Discussion on the FSM- keep it clean/respectful

You have your scholars and I have mine.

Yes...you have Christian scholars, believers, and I have the rest.

Now, lets get to the fun stuff!

You can't look at these mythologies and expect to see an exact carbon copy of the Christ story, it just doesn't work that way.  You need to look at the basic concepts. 

Virgin Birth = A god born of a human mother with a divine father (or vise-versa).  You can call Zeus a "dirty old god" but how is it any different than your God planting his seed in Mary?  Sure he didn't come down from heaven and consummate the relationship like Zeus, but that's only because the Romans making up their stories were more sexually liberal than the Jews making up Jesus' story!

Secondly, like the Bible and many other ancient texts, there are varying versions of each story.  Since none of them are true, who's to tell which one is the most accurate?

If you would like to take the time to read about these guys, HERE.  That's the Egyptian texts, so it deals with Horus.  Can I point you to the passages that match Jesus' story exactly?  No, of course not.  However, you can certainly find the ones that deal with him being born to both a god and a human.  You can find the passages that show his death and resurrection.  You can find the passages that show him performing similar miracles to Jesus while with his disciples. 

I am not trying to say that Jesus was a carbon copy of any of these other gods, MoS, so showing me how they are different is irrelevant.  All that matters are the similarities.  The fact that Krishna was sent from heaven in the form of a man.  He was called both a God and The Son of God.  He was called Savior and was the second person of a holy trinity.  He was visited at his birth by "wise men" who were guided by a star.  He was also considered a "god-man"...you remember that term, right MoS?  Both Jesus and Krishna were threatened by local dictators shortly after their births and in both cases an angel warned their parents and the parents fled.  Krishna performed many miracles, including curing a leper as his first miracle, just like Jesus.  And, here's the kicker, BOTH were resurrected into heaven and many men claimed to have witnessed their ascensions.

Can you point me to some significant differences between Jesus and Krishna?  Absolutely!  But the similarities are what matter.

As for his crucifixion, its a debated point.  While common scripture claims that Krishna was killed by an arrow to his foot, there are passages that certainly detail his being affixed to a tree by the feet and hands, sometimes with arrows being the tools used to nail him there.  What you have to remember about crucifixion is that it doesn't necessarily mean that they were thrown to the ground and nailed to a cross.  Throughout history, there have been many different ways to crucify someone, but the most common was tying them to a tree.

The same goes for Attis.  I don't know what your quote is going on about, but Attis was born of the "virgin" god Cybele in her virgin form Nana.  Since you used a quote from a professor an Manchester, so will I:

Providing a summary of the mythos and ritual of Attis, along with comparisons to Christian tradition, professor of Classics and Ancient History at the University of Manchester Dr. Andrew T. Fear states:

The youthful Attis after his murder was miraculously brought to life again three days after his demise. The celebration of this cycle of death and renewal was one of the major festivals of the metroac cult. Attis therefore represented a promise of reborn life and as such it is not surprising that we find representations of the so-called mourning Attis as a common tomb motif in the ancient world.

The parallel, albeit at a superficial level, between this myth and the account of the resurrection of Christ is clear. Moreover Attis as a shepherd occupies a favourite Christian image of Christ as the good shepherd. Further parallels also seem to have existed: the pine tree of Attis, for example, was seen as a parallel to the cross of Christ.

Beyond Attis himself, Cybele too offered a challenge to Christian divine nomenclature. Cybele was regarded as a virgin goddess and as such could be seen as a rival to the Virgin Mary... Cybele as the mother of the Gods, mater Deum, here again presented a starkly pagan parallel to the Christian Mother of God.

I'm not making this stuff up, my friend.  I can do this for weeks.  Again, these stories aren't true, so their accuracy can be debated ad nauseum, but the facts are pretty simple.  The stories surrounding some of these ancient gods bare enough of a similarity to the stories related to Jesus to cast doubt on his divine originality.

The reality, MoS, is that I have nothing to prove because I have taken the stance that there is no proof to be had.  You believe in your stance and believe that the proof is right there in front of you in the form of your sacred book.  I'm showing you reasonable doubt as to the validity of that sacred book, nothing more.  I'm not completely disproving its validity, just showing you that there is pretty good reason to doubt it.

Hope no one minds if i jump into the thread so here goes. I am a member of the Church of God, which is extremely strict. We are taught to be born again, live above sin and practice holiness in dress and behavior. We are not to be worldly even though we have to be in the world, if that makes sense. I have felt God's presense on occasion and am not ashamed to admit it. If you folks want to read about them i can post a couple. I have a good one from our pastor.

Welcome to the fray, Shadow!

Can I ask which "Church of God" you are a member of?  There are countless denominations of the christian faith that go by that name.  They are typically denominations of the Pentecostal, Adventist or the Anabaptist movements, are you one of those?

I gotta say this thread is pretty awesome,

Any honest debate about religion and one's own personal beliefs that actually has people on the back-and-forth in a reasonable manor is something that should not be kept simply on a message board but in their everyday lives.

Not saying that talking about religion nonstop is the thing, but the idea that your existence is limited, you have control without control, you can create yet you're not the creator and some answers might never be had is what gives a person growth in their own spirit and their own beliefs.

As for myself I'm not sure what I believe when it comes to which God to serve or what is the right way of serving him or her as it may be.

What I do know is this.

When I walk outside all that I see that is built by man could not be possible without the actual chemistry of the things that make it up. The stone in the mortar, sand in the glass and so on.

None of these thing existed at some point and then they all came to be.

My reach doesn't extend to the heavens and my sight doesn't go beyond a certain point so beyond that lies questions and answers I have yet to realize.

These are all things that were brought into being before me.

I don't know how and I might never find out.

What I do know is this.

