Control

oceanbreeze · #11 (**permalink**) 09-17-2007, 07:42 PM

I googled couldn't really find anything except this;

The News and Tribune - Religious billboards along I-65 pulled after protests

theyellowresistance · #12 (**permalink**) 09-17-2007, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oceanbreeze

I googled couldn't really find anything except this;

The News and Tribune - Religious billboards along I-65 pulled after protests

Try in and around dallas texas.

Skinny Fatts · #13 (**permalink**) 09-17-2007, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theyellowresistance

Lets see. Jesus christ was born of a virgin as was Set on the 25th of december. Set had 12 deciple type beings. He was betrayed by one of them and was wrongly prosecuted. 3 days after his death sentence he was ressurected to save man kind.

All of this was invented long before Jesus and it was mostly based on astrology. The only legitimate sources of Jesus being a historical figure speak of "christ" which translates into "the annointed one", which means the one who has been smeared or rubbed with oil, typically in a religious ceremony. For all you know this "christ" could have been a greased up roman.

There are many good arguments against Christianity, but this isn't one of them.

theyellowresistance · #14 (**permalink**) 09-17-2007, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skinny Fatts

There are many good arguments against Christianity, but this isn't one of them.

Saying that is meaningless unless you state why you feel that way. I see nothing that isnt a good argument.

Skinny Fatts · #15 (**permalink**) 09-17-2007, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theyellowresistance

Saying that is meaningless unless you state why you feel that way. I see nothing that isnt a good argument.

Chrisitianity does not have to be unique in order to be true. Parallel circumstances have no bearing on core doctrine. For instance, the dating of Christmas, the use of wedding rings, the use of incense in worship, etc. were borrowed deliberately. They have nothing to do with doctrine or the general belief system.

Set, as you seem to know, was the Egyptian god of chaos, worshipped as early as 3200 BC...and maybe even 5000 BC. He was a god that went through periods of extreme popularity and unpopularity in Egypt, depending on the beliefs of the prevailing ruling class. At times Set was sometimes worshipped as a god representing individual consciousness, but during other periods Set was looked at as being a god of evil, violence, and hostility. In yet other renditions, Set killed Osiris, and was in the business of stealing dead people's souls in the underworld (creepy stuff there). I do wonder if you confused Set with Osiris, who was purported to have been resurrected (but not really).

Your claim then is that this was a precursor to Christianity? Based on a birthdate, 12 people, and a resurrection that is not recognized by the modern day Temple of Set?

As was stated earlier, there are many other good arguments against Christianity.

theyellowresistance · #16 (**permalink**) 09-17-2007, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skinny Fatts

Chrisitianity does not have to be unique in order to be true. Parallel circumstances have no bearing on core doctrine. For instance, the dating of Christmas, the use of wedding rings, the use of incense in worship, etc. were borrowed deliberately. They have nothing to do with doctrine or the general belief system.

Set, as you seem to know, was the Egyptian god of chaos, worshipped as early as 3200 BC...and maybe even 5000 BC. He was a god that went through periods of extreme popularity and unpopularity in Egypt, depending on the beliefs of the prevailing ruling class. At times Set was sometimes worshipped as a god representing individual consciousness, but during other periods Set was looked at as being a god of evil, violence, and hostility. In yet other renditions, Set killed Osiris, and was in the business of stealing dead people's souls in the underworld (creepy stuff there). I do wonder if you confused Set with Osiris, who was purported to have been resurrected (but not really).

Your claim then is that this was a precursor to Christianity? Based on a birthdate, 12 people, and a resurrection that is not recognized by the modern day Temple of Set?

As was stated earlier, there are many other good arguments against Christianity.

Frankly, Set was often times known as a kind god. I dont think its possible that the same story should be told about two different deities and the latter one to not be based on the earlier. Meanwhile I'm perfectly fine, even agreeing with many of the ideals of christianity at its base. I just feel that Jesus was made into a "historical" figure purely with the purpose of gaining contol over people.

In addition to this the temple of set is an offshoot of satanism which is purely for the purpose of freaking people out.

Skinny Fatts · #17 (**permalink**) 09-18-2007, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theyellowresistance

Frankly, Set was often times known as a kind god. I dont think its possible that the same story should be told about two different deities and the latter one to not be based on the earlier. Meanwhile I'm perfectly fine, even agreeing with many of the ideals of christianity at its base. I just feel that Jesus was made into a "historical" figure purely with the purpose of gaining contol over people.

In addition to this the temple of set is an offshoot of satanism which is purely for the purpose of freaking people out.

That's cool. You are free to believe what you wish. And you are quite correct in that some denominations use Christianity, Jesus, the Bible, etc. as a way to gain control over people. But the Bible does not command that people be controlled so that is a "people" problem and in no way reflects on the validity of Christianity's truth claims, and neither do parallel stories from other religions. I guess that's really my point.

theyellowresistance · #18 (**permalink**) 09-18-2007, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skinny Fatts

That's cool. You are free to believe what you wish. And you are quite correct in that some denominations use Christianity, Jesus, the Bible, etc. as a way to gain control over people. But the Bible does not command that people be controlled so that is a "people" problem and in no way reflects on the validity of Christianity's truth claims, and neither do parallel stories from other religions. I guess that's really my point.

However it must be realized that much of the bible was edited out or changed for normally one reason. These books were often times less believable and therefore removed in order to make christianity easier to spread and use to their advantage.

Skinny Fatts · #19 (**permalink**) 09-18-2007, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theyellowresistance

However it must be realized that much of the bible was edited out or changed for normally one reason. These books were often times less believable and therefore removed in order to make christianity easier to spread and use to their advantage.

I don't think the evidence supports that contention. You stated that "much of the bible was edited out or changed...". I am curious as to which parts...?

CrankyYankee · #20 (**permalink**) 09-18-2007, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skinny Fatts

I don't think the evidence supports that contention. You stated that "much of the bible was edited out or changed...". I am curious as to which parts...?

The bible is a collection of things that were floating around out there.
Yellow is correct in stating that it has been heavily censored over the centuries. Whole books were left out as the religious heavies of their day excerted influence to make their personal belief into "truth."

The bible does command adherence to the commandments, etc.
So there is a level of population control inherent in it.