pronoun we have, for
example, 
>>>>>>> is "it". We would not, however, use "it" to describe God because
it 
>>>>>>> suggests a lack of personhood. In other languages - such as Hebrew
and 
>>>>>>> Greek - it's not so cut and dried. God's Holy Spirit is feminine
in 
>>>>>>> Hebrew and neuter in Greek. The Old Testament contains images of
God 
>>>>>>> that are female - a mother giving birth, for example.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Is jesus god?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Groan
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Is the earth only as old as the bible says?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Bible doesn't say how old the Earth is
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am told it does, but not having access to the particular
>>>>>>>> chapter i must take your word for it.  Others here may not
>>>>>>>> be so kind
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Does prayer work?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you mean "is prayer a means of communicating with God?" then
Yes
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How sad
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Are prayers answered?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, but sometimes the answer is no
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the correct answer is  N E V E R
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So you say.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How many people came to see jesus shortly after the birth?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Bible doesn't say
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Was jesus in a manger still or someplace else?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Bible doesn't say
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why didn't jesus author writings?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why should he have done?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If jesus did author writings where are they?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We have no reason to think that he did
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How long did jesus stay in the grave?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2 nights. And the word is "tomb"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So the bible does cover this bit !  The son of a god and
>>>>>>>> nothing from his early years covered.  why?  because the
>>>>>>>> early myth writers didn't think about it., or if they did,
>>>>>>>> they didn't think that it mattered.  BIG MISTAKE. [ at least
>>>>>>>> to thinking people it was]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Except, of course, that there ARE early writings that deal with
the 
>>>>>>> childhood of Jesus. The proto-Gospel of James and the Infancy
Gospel of 
>>>>>>> Thomas, for example. These were not accepted by the early church
because 
>>>>>>> they were held to be purely fictional.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why are the customs of christianity so different from the
events they 
>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>> supposed to represent?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Because customs speak to people in their own places and times
using
>>>>>>>>> symbols that have meaning for them
>
>