₦airaland Forum

What are you burbling about you buffoon?

What have Biblical references got to do with this subject?

As for concrete references? You're a joke. On one hand you insinuate that Mohammad Amin al-Husayni had nothing to do with Nazism, on the other you admit that he did, but only because he was protecting Palestine. Which way do you want it, slowpoke?

Hmmm, what was al-Husayni protecting Palestine from? Oh yes. The Jews. So who was actually siding with Hitler to advance the Holocaust? Could it have been the Islamic mufti? I think it was.

You're such a fool.

Oh look:

https://axis101.bizland.com/TurkistaniCollection01.jpg

A Muslim SS insignia. "Allah is with us"?

Of course, I made that up didn't I? Nothing that you disagree with is real is it? Here's the page it comes from. But I guess, even though it's a purely militaryt website, it's some lying Atheist/Christian agenda isn't it?

http://axis101.bizland.com/EasternVolunteers1.htm



Man, you're dumb.

As some here seem to be to lazy to open links:

It is sometimes said that Hitler was a believer in God and specifically that he was a Christian or at least was brought up as a Catholic. After all, weren’t most Austrians, certainly in the late 19th century, nominally Catholics? And what about the frequent references to “God” and “Providence” in his speeches, or to immortality, or the quasi-religious imagery of Nazism?

In contrast to his adult life, relatively little is known about Hitler's childhood and upbringing, and what we do know sheds only dim light on his religious persuasion. His mother was apparently a pious Catholic, according to Hitler's biographers, but Hitler’s own connection with the church during his early youth was not strong. We know he attended a nearby monastery for singing lessons, probably at his father’s behest (Ian Kershaw, Hitler: 1889 – 1936 Hubris, WW Norton, 2000), and that the young Hitler was impressed by the grandiose architecture of great churches. It can reasonably be said that, because of the region in which he was brought up, and the religious faith of at least one of his parents, Hitler was nominally a Catholic. Among his biographers, however, none assert that the boy was even baptized, although it is likely, and there is no evidence of any particularly strong religious element in his upbringing or of feelings of faith like those held by his mother.

So much for Hitler’s early life. What about his attitude to religion and the Church later on? In Mein Kampf (1925) Hitler criticized the Catholic Church in its political form, which he said failed to recognize Germany’s and Europe’s “racial problem”. His Party Charter for the nascent Nazional Sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiter Partei demanded in Article 24, in contrast to strong Christian control of German’s spiritual life, “complete freedom of religion” (in so far, of course, as that was not a “danger to Germany”) (William Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Arrow, 1991). Indeed, the official “Nazi Party Philosopher”, Alfred Rosenberg, (later to be hanged at Nuremberg), appointed of course with Hitler’s consent, was totally opposed to Christianity. However, Hitler the politician was also aware that to achieve power he would need to win votes from the Catholic Centre Party and could not afford total alienation.

Upon attaining office and enjoying a free hand, what line did Hitler take on religion and the Church? Five days after becoming Chancellor in 1933, Hitler allowed a sterilization law to pass, and had the Catholic Youth League disbanded (Shirer, The Rise). The latter was a measure applied to other youth organizations too, in order to free up young people to join the Hitler Youth. At the same time, Hitler also made an agreement with the Vatican to allow the Catholic Church to regulate its own affairs. (It is probably worth noting here the low value that Hitler placed on written agreements.) Parents were pressured to take their children out of religious schools. When the Church organized voluntary out-of-hours religious classes, the Nazi government responded by banning state-employed teachers from taking part. The Crucifix symbol was even at one point banned from classrooms in one particular jurisdiction, Oldenburg, in 1936, but the measure met with fierce public resistance and was rescinded. Hitler remained conscious of the affection for the Church felt in some quarters of Germany, particularly Bavaria. Later on, though, a wartime metal shortage was used as the excuse for melting church bells (Richard Grunberger, The Twelve Year Reich, Henry Holt, Henry Holt, 1979 and Richard Grunberger, A Social History of the Third Reich, Penguin, 1991).

