If you want to buy red roses this week in Saudi Arabia, you'll have to hit the black market, reports BBC News:Saudi authorities consider Valentine's Day, along with a host of other annual celebrations, as un-Islamic. In addition to the prohibition on celebrating non-Islamic festivals, the authorities consider Valentine's Day as encouraging relations between men and women outside wedlock - punishable by law in the conservative kingdom.
With a ban on almost all things red, young lovers are having to get creative and to sneak around to observe the tradition. Flowers are being delivered under cover of night. It all sounds terribly romantic.
Of course, if you hate Valentine's Day and want to go someplace where you face almost no pressure to produce a teddy bear, here's your vacation destination.
Reader Comments ( Page 5 of 5)
61. Not for anything, but why would Saudi Arabia promote Valentine's Day given the fact that it is originally a Christian holiday and they are a predominately Islamic country? St. Valentine, anyone?? I happen to love Valentine's Day and really could not care less whether they celebrate it or not. I am still going to enjoy the day.
D at 4:57PM on Feb 12th 2008
62. The "problems" you mentioned do nothing to explain away the martyrdom of 11 of the disciples for their testimony that they SAW (not believed - big difference) Jesus raised from the
dead. Where are the eyewitness martyrs for Horus?-DAVE
Dave,
First of all, it is very probable that these "eyewitnesses" were aware of the Horus cult. Remember, Jesus and his immediate followers lived in Hellenized times. Greek culture revived the Horus cult in 200 AD, as the Greeks conquered through to Babylon they spread the greek culture like wildfire. Hence Paul's teaching of the "mysteries" ( a well known Greek and Egyptian cult of secrets.
Secondly those martyrs you mentioned were not killed for their testimony that they saw a risen Jesus.
Stephen in acts 7 does not mention the resurrection befre he is stoned, only that he had a vision of the son of man sitting on the right hand of god.
Upright Jacob informed Paul of rumors that he was telling the Jews not to circumcise the children or observe mosaic customs. (acts21:21) He was to refute theses rumors in public at the temple where a riot started. He was also accused of bringing uncircumcised pagans to the temple. He eventually is jailed in Rome and nothing of a death is mentioned
Paul's gospels have no essential connection with Jesus at all. A few facts mentioned in his letters mention him born from a normal Jewish woman and a descendant of King David. He never mentions the place date or time of the crucifixion.
The first person to mention the deaths of Peter and Paul was the Bishop of Rome, Clement. He never mentions martyrdom, nor a risen Jesus. He wrote in 95 AD, about 40 years after Paul died. Go look it up in 1 Clement (Chapter 5)
Acts of Peter mention his crucifiction in 200 AD
He was probably killed by Nero after the great fire of Rome for which Nero blamed the Christians.
I don't have too much room to even mention the others
A little criticism on Mcdowell's book
He is a literalist fundamental evangelical, enough said but lets move on...
McDowell argues for "apostolic authority'' as a criterion for inclusion of New Testament books.
What does this mean? If it means that some books SEEM more authoritative than others, that you accept the books that agree with the doctrines that you have already accepted.
Clearly authority did not come from god since a bunch of bishops picked and choose which books were to be canonized 300 years after the death of Jesus.
All four gospels are anonymous, being given their present names, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John by church tradition. Even ancient church leaders who agreed that "John'' was the name of the author of the Book of Revelation disagreed about whether it was John the son of Zebedee, or a John the Elder. So there is no authority there.
And the mere fact that different sects accepted and canonized different gospels is enough evidence to debunk their authority.
