Why is the history of JESUS, HORUS, MITHRA, and, KRISHNA so god damn similar?

[Ausinus]

Simple, because religion is derivative ^_^

[Walter Weiss]

Educated responses only please.

Is not some sort of divine birth a commone denominator?

Were these stories not written by men?

Some clergymen will say things like GOD is like a radio transmitter, transmitting a divine message. Clergymen are like the radio receiver, and they receive the message and teach it to man kind. They will cite that the reason there is other religions, is because the "radio receivers" in thos particular situations are not well tuned to the only correct station for them to hear, so they only receive bits and pieces to work with. This is a form of propaganda, is it not?

EACH religion will in some way proclaim themselves to be the only TRUE religion. By having similarities written into their propaganda, it is easier to recruit men and women and children away from a particular religious camp they already support. They are already wacked out with it, and supplying profits to the master....recruit them away from a competitor, so that you now can enjoy the profits from the wacked-out cash cows. Shear numbers equal power. Shear numbers directly impact profit. Shear numbers control electoral processes. Shear numbers create or topple the very kings of the Earth. Shear numbers provide harems, slaves, armies, labor forces, massive assets to convert, people from different cultures and countries to conduct propaganda experiments upon. Shear numbers are the ultimate power sources for any power-crazed king.

People in general might just consist of SHEEP....SHEPHARDS.....WOLVES....there is not much else I would not think.

You have to ask yourself what you feel you need or want to believe, or what is logical to believe, and what acts should or should not be committed in the name of your God. You can very easily become a tool of another....either wittingly or unwittingly.

Propaganda and organized religion work hand in had, so one has to be careful of what one studies. One can become a pawn or a cash cow in someone elses "divine criminal plan for profit and power." People have been slaughtered in the name of religion in connection with these activities. A real paradox. Man will worship a God and give praise to that God as the source of life, and then at the same time, Man can be induced to litterally torture and KILL all those who refuse to worship the same way.

The concept of "faith" could sometimes be descirbed as the ability of one to allow himself to believe or perceive some subject matter as absolute truth without ever having come into contact with suitable evidence or information that would logically indicate the subject matter to be accurate.

The concept "faith" could in some cases be described as "brainwashed."

The concept "faith" could also be described as, or to contain all the requisite acts and beliefs, of the concept "loyalty."

"Faith" is the hinge-point at which Mankind can be induced to accept certain propaganda, and be induced to carry out certain acts. "Heil, Mein Fuhrer"...."blessed be the Pope"....."I belive in comrade Mao with perfect faith"....."Hurrah Stalin"..."Jesus is the Lord"......"Follow Jim Jones"......"let's sacrifice a baby to the devil"......."Kill the infidel"......

"Faith".....is it a pre-requisite to establishing fanaticism?

The reality of the universe is that there is some viewable evidence of "creator activity," because many things are found to be so "mathematically perfect" in many respects in the universe; as if they were created and produced according to the planning and execution of a very capable and knowledgable being or entity. There is an architecture of sorts that is viewable in some subject matter connected with items and objects and elements in the universe. Logic, in it's purist form, is probably the only "true" path when studying as to whether or not a creator exists, what the creator actually is, what the creation actually is, and how the universe and life actually came into being, and whether or not there is a "soul" that is immortal.

You are a thoughtful poster....can you tell us more about your views and questions?

[Limbo]

Yeshua (jesus) and Krishna were called both a God and the Son of God.
Both was sent from heaven to earth in the form of a man.
Both were called Savior, and the second person of the Trinity.
His adoptive human father was a carpenter.
A spirit or ghost was their actual father.
Krishna and Jesus were of royal descent.
Both were visited at birth by wise men and shepherds, guided by a star.
Angels in both cases issued a warning that the local dictator planned to kill the baby and had issued a decree for his assassination. The parents fled. Mary and Joseph stayed in Muturea; Krishna's parents stayed in Mathura.
Both Yeshua and Krishna withdrew to the wilderness as adults, and fasted.
Both were identified as "the seed of the woman bruising the serpent's head."
Jesus was called "the lion of the tribe of Judah." Krishna was called "the lion of the tribe of Saki."
Both claimed: "I am the Resurrection."
Both referred to themselves having existed before their birth on earth.
Both were "without sin."
Both were god-men: being considered both human and divine.
They were both considered omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.
Both performed many miracles, including the healing of disease. One of the first miracles that both performed was to make a leper whole. Each cured "all manner of diseases."
Both cast out indwelling demons, and raised the dead.
Both selected disciples to spread his teachings.
Both were meek, and merciful. Both were criticized for associating with sinners.
Both encountered a Gentile woman at a well.
Both celebrated a last supper. Both forgave his enemies.
Both descended into Hell, and were resurrected. Many people witnessed their ascensions into heaven.