Hitler’s references to providence and God and the ritualistic pageantry of Nazism were more than likely pagan than Christian. Earthly symbols of German valour and Teutonic strength were to be worshipped - not the forgiving, compassionate representative of an “Eastern Mediterranean servant ethic imposed on credulous ancient Germans by force and subterfuge” (the phrase is Burleigh’s own, in Michael Burleigh, The Third Reich: a New History, Pan, 2001). A Hitler Youth marching song (Grunberger, A Social History) illustrates it:

We follow not Christ, but Horst Wessel,
Away with incense and Holy Water,
The Church can go hang for all we care,
The Swastika brings salvation on Earth.

(Horst Wessel was an early Nazi party Sturmabteilung street-fighter murdered by communists and turned into a martyr by propaganda chief Josef Goebbels.)

The SS were particularly anti-Christian, and officers and men were encouraged to leave the Church, although those that refused to renounce their Christian faith were not visibly punished, perhaps because their otherwise faithful adherence to SS codes of behaviour gave the lie to any claim of true Christian affiliation. The SS also brought in its own neo-pagan rituals for marriage ceremonies and baptisms.

At this time then, the only alignments between Nazism and Catholicism were the Church’s perceived anti-Semitism and anti-communism, and an abhorrence of abortions by healthy pregnant German women (although Hitler did diverge from the Church once again in 1939 when he authorized the medical extermination of mentally and physically handicapped children). As the war progressed and the Wehrmacht gained control of large parts of the Soviet Union, the question of the suppressed Russian Orthodox Christian sects surfaced. Hitler’s response was to leave them to their own devices “so they can beat each others’ brains out with their crucifixes”. He also had contempt for European Protestants: “as submissive as dogs” (Shirer, The Rise). In the debate about his spiritual leanings, Hitler is also sometimes alleged to have flirted with the occult, although in fact it was far more a passion of Himmler’s. For instance, Hitler loathed astrologers. Others close to him, such as Goering, were also dismissive of Himmler’s obsession with the supernatural and Hitler would no doubt have enjoyed Goebbels' joke, during one clampdown on eccentric religious types, that it was “odd that not a single one [of a group of arrested clairvoyants] predicted he would be arrested”. Goebbels would later try to rally Hitler in his bunker at the end of the war with astrological charts predicting victory but Hitler was still unmoved.

At times, Hitler was more pragmatic about religion: “If my mother were alive, she would definitely be a churchgoer, and I wouldn’t want to hinder her. On the contrary, you’ve got to respect the simple faith of the people”. If Hitler was motivated by a supreme being, or convinced that his success was providential, it is hard to see that he was referring to the same God worshipped by Christians. These elements of his orations were dramatic and poetic figures of speech, and the immortality he stood for was of the earthly type, in which heroic legends and monumentalist architecture alone would preserve a great name or event for generations. This analysis stands entirely apart from the actions committed in Hitler’s name which shatter any pretence of Christian leaning. In conclusion, it is reasonable beyond doubt to say that Hitler was not at any stage of his life a Christian.


The author of this article is an agnostic

@chakula.

I've known about that site for years. Unfortunately, it is very unreliable. Unfortunately, the rabid atheism there means that it's about as truthful as the rabid Christian and Islamic fundamentalists who post here - ie: not at all.

1) There is no proof that Hitler was ever baptised.

2) Monastry schools were the norm back in his time so that's nothing unremarkable. Every kid went to them.

3) True he may have been an alter boy but so what? That bears absolutely no relevance.

4) He never wanted to be a priest. I've a copy of Mein Kampf. I've read it. Nowhere is a yearning to be a priest for religious reasons mentioned. The passage you're referring to has been taken out of context. What Hitler is referring to there is the architecture of church buildings. He wanted to be a priest so he could spend time admiring the architecture.

5) Not true either. Dozens of edicts against Hitler and Nazism were issued from the Vatican. As for the Church wanting rid of the Jews? No. They were far, far too worried about the Communist threat to give a damn about wanting the Jews dead.

I also have a copy of Inside the Third Reich. I've read it. Have you? You've so far quoted two books that sit on my book-shelf but I feel that you have no idea of their contents. Goering and Gobbels were to remain in the Church so that they could help to control it. Why do you think Hitler had to order them to remain? Wouldn't that indicate that they wanted to leave?

