Yeah and there's only one that turned the world upside down and causes so much debate today.... Jesus Wonder why that is?
From the exact same site.... Errors in Graves' book: Due either to carelessness, or the primitive knowledge of religious history in the late 19th century, it appears that Graves made some errors in his book. He reported that: Both Krishna and Yeshua were born on December 25. Actually, Krishna is traditionally believed to have been born during August. The festival Janmashtami is held in honor of this birth. The birth day of Jesus is unknown, but is believed by many to have also been about August during some year between 4 and 7 BCE. December 25th was chosen for Christmas to coincide with a pre-existent Pagan Roman holiday, Saturnalia. December 25th was also recognized in ancient times as the birth day of various other god-men such as Attis and Mithra. All were linked to the winter solstice, which occurs about DEC-21. Jesus' and Krishna's mothers were holy virgins: Actually, the virginal state of Mary when she conceived Jesus is a matter of debate. Paul and the author(s) of the Gospel of John appear to directly reject the concept. The author of the Gospel of Mark appears to have been unaware of it. The authors of Matthew and Luke accepted the belief. Christians today are divided. The virginal state of Devaki is also a matter of debate. One tradition states that Krishna was her eighth child. Another states that it was a virgin birth: "In the context of myth and religion, the virgin birth is applied to any miraculous conception and birth. In this sense, whether the mother is technically a virgin is of secondary importance to the fact that she conceives and gives birth by some means other than the ordinary....the divine Vishnu himself descended into the womb of Devaki and was born as her son Krishna." 11 Jesus' and Krishna's mothers had similar names: Miriam (Mary) and Maia In reality, Krishna's mother may have been referred to as Maia, but only because this is the Hindi word for "mother." His mother's actual name was Devaki; his foster mother's name was Yashoda. If you are going to use those sites to prove your point, maybe you better read them yourself first.
anyways...all these attacks on Christianity still dont change the fact of the original point of this thread...that you believe nothing exploded into everything and then that everything for no reason magically rearranged itself. You've gotta come up with something more credible than that if you want everyone to become atheists. I wonder why atheists believe in such nonsense in this day & age of technological advancement?
The popularity of a religion or idea has nothing whatsoever to do with its veracity. Indeed, in terms of logic, Christianity is indeed bankrupt. An "empty" wallet, if you will.
Yeah...no logic whatsoever. Things like honoring your parents, not killing people, not stealing, not having affairs with your neighbors wife...those are all outdated morals. No logic in adhering to those old pesky rules when its so much fun and puts so much a feeling of power in your hands when you can break rules like that. Very empty wallet.
Paul and john reject the concept? that would be news to millions of Christians... Care cite the passages.
i think education is winning out over superstitious beliefs. all that is required is for your generation to die off: Atheism is the fastest growing religious identity in America Posted by Joshua Claybourn on 18 March 2006 | 12 responses The San Antonio Express-News reports the following: A study done by the Graduate Center of the City University of New York found that the percentage of the population that describes itself as ânonreligiousâ more than doubled from 1990 to 2001, from 14.3 million to 29.4 million people. The only other group to show growth was Muslims. . .
Yeah... things like honoring your parents.... Luke 14: 26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. Matthew 10: 34. "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law." The Bible is full of such reprehensible examples for killing offending tribes, stealing their property and taking their wives for pleasure. Why would you use preposterous biblical fairy stories which contain such vile hatred, contradiction and ridiculous superstition as a basis for determining moral standards?
This is yet another example of people who haven't a clue or understanding, taking text out of context.
If you mean not having a clue or understanding is to condemn the Bible for what it says and not be an apologist for the thing in attempting to defend the indefensible, then so be it. Do you likewise consider the actual words text and descriptions in Mein Kampf are taken out of context by people who haven't a clue or understanding when they condemn that book for what it says ? It would be every bit as straightforward and logical for you to be an apologist for those words too, should you ever try to defend and justify being a Nazi.