Dubya's Revenge,

I am disappointed to see you are spreading misinformation from the likes of Acharya S on this subject. It never ceases to amaze me when some blogger thinks they have fallen upon something that completely discredits Christianity after 2000 years.Something missed by legitimate scholars for close to 20 centuries.

Actually, Christian missionaries arrived in India in the 5th and 6th centuries, and it has been acknowledged by scholars that the copying is by hinduism from Christianity. Of course religions touch on similar things. That is what, by definition, makes them religions (after life, the nature of God, etc).

You are not as informed as you think you are.

[MrJim]

Dubya's Revenge,

I am disappointed to see you are spreading misinformation from the likes of Acharya S on this subject. It never ceases to amaze me when some blogger thinks they have fallen upon something that completely discredits Christianity after 2000 years.Something missed by legitimate scholars for close to 20 centuries.

Actually, Christian missionaries arrived in India in the 5th and 6th centuries, and it has been acknowledged by scholars that the copying is by hinduism from Christianity. Of course religions touch on similar things. That is what, by definition, makes them religions (after life, the nature of God, etc).

You are not as informed as you think you are.

I hate to break it to you (since you seem committed to church), but every form of science and common sense break the back of what you are saying. Rather than buying into fundamentalism, you should try to understand the way the world (and universe) works... you will find all of your answers this way.

[Limbo]

I hate to break it to you (since you seem committed to church), but every form of science and common sense break the back of what you are saying. Rather than buying into fundamentalism, you should try to understand the way the world (and universe) works... you will find all of your answers this way.

I actually have spent a great deal of time trying to understand how the world works. I have a masters degree in computer science, and am an avid student of the history and philosophy of science.

My point, which you seem to have side stepped by using a personal attack, albeit subtle, is most of the items on that list are pure BS (after all this IS bullshit.com), others are a product of the fact that the hare krishna followers, especially in the west, have included some concepts from Christianity to help proselytize in western countries. Other items are just laughable, like both being from royalty. Jesus was born in a barn into poverty, unlike Krishna. Also, Joseph was not Jesus' father. Jesus is, according to Christians, God. Not one of many gods, like Krishna. These concepts are radically different.

Some other minor differences, Krishna was said to have had over 16,000 wives, fought in wars, and killed his uncle, to name but a few.

Let's make this simple. Please list the source(s) of that list. Original sources please. Not Acharya S, Higgins, Graves, or their ilk. Of course, they believe that some grand conspiracy of early Christians destroyed the evidence, or some such nonsense, and that's why there isn't any. But if you can find the original sources, I'm all ears (or should I say eyes)!

What exactly has science and common sense broken the back of? Please be a little more specific.

[something]

It never ceases to amaze me when some blogger thinks they have fallen upon something that completely discredits Christianity after 2000 years.Something missed by legitimate scholars for close to 20 centuries.

thoose things aren't the ones that discredts christianity.

[Limbo]

thoose things aren't the ones that discredts christianity.

Ah, I see you are from that center of enlightenment called Europe. Most Europeans have indeed turned their backs on God, and in so doing have become the dodo birds of the human race and will be extinct soon based on current birthrates. Most Europeans think that they have become so smart that they don't need God, and that somehow, the existence of God has been disproved by science.

I am so thankful my ancestors left Europe a long time ago. Europeans have lost their way after centuries of killing each other in senseless wars, and now are entering into an equally senseless period of abandoning all their traditional beliefs uncritically.

But anyway, getting back to the topic at hand, I will wait patiently for the source(s) of that list, but I won't hold my breath.

[something]

Ah, I see you are from that center of enlightenment called Europe. Most Europeans have indeed turned their backs on God, and in so doing have become the dodo birds of the human race and will be extinct soon based on current birthrates. Most Europeans think that they have become so smart that they don't need God, and that somehow, the existence of God has been disproved by science.

I am so thankful my ancestors left Europe a long time ago. Europeans have lost their way after centuries of killing each other in senseless wars, and now are entering into an equally senseless period of abandoning all their traditional beliefs uncritically.

But anyway, getting back to the topic at hand, I will wait patiently for the source(s) of that list, but I won't hold my breath.

I agree with you. Most europeans have turned their backs on god.

But no, science hasn't disproven god, neither the opposite.

So you want me to say what I think discredits Christianity? Have you ever read the bible? It contians over 300 direct contradictions and is the bloodiest literature on earth.