As I've stated, religion was a tool. Hitler needed to control it so that he could control the masses. To suggest otherwise shows no knowledge of history or fact.

vedaxcool:
so bastooge is into forgery of photo. look at the second photo, how the mufti is hardly sitting down, now look at the 1st picture : do they look like muslims, a capital no.
now also like at the third picture how are we sure they are not British, man quite this forgery of history. i do not know the holy ghost? is pushing you to lie

I'll state it yet agqain so that even an ignorant illiterate fool like you can understand - I am not a Christian.

Now to address your accusations of forgery:

You are a total and utter slowpoke. Mohammad Amin al-Husayni's relationship to Nazism is well documented. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to embellish or falsify anything regarding that relationship.
If you want to deny fact and history, that is fine. You already do it where religion is concerned anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni

Read the page you ignorant buffoon. Or is Wikipedia a Christian tool?

vedaxcool:
So lame brain come up with some thing good and better still Answer why Hitler was doing the service of Christianity by murdering the Jews instead of obfuscating the question this has alwayus been you people strategy.

It's already been refuted or can you not read?

@Mudley313

[img]http://www.choiquehobbies.com.ar/revista/notas/kodat/kodat01.jpg[/img]

Above is a photograph of a unit of the Arab SS Legion.
Does that mean that Islam supported Hitler and is responsible for the Holocaust?
Of course it doesn't. Without context, the picture is meaningless.

The Mufti of Jerusalem and President of the Supreme Muslim Council, Mohammad Amin al-Husayni, was an ardent supporter of Nazism and even went about actively recruiting Muslims to fight in the German army during World War II. He became very close to the Nazi leading circle and conducted radio broadcasts and recruitment operations for them during the later part of the Second World War.

Mohammad Amin al-Husayni and Hitler.
https://www.knowledgerush.com/wiki_image/4/47/AlHusayniHitler.jpg

Mohammad Amin al-Husayni and Bosnian Muslim SS trooper.
https://www.knowledgerush.com/wiki_image/4/44/Al-husseini-soldier.jpg

Does that mean Islam was responsible for Hitler and the Holocaust?

Quite simply, the answer is no. Hitler was a genocidal maniac who had no respect for any religion.

Mudley313:
well, the title of the thread is "hitler and christianity" and you went all gung-ho in your response in an attempt to distance CHRISTIANITY from hitler, but these pictures seems quite contrary to one who had such "distaste for the church", according to your argument.

That's pure fabrication and a totally crass argument. I can show you a photograph of Robert Mugabe standing next to the Queen of England. Does that mean Mugabe loves white people?
Without context, your photos are totally and utterly worthless.

oh i see. now i know how you guys get down. it's okay to renounce your faith and roll with the devil as long as there's a gun to your head. pretty interesting

Again, a crass argument. If you've a gun against your head, you'll renounce anything. To say otherwise is pathetic.
Also, it's not my faith. Why do you assume so? Simply because I renounce your ignorance on the subject? Everyone who disagrees with you must be a Christian, right? Wrong!!.

what's your point? this only corroborates the intent of the thread starter, its title "hitler and CHRISTIANITY" and OP. i thought "priest" and "chaplains" are offices and positions in CHRISTIANITY or did the german army also have imams and sango priest too? i didn't think so

Wrong on two points there. Firstly, the Chaplains were appointed by the Army, secondly there were Imams in the German Army. There were specific Muslim/Arab SS units.
Really. You need to study before opening your mouth and spouting drivel.

in regards to "this thread", the pictures really didn't need any supporting argument to buttress the point of the OP

Just because you state that twice does not make it any more truthful.

Nothing against your claims (i think the OP even kinda pointed that out in the bolded below), but next time try n read the OP to be sure of what exactly the argument is or should be on about

I'm fully aware of what the topic was about. I refuted the connection between Hitler and Christianity. You posted photos that you claim show Nazis (not Hitler) and Christian priests.

Even though you deviated from the OP I have refuted that argument also.

Mudley313:
they say a picture is worth more than a thousand words. . .and the words in this your rebuttal doesn't come close to a thousand talkless of 2

No they don't. Apart from the fact that one is named eugeniopacelli (who was Pope Pius XII) and it is not of him, put the pictures into context.