I recommend you read history books based on facts like politics, culture to better understand the birth of Christianity and the urgency of bringing about the Kingdom of God to liberate the oppressed from Roman rule. Enough said
goddess1prevail at 12:18AM on Feb 13th 2008
63. OOOPPPSSS
The Horus cult was revived in 200 BCE, not AD
goddess1prevail at 12:19AM on Feb 13th 2008
64. goddess... Same old same old. Liberal spin and (as usual) incomplete and purposefully so. The book of Acts does mention the resurrection (see Acts 2:24; 25:19), and the Horus parallels are slightly curious but hardly definitive. By the way, Stephen wasn't one of the 11, James was (martyred in Acts 12), and Paul didn't write a gospel. He wrote several epistles however, and saying that they have no "essential connection to Jesus" is the most ridiculous nonsense I've ever heard. I doubt even someone as revisionist as Susan Jacoby wouldn't laugh at that. Paul claims that he received his commission DIRECTLY from Jesus, both in Acts and in Galatians. He speaks of Jesus more than 200 times in his epistles, and speaks of the resurrection of Jesus on a great many occasions in them. There is also no "upright Jacob" in Acts 21 - the quote you mentioned is attributed to "they", meaning the apostles.
If these myths you mentioned were as definitively pervasive as you assert, then more leftist revisionists like yourself would be trumpeting them. There is also far less than consensus on just how Hellenized Jesus or any of his followers were (as you also assert without doubt), nor is there any evidence whatsoever that the apostles were predisposed to religious revolution prior to the resurrection of Jesus. Apart from the historicity of the resurrection, nothing of what they did after Jesus' death makes any sense whatsoever. You arrogantly just dismiss what even many skeptics still struggle with. Please, you're just not that smart. A little humility, even false humility, would go a long way in helping others outside of the "choir" you preach to, take you seriously.
Let's think of some of the revisions your ilk has tried... Jesus didn't really exist at all. O.K. He did, but He never claimed to be divine. O.K. scratch that, Jesus didn't really die, He "swooned". Wait, He DID die but the body was stolen. Wait, the body wasn't stolen, Jesus was resurrected spiritually and not physically (must I go on?). If there was such a good explanation to the resurrection then why are books still being written today trying to come up with new explanations? You'll go to any length to avoid the most likely truth - that the New Testament is a narrative of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus and of the early church, as told by people who sincerely believed what they were writing.
The biggest problem that you have is that many millions claim to have a personal relationship with Jesus (where is that in the Horus legends?). But apparently you have no problem convincing yourself that you're just so much smarter than they all are. Methinks thou dost protest too much. You can joust all the windmills you like, the Christian church is not going away just because someone as "brilliant" as yourself tells them they just don't know what they know that they know.
You're dismissive attitude of McDowell, who has probably 50 IQ points on you, tells me you're also a smug loudmouth. Any of the authors I mentioned would eat you for lunch within 5 minutes in a debate. I don't agree with someone like Ehrman, another leftist revisionist, but I don't dismiss him as if I were smarter than he. Your statement that McDowell "is a literalist fundamental evangelical, enough said" displays a kind of arrogance that tells me immediately you're not a scholar, you're a drone for a cause. By the way so are Colson, Stroebel, and Lewis. Smarter than them too? I've dealt with telemarketers, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Amway salespeople - you're not a whole lot different. What you AREN'T is an effective protagonist for a serious position.
That you're so interested in breaking down someone else's faith tells me a lot what a sad life you must have. I could care less about what goddess you believe in, nor do I go posting on neo-pagan sites challenging their foolishness. Dwell in darkness. Your self-serving guesses that you call facts will only last as long as your heart beats - then you'll know the truth. As it is you have the praise of the ignorant. Have fun with that.
Don't bother replying to me, I won't be back. But my guess is that in your megalomania you won't be able to resist showing others more of your propagandist "facts". But the real fact is that you post all over the place (and all the time) the same nonsense, which tells me that you really need a life and whatever your beliefs are, they obviously ain't working so well. You can keep them to yourself - I don't want to end up with as pathetic a "life" as you must have.
By the way, I've seen more than 30 kids, teenagers and adults converted to Christ in my church in just the last few weeks. A lot more to come as the church is growing phenomenally. How are your numbers going with the whole goddess thing? Sleep well.