Sure you can blame this on: out of context (Wierd thou, it could be, but in many cases it's just a bunch of rules), wrong version (So wich is the right one? They all contain fallacies anyway), just symbolic (It never says that it is "just symbolic", and what is it symbolic of then? And how do we know what's symbolic and what's not?)

Yea, that pretty much covers it.

[Limbo]

I agree with you. Most europeans have turned their backs on god.

But no, science hasn't disproven god, neither the opposite.

So you want me to say what I think discredits Christianity? Have you ever read the bible? It contians over 300 direct contradictions and is the bloodiest literature on earth.

Sure you can blame this on: out of context (Wierd thou, it could be, but in many cases it's just a bunch of rules), wrong version (So wich is the right one? They all contain fallacies anyway), just symbolic (It never says that it is "just symbolic", and what is it symbolic of then? And how do we know what's symbolic and what's not?)

Yea, that pretty much covers it.

That would cover it I suppose if you could spell out those contradictions and if they were convincing. Can you give us some examples? I have seen lists of these supposed contradictions, and they have about as much credibility as the list of similarities between Krishna and Jesus. I have seen people making a big deal about the old testament saying things like "insects crawling around on all fours". Insects mostly have 6 or 8 legs. Big deal. Who really cares about such things. The bible is not meant to be a book on insects, or botany, or whatever, it is a book about the nature of God. Without nitpicking into insignificant details, the basic message of the bible is clear and consistent.

The history of mankind is violent and bloody, is it not (is Europe any exception)? Was Jesus' message not one of non-violence and love? Jesus spoke only in parables in public, so nothing can be taken literally. I don't think it is impossible to sift through and figure out what is literal and what is allegory, or metaphor.

Anyway, religion is a personal choice. If God came down and started blasting people with lightning bolts in plain sight, of course we would all believe. That would be a violation of the free will God has given us. He has set it up that we can believe or not believe. It's our choice.

[something]

That would cover it I suppose if you could spell out those contradictions and if they were convincing. Can you give us some examples? I have seen lists of these supposed contradictions, and they have about as much credibility as the list of similarities between Krishna and Jesus.

I'll give you one:

Matthew and Luke both talk about the story and the birth of Christ. Matthew never says anything about Nasareth, or anything, he said they lived in Bethlehem. Later they go to egypt to escape king Harred.

Luke how ever said that they live in Nasaret, and that they had to go to Bethlehem. cause of taxes, or something else, depends on the version. Any way, they have to go to this town, by order of Agustus Ceasar, through the governer of Syria.

Now here's the problem. This thing they had be at, happend 6 AD, if it came from agustus ceasar. it is documented. Ceasar wasn't in control of Judea untill 6 AD. But it seems logical, he takes control, and he wants all the people to pay taxes.

And Matthew says that when king Harred gets to know about this birth, he decides to kill all the first born males, to get waste of this new king of Israel.

You see? King harred died 4 BC, and this is well known and documented and accepted, so they CAN'T BOTH BE TRUE.

I've already brought this one up once. I can give you more.

I have seen people making a big deal about the old testament saying things like "insects crawling around on all fours". Insects mostly have 6 or 8 legs. Big deal. Who really cares about such things. The bible is not meant to be a book on insects, or botany, or whatever, it is a book about the nature of God.

Then why is it in the bible in the first place then? If the bible is to describe the nature of God, but can't even be right on what bats are or how many legs an insect have, then why should it be right about how God is. And it doesn't give us a clear picture either.

Without nitpicking into insignificant details, the basic message of the bible is clear and consistent.

It isn't wrong about details. Entire genesis is false, and a lot of other things are just directly wrong.

The history of mankind is violent and bloody, is it not (is Europe any exception)? Was Jesus' message not one of non-violence and love? Jesus spoke only in parables in public, so nothing can be taken literally. I don't think it is impossible to sift through and figure out what is literal and what is allegory, or metaphor.

Yes the history of mankind is bloody, Europe especially I may say, and Jesus message was allright I guess. But why is only good stuff right and bad stuff wrong?

God could be a bastard, the bible shows both sides of him, we can't pick one without assuming stuff. Sure we can use common sense to know what's right and what's wrong but there's still nothing that says that god has any common sense.

Anyway, religion is a personal choice. If God came down and started blasting people with lightning bolts in plain sight, of course we would all believe. That would be a violation of the free will God has given us. He has set it up that we can believe or not believe. It's our choice.

And if we choose the wrong thing we're damned for eternity?

You know, free will is a theoretical impossibility with god. Without aswell for that matter.