As Cardinal Secretary of State, Pacelli signed a Concordat between Germany and the Vatican at a ceremony in Rome on 20 July 1933. His pontificate began on the eve of World War II. In the 1937 encyclical Mit brennender Sorge, drafted by Pope Pius XII when he was still a cardinal,[48] Pope Pius XI denounced Nazism and breaches of the Reichskonkordat. Read from the pulpits of all German Catholic churches, it has been described as the first official denunciation of Nazism made by any major organization.[49] Nazi persecution of the Church in Germany then began by "outright repression" and "staged prosecutions of monks for homosexuality, with the maximum of publicity."[113] When Dutch bishops protested against the deportation of Jews, the Nazis responded by deporting Jewish converts, including Edith Stein.[49]

In Poland, the Nazis murdered over 2,500 monks and priests while even more were sent to concentration camps.[113] The Priester-Block (priests barracks) in the Dachau concentration camp lists 2,600 Roman Catholic priests.

Well over half of Europe put their hands up in a Nazi salute. They had a gun to their head. Did you expect the Church to be any different? Also, who are the priests in the second photo? The Germany Army had it's own "chaplains" - so called priests appointed by the Nazi regime.

Post your photos by all means, but at least have the courtesy to add some sort of argument with them. The fact is, you can Google and easily find out what Hitler's relationship with the Churches and Christianity was like. As I stated, he hated both. And I say that without being a Christian.

The proof is in history. Not in a couple of photographs.

Tell me fool, who am I a slave to?

My god?
To men?

No. But you fall foul in both categories.

And as for being paranoid? No. I have no need to defend my god from the attacks of others. I have no need to promote my god. I am totally comfortable with my god and it doesn't worry me one iota wether or not you attack him or accept him.

You claim to have faith but the only faith you have is in the words of men. There can be no shallower faith in existence.

Next time you're cowering on the floor in the mosque, ask yourself why the imam leading the prayers knows more about your god than you do.

I pity you.

You are totally wrong.

Hitler hated Christianity because he hated the Churches. He saw them as having a control over the same people that he wanted to control. He used Christianity as a tool to further his own ends but his own personal beliefs were probably a hotchpotch of  paganism.

http://www.bede.org.uk/hitler.htm

If you wish to take this subject further, I am prepared to debate it with you.

LMAO. I believe in dogma!!??

You couldn't be any more incorrect.

In fact, I'd say it's the other way around - idiots like you are so dogmatic, you're condemned to a life slurping up to other men who feed you what you believe.

As for being a slave? Again - you're the slave. You cowtow to a god given to you by other men. You don't have the will or the brains to seek out any truths for yourself.

Islam is even more of a joke than Christianity or Judaism.
You whinge on about this mythical Christ figure who never physically existed and state that he was a prophet. No. He was never a prophet because he didn't physically exist. Christians get it wrong, you get it even more wrong.
You play Chinese Whispers with religions and then insist that your version at the end of the line is the correct one. What a joke!!

Seriously, you guys make me laugh.

None is denying that. The
Pagan Arabs had a "moon-god". But, they also had hundreds of other gods so why the "moon god".

*sigh* Because the "moon-god" was the god of the Kaaba.
Funny that you should mention that Judaism has a lunar calender, the same as Islam. Bit of a coincidence there, don't you think? Not content with stealing the Old Testament and rewriting it, Islam kept the bits that it liked.

Islam is no different from Judaim or Christianity in that it begged, borrowed and stole gods, rituals and doctrine from other earlier religions. Only blind, brainwashed fools see otherwise.

Allah is no more perfect than the Jewish Yaweh or the Christian Jesus. It's a concept created by men to control other men, encompassing all the dogma that's needed to retain that control. All you do when you preach that rubbish is help to enforce the control that you are already blindly chained to.

Welcome to the World of Slavery of the Mind.

Horus:
The Christian church murdered, tortured, mutilated and destroyed millions through the Inquisition and indirectly through all of the wars they incited.

No. You're making the classic mistake of fudging History.
Of approximately 150,000 trials, it's reckoned that about 3000 people were put to death.