Dave at 2:54AM on Feb 13th 2008
65. If these myths you mentioned were as definitively pervasive as you assert, then more leftist revisionists like yourself would be trumpeting them. -DAVE
I'm not speaking of any leftist revolutionists, I'm speaking of Linguistics specialists, archeologists, and those that study Egyptology religion such as Gerald Massey who discovered the Horus cult in the Luxor Temple 1700 years before Christ. They don't trump since it is not their intention to debunk the bible. They are more intrested in the history than "PROTESTING"
The cult of Horus was a representative of the movement of the sun, hence no witnesses needed for the resurrection of Horus since the resurrection was the representation of the suns rising and settling in the sky. The myth story birth, baptism, temptation, disciples, death and resurrection was to explain these astrological movements, not to take them literal.
If you read Gerald Massey's 12 books of Egyptian religion you will understand the whole bible a lot better than you think you do now.
There is also far less than consensus on just how Hellenized Jesus or any of his followers were (as you also assert without doubt), nor is there any evidence whatsoever that the apostles were predisposed to religious revolution prior to the resurrection of Jesus. -DAVE
What ? The fact that the whole torah was translated in Greek and most of the New Testament is written in Greek is a testament of how the culture had infiltrated Jewish tradition and thought.
Justin Martyr had to defend his religion to those of Greek culture who were very well aware of the plagiarized story;
"When we say that he, Jesus Christ, our teacher, was produced without sexual union, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into Heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those who you esteem Sons of Jupiter."
Justin Martyr said "He was born of a virgin, accept this in common with what you believe of Perseus."
The gods he mentioned along with Dionysius the god who turned water to wine were also mythological stories that explained the astrological movements of the sun through the sky. their attributes were also added to the Jesus story and passed as truth.
Apart from the historicity of the resurrection, nothing of what they did after Jesus' death makes any sense whatsoever.-DAVE
When the torah was translated into Greek, the new Hellenized culture saw a need to "force the end" so the kingdom of god would be installed. No where in the history of the Jews did the urgency become so great. Yahweh's covenant was to be eternal and those ZEALOUS for the law implemented a movement to force the end. When Jesus failed as the messiah a new plan was needed to bring this end, thus the resurrection was the next step in implementing this promised kingdom that was slowly declining since the Assyrian conquest.
By the way, I've seen more than 30 kids, teenagers and adults converted to Christ in my church in just the last few weeks-Dave
Your personal attacks are empty words. This is an adult board where adults blog their positions. I'm entitled to mine as you are yours. I speak of my findings and opinions here or with grown adults within my circle of friends. I don't spread my beliefs on the young minds like you do. That is sad, really sad and you do a great injustice to the mind of these young children who would believe any fairy tale you tell them. That is why they are the "usual targets" of your religion. And that is why your religion still exists. If these young minds weren't tampered with Christianity would soon fade away.
goddess1prevail at 10:35AM on Feb 13th 2008
66. 64. goddess... Same old same old. Liberal spin
xx
wow. your god belongs to a political party?
Clif Kuplen at 2:19PM on Feb 13th 2008
67. I don't think religion has come anywhere near establishing the existence of jesus, his disciples or saul of tarsus. The first order of business would be to establish that angels actually do dance on the head of a pin before arguing about bra sizes. There are a couple of convincing jesuses in the Talmud and another in the Qumran scrolls and a florid history of mithra-like deities with centuries of tradition built up around them.
Clif Kuplen at 2:31PM on Feb 13th 2008
68. Haa Haa The critics of my comment Really Believe in
MYTHS! Jesus, GOD, Garden of Eden, The Flood, Noah's
Ark.. that the earth is 4,000 years old?
Well.. DUM DUM TWIDDLE DE DE
They can believe in all the Stupid Stuff they want!
"BELIEF" IS SIMPLY "FAITH IN THINGS NOT PROVEN"
SCIENCE RULES! NOT RELIGIOUS PHILOSOPHY!
Chandler Yergin at 1:50PM on Apr 6th 2008