As for the wars they incited? Debatable. The Crusades were responsible for the deaths of many but it's open to question wether the were all instigated by Christianity. Certainly there were instances of Islamic provocation.
Also, many of the figures you will find are clearly inflated. For instance, the Albigensian Crusade which wiped out the Cathars is sometimes stated to have claimed a million lives. The truth is, there weren't even that many people alive in the Languedoc area where the Cathars were based back then. The whole of France itself would have probably had a population of no more than 15 million.

That's not to say that Christianity or religion in general hasn't been responsible for many deaths. But compare it with Stalin's Red Purge in Russia, Mao's Revolution in China and Hitler's World War along with the many other conflicts that have been fuelled by nothing more than greed or politica and you will see that the playing field is pretty level.

People are people. They don't always need religion to destroy their fellow man.

vedaxcool:
To accuse muslems that they worship a "moon -god" is not only insane but shear stupidity why? simply because no where in the Qur'An or hadiths would you find muslim being told tto worship a "moon-god" and more importantly muslins -{unlike xtians whom (most) worswhip jesus }- do not claim to worship a moon god so no matter how hard a you pagans (ja-goat sorry cross and the author of that lame web page) claim we worship the whatever the burden of proof rest with you.

LOL. Muslims make me laugh. They crow on about thier unique religion, yet the whole thing has been lifted directly from Judaism with a little bit of Christianity and paganism thrown in as well.

You want "proof"?

# Moon worship has been practiced in Arabia since 2000 BC. The crescent moon is the most common symbol of this pagan moon worship as far back as 2000 BC.
# In Mecca, there was a god named Hubal who was Lord of the Kabah.
# This Hubal was a moon god.
# One Muslim apologist confessed that the idol of moon god Hubal was placed upon the roof of the Kaba about 400 years before Muhammad. This may in fact be the origin of why the crescent moon is on top of every minaret at the Kaba today and the central symbol of Islam atop of every mosque throughout the world:

About four hundred years before the birth of Muhammad one Amr bin Lahyo , a descendant of Qahtan and king of Hijaz, had put an idol called Hubal on the roof of the Kaba. This was one of the chief deities of the Quraish before Islam. (Muhammad The Holy Prophet, Hafiz Ghulam Sarwar (Pakistan), p 18-19, Muslim)

# The moon god was also referred to as "al-ilah". This is not a proper name of a single specific god, but a generic reference meaning "the god". Each local pagan Arab tribe would refer to their own local tribal pagan god as "al-ilah".
# "al-ilah" was later shortened to Allah before Muhammad began promoting his new religion in 610 AD.
# There is evidence that Hubal was referred to as "Allah".
# When Muhammad came along, he dropped all references to the name "Hubal" but retained the generic "Allah".
# Muhammad retained almost all the pagan rituals of the Arabs at the Kaba and redefined them in monotheistic terms.
# Regardless of the specifics of the facts, it is clear that Islam is derived from paganism that once worshiped a moon-god.
# Although Islam is today a monotheist religion, its roots are in paganism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubal

Allah might not be a moon god now but he almost certainly started out as one. Throw in a bit of Yaweh the Storm God, mix him up with a bit of control and fear and you've got the deity who all the Muslims worship today.

vedaxcool:
Yes brother islam has brought many good things namely
1. it liberated the women of arabia from the idolatrous bondage that made having daughter as a curse hance leading to their premature death.

Yes. Women are so liberated in Islam. That's why they're treated like second-class citizens.

2. It enancipated slaves by encouraging their masters to show them kindness release them not only that the Islamic govt. used money to free slaves.

Yes. It used money to free slaves. It now calls them "maids". They work in the same conditions as the slaves of history. And "real" slavery still exists in Islamic sub-Saharan Africa.

3. Islam banned alcohol which was and still a leading cause of social problems.

Yes. And instead started dealing in heroin. Islamic countries are the main providers and users of heroin. Pretty big social problem I'd say.

4. Islam brought the first regular tax that was used in fighting poverty

Yes. The rich got even richer whilst the poor got even poorer. Oil states with booming economies where the rich drive around in Ferraris and Rolls Royces whilst the poor can't even feed themselves.

5. And many more which I shall be discussing with time

Pray do discuss them. I need more laughs.

Fuadudeen:
What is islam? Litrrly,its is derived 4rm d word salam which means peace.

I started to read but when I came across your first sentence, I realised that you are talking total bull.

The word Islam is a verbal noun originating from the triliteral root s-l-m, and is derived from the Arabic verb Aslama, which means "to accept, surrender or submit."

It has nothing to do with the word "Peace". It is more akin to the word "Slavery".

Jenwitemi:
Unfortunately, you cannot just discard the OT just like that out of inconvenience, because it is still very much part of the christian ontology, no?

You are totally and utterly wrong. The OT can be discarded.
How do you think Islam was formed? It took the OT and then discarded the bits it didn't like and kept the bits it did. Christianity itself did the same when Protestantism came into being.
Christianity was (and is) an evolving religion. On a daily basis, doctrines are either reinterpreted or reaffirmed.

To say otherwise shows absolutely no knowledge of the subject.


As for the inquisitions (yes, they were plural, you fools) - again, we have people who have no knowledge of the subject using it to attack Christianity. Most who use them do not even know that there were four of them, that they were localised or what they entailed.
The inquisitions were[b]not[/b] about religion. They were about political power and economics. It should also be noted that they were not a worldwide or even pan-European event and had little effect on the spreading of Christianity or on it's doctrines. They were not used to "spread" Christianity. They were used to stamp out comparitively small populations of "heretics" whom the churches (along with the political leaders of the time) viewed as being a threat to their own hegemony.

I also laugh at the fact that people try to use examples of atrocities that are between 500 and 800 years old to state that Christianity is a violent religion today. If that were the case, you are tainted as a murdering child molestor because your monkey anscestors probably raped and killed other monkeys when they were living in the trees!!!

History has uses. But it does not always have a use to justify an argument when things have clearly moved on in the mainstream.

chakula:
Encyclopedia International: “The doctrine of the Trinity did not form part of the apostles’ preaching, as this is reported in the New Testament.” 6

Wether you believe in the Trinity or not, that statement is complete bunkum.

Matthew 28:19 (King James Version)
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

Whichever way you look at it, that is the epitomy of the trinity forming a part of the apostles' preaching.

nopuqeater you make me laugh.

Christ is only a prophet in Islam because he appeared in the pages of the Christian Bible. Islam then takes this fictional character and says "Oh they got it wrong. He didn't really do that".

It's like me picking up a copy of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. Saying that it's a true story and then rewriting it to say that they never fell in love. Then going round and telling everyone that my version is the correct one.

Utterly ridiculous!!


As for the topic. Forget wether or not Christ was real. What is at hand here is wether or not the Bible depicts a crucifixion. It does. The writing, the symbolism and the evidence from the other religions that Christianity copied from, mean that crucifixion was the method of execution depicted.
One huge giveaway is the description of not breaking Christ's legs. It would not have been mentioned unless he was crucified.

Mudley313:
i soon figured the so-called christians will rather resort to christ-like personal insults, its why i decided to play it their way.

I will only address this for a moment:

You are wasting your time and if you try to fight fire with fire, any post you make will be a waste of time. Neither atheist, agnostic or fundamentalist will see any sense in your posts. All they will see are the insults.
You cannot beat fundamentalism with harsh words. In fact, you cannot beat it with logic as most are so blind that they do not want to see. But logic and reasoning is the best weapon in the armoury that you have. It does them the most damage. As I said earlier, without it, you end up looking no different from them.
Insults aren't going to get you anywhere. Sure, it's nice to give a broadside now and again, but they should be used sparingly. Many here know that to destroy your argument, all they've got to do is get you to lose your temper. That way, any sense that you have written is hidden in a cloud of condemnation.

Deep Sight:
In 70 years there could be three generations if you consider a generation as a general age-group. This is demonstrated by the fact that a seventy year old person can easily have a son who also has a son. THREE GENERATIONS.

True. But read the context which it was written in - "it began to circulate long after jesus' death". I doubt very strongly he meant it in the vein that you have put it in. Anyway, the gospels were probably circulating in some form very shortly after the supposed date of the death of Jesus.
They were very likely taken from the pre-dating "Q" source. Prior to that, there was almost certainly an oratory tradition. This would place them very shortly after 1AD and well within one generation rather than three.

He didn't say it was Egyptian. If you read again carefully he said it was the egyptian version of the myth.

As far as I know, there is no Egyptian version of the Mithraic Mysteries predating Christianity or of any importance in it's formation. The cult was perhaps Persian based but nobody knows for sure. Modern scholars propound the theory that it was created exclusively in Rome drawing from earlier Hellenistic thought.
One should also remember (referring back to my statement about the "Q" source and the oratory tradition) that Mithraism does not seem to have been practiced until 80AD - after the formation of Christianity.

@ Mudley - by the way, Mithra is said to have emerged whole from a Rock: not born of a virgin.

Heh. Give him his due here, Mithras was born out of the Earth - "solo aestu libidinis". Basically "Born without sex". As no human influence was involved it could be said to be a Virgin Birth although not born out of a virgin as those who like to use it as an argument against Christianity would have others believe.

Mudley is often muddled up. But I will for my part pardon him because the bizzarre claims of many religions (particularly the christian faith) are quite enough to excercise any person's patience or sanity.

Just a few minutes of reading his posts and I'd have to agree with you. He states that Rhea Silvia (the mother of Romulus and Remus) was put to death. In fact, tradition has it that her life was spared and that she went on to marry the god Tiberinus.
He also states:

The most prominent ofsuch theme during the time and location in which Jesus lived was the mythology surrounding Romulus, the founder of Rome

No. Look up the birth of Isaac. Although not strictly speaking a virgin birth (his mother was sterile) this would have been far more a prominent of such a theme in the time and location where Jesus lived. The people of Palestine might have been under Roman administration but they practiced Jewish tradition. Abraham was the founder of Judaism and his son Isaac, the product of a miraculous birth. No suprise then that Jesus should be the product of a miraculous birth too as the so-called founder of Christianity. Roman influence wasn't needed.

Mudley313:
it began to circulate long after jesus' death (i think, about 3 generations after) as a result of the natural progression of the "mythology" surrounding jesus.

You didn't listen in class then. Mark is thought by scholars to have been written within 60 to 70 years of the purported time of Jesus' death. That's hardly 3 generations.

Another common virgin birth mythology, known to many people in the 1st century, is the egyptian version from the Mithras cult.

Again, you didn't listen. The Mithraic cult was not Egyptian. It was Roman.

Much of what we understand today as Christian traditions were actually Mithraic traditions.

And you know this how? Scholars know very, very little about the Mithraic Mysteries. There are a few conjectures that some rituals and elements crossed over but in no way can your statement stand as true. The fact is, so little is known about the Mithras Cult, there is no way of knowing exactly what Christianity adopted.

So. After a quick perusal (you don't warrant more than that) three glaring mistakes in your rebuttal. And I'm meant to take you seriously?

Heh!! I can tell you that intellectually and on the topic of religion, I dwarf a "person" such as yourself. So actually, on this subject, you would almost certainly be the "retard".

All you have is what's been spoon-fed to you and then you repeat it parrot fashion ad infinitum. At the end of the day, you are no different from a Christian fundamentalist - just another ignorant, blinkered fool.

And your sarcasm? Hmmm, I think that's basically an excuse for yet more ignorance. You used the Virgin Birth as an example of the weakness of the Christian doctrine yet you have no clue what it actually means or from whence it originated. Claiming sanctuary in the realms of sarcasm only shows that you have nothing meaningful to reply with.

I have to add though that Christians comprise less than 20% of the world's population, so their view of creation is by no means the majority view

And the number of Christians who believe in Creationism and reject Evolution is probably less that that. Remember, even the Pope stated that Evolution was a viable theory. It's only those who blindly follow scripture with no recourse to logical thought who cling to the idea that Evolution is false.

Evolution is a myth, if we came about thru evolution then why did it stop when we became humans?

What one should also remember is that the pace of human evolution has slowed drastically.
Science is based on measurement but evolution has come to a crawl so it is very difficult to measure. Prior to the modern age, man had to adapt to his surroundings. Now man adapts the environment to his needs. This makes measurement almost impossible and explains why evolution has slowed down.

Basically, mankind has weeded out the majority of natural selection - the major factor in causing and therefore measuring evolution.

Mudley313:
seriously tho, christians are retarded

Seriously tho, I would say that you are giving the impression that you are severely retarded.
The questions you ask are pathetic and show no knowledge of scripture.

I'm not even particularly religious but even I can see that you're talking rubbish and asking pedantic, silly questions which are either based on ignorance or are just looking for an argument. Your whole reason for being here seems to be just to denigrate Christians with absolutely no thirst to learn from thier replies.

If you studied scripture, religion and history, you'd be able to work out the reasoning behind the myth of the Virgin Birth. The ridiculous statement that the god had to impregnate another man's wife because he couldn't find one for himself, just shows how little you actually know about theology.
And if you don't know about a subject, it's best that you keep your mouth shut instead of trying to condemn it. Only with knowledge can you argue. Otherwise, in your own words, you just look retarded.

Mudley313:
the bible god is most definitely bothered bout the praise of men that's why he's supposedly created a mythical heaven for you guys to come praise and worship him for eternity in order to feed his overblown ego

I'd disagree. It's man who is most definitely bothered - not God. He created the religions and grew them by means of fear.
What better way to sell them than by saying "If you don't believe in our god, you will go to Hell"?

Blame man. Not God.

Top 10 Reason Why Chakula Is an Idiot.

10 - He knows nothing about Christianity yet keeps commenting on it.
9 - He follows Islam - merely a bastardisation of older religions.
8 - His lack of logic is astounding.
7 - He's trying to say that one "myth" is truer than the other.
6 - His attacking of Christianity shows him to be no true Muslim.
5 - He adheres to the line "My religion is better than yours".
4 - He pretends to speak for a god on one hand and then says nobody can speak for god.
3 - His posts are pretty much incoherent.
2 - His posts are boring. The same tired trash over and over again.
1 - People in glass houses should not throw stones.

LMAO.

Jesus didn't celebrate Christmas? What a foolish question.

Do you think he never had a Birthday whilst he was "alive"?

There's no confusion. Only in your befuddled head.

Read the Bible and it tells you that he was crucified.

All the other junk that comes after is just a reworking of the story and not worth the paper that it was written on.

Got to love the Q'ran:

"Let's take an old myth, rewrite it and pretend that our myth is fact."

Poster alexleo.

Why don't you try praying that your god will make you blind for three days?

It about as likely to happen. IE: Not at all.

13volts:
[/color].



Tom Cruise converted his family from Scientology to Islam.
"I can't believe he would do this!" exclaimed John Travolta, scientiologist, and star of Battlefield: Earth, She's So Lovely and Look Who's Talking Now, "I mean, Tom was so completely devoted to our faith! Not only that, but he just became a ninth level Xenu warrior wizard with a +3 sceptre of Psychology Debunking. How can he just walk away from all that?"
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/UnNews:Tom_Cruise_converts_to_Islam

Read it again.

Here's an equation for you.

Have you ever seen the movie "The Matrix"? Let's base it on that but change a couple of factors.

In the movie, Human Beings are used as batteries to support a robotic world. They are kept in stasis and are totally unaware of their surroundings.
Let's change a few things.

But instead of Human Beings, let's say the robots merely created a "thinking battery" - another robot. A human being is basically a machine lying in stasis programmed to believe that it thinks. As with all robots, it started from bits of metal and finishes it's life as just bits of metal.

In this scenario, although the robot itself has been created and starts from base metals (+1), the human element is merely a by-product of it's structure. It is not created as it doesn't exist. It is an illusion. Just because the human element believes that it exists, it doesn't mean that it actually does. It is merely a piece of robotic programming.

That gives us the first 0.



Then you have your Universe. The robot that thinks it's a human is lying in stasis, but the Universe that it is lying in is very real.

That gives us the +1


Then you have the "death" of the robot. As it's just a load of metal, it effectively ceases to exist once it has served it's function.

That gives us a -1


Guess what? 0+1-1=0


But hang on. The human/robot does have a purpose. It is a battery supplying life to it's robotic creators. So how can the end result be 0?
That's about as logical as your own equation.