Whatever God may be I feel closer to understanding when I'm outside enjoying and learning about the world we live in. I see it when my daughter asks me something without saying a word or every time something new and unexected comes out of her mouth or her behavior.

I believe that whatever the answer is it would be best served by treating people the way I would like to be treated, doing the things I love with enthusiasm and loving the people closest to me in my life by being there when they need me or just to be around with.

Hard work, a little discipline and a lot of want for the benefit of my wife and daughter is what I believe serves whoever created this wonderful mess best.

So as far as the bible goes and what I choose to take from it at least it serves as a decent guideline for how people should treat each other and maybe that's all that matters.

Just my 2 cents, didn't mean to get long winded.

Manosteel I am not really sure which branch we are. Our church does have a website because one of our members is a computer geek, lol. I am actually more into the sermons and lessons than the history of our denomination. Not trying to weasel out, just dont know.

Nicely said, ironman!  This thread, apparently, is all about being longwinded, so feel free to post your thoughts more often.  I take absolutely no issue with anything you said and feel very similarly myself.

Manosteel I am not really sure which branch we are. Our church does have a website because one of our members is a computer geek, lol. I am actually more into the sermons and lessons than the history of our denomination. Not trying to weasel out, just dont know.

No problem, Shadow.  My guess, based on your "strict" comment, is that you are one of the Anabaptist denominations (hopefully our Anabaptist friend STO takes no offense to that statement) but of course strict can mean so many different things when talking about religion.  Would you mind linking us to that website so we can take a look?  I like to educate myself about my enemy opponent.

I believe that whatever the answer is it would be best served by treating people the way I would like to be treated, doing the things I love with enthusiasm and loving the people closest to me in my life by being there when they need me or just to be around with.

Didn't really ever think of Chuck Bednarik and the word eloquent simultaneously ... but here it is .. thanks for the comments ironman !


MoS

Yes...you have Christian scholars, believers, and I have the rest. ... are you in sales ?  According to world survey, there are at least 4 times as many believers than non or atheistic.  This means you and your adherents (all the rest) qualify for about 1/4 the piece of pie.  I have the rest qualifies top grades for misdirection, but does nothing the strengthen your position.

"You can't look at these mythologies and expect to see an exact carbon copy of the Christ story, it just doesn't work that way.  You need to look at the basic concepts."

"I am not trying to say that Jesus was a carbon copy of any of these other gods, MoS, so showing me how they are different is irrelevant.  All that matters are the similarities."

"Can you point me to some significant differences between Jesus and Krishna?  Absolutely!  But the similarities are what matter

Mano,  you seem to believe that, in order to be true, Christianity must be unique. This is utterly incorrect - if anything, the precise opposite is the case. If Christian doctrine were strange and deviant and had no similarities at all to that of other religious systems, it would be more likely to be a weird, aberrant construct, not less.  So the very truth here is commonness between Christianity and other religions is not to be based on similarities, but on actual core belief comparisons and at that point your illogical comparative breaks down.  The two separate and distinct groups believe in common points of contact for very different reasons. And these points of contact between Christianity and other religions are damaging to Christianity's truth claims only if actual borrowings can be proven - not if the parallel features have simply sprung from the same psychological source common to all humans - that is, from the innate religious instinct which Christians regard as a gift of God. You know, similar to the innate instincts you and our friend R2 have promulgated many times in past posts here on the FSM !

I cannot think of a single case in which Christianity can be shown to have borrowed a core doctrine from another religion, can you ? This does not include minor borrowings which everyone admits, but Mano, you as an ex Catholic, can you find one instance where a core value of Christianity is a mimic of another religion.

None of the attempts made by you to demonstrate that Christianity is false because it contains alleged pagan elements is credible or convincing.

MoS

Mano, I'll get back to you on our conversation in a few days, Lord willing - I only have time for a quick comment.

Regarding your repeated statements that "it is only the similarities that matter" when contrasting Christianity with other religions... depending on your measure of DNA, you may range anywhere from 98.2% to 99.7% the same as a woman.  If it is only the similarities that matter you might be a chimpanzee, since you share about 98.7% of the genetic makeup there.  So, does the fact that you are a chimp (or a woman, your choice) explain why you feel the way you do about organized religion?

Or do the little things, like a 0.3% to 1.8% difference in DNA, actually matter?  If my body is broken down to its basic elements I am closely related to a small pool of sludge, yet I feel so much more important than that


The devil is in the details, Mano!

Yes...you have Christian scholars, believers, and I have the rest. ... are you in sales ?  According to world survey, there are at least 4 times as many believers than non or atheistic.  This means you and your adherents (all the rest) qualify for about 1/4 the piece of pie.  I have the rest qualifies top grades for misdirection, but does nothing the strengthen your position.

Not misdirection at all, MoS.  You were talking about scholars, not the general public, and I made a statement that was correct.  You are now trying to backtrack and use statistics about the general population, but you should know that you can't get away with that around here.

I don't have numbers for scholars in general, but over 72% of scientists were on the side of disbelief in any type of God as of 1998.  This was up from other surveys done in both 1933 and 1914, so it would stand to reason that that number is even higher today.  LINK

So, does that mean that the other 28% believe as you do, because this would still be a pretty strong number?  Nope, sorry, 21% of scientists are agnostic, leaving a grand total of 7% of all scientists in the US believing in God in the form of one of the major religions.

I wish I had the worldwide numbers, because it is well documented that the good old US of A is far more Christian than the world in general.  I'm certain that if this survey was conducted on a worldwide scale, the percentages would be even greater in support of non-belief.  In fact, I think there is a survey linked somewhere in this thread with those numbers, but that might have been during the whole evolution debate and I really don't want to go back and read that portion of this thread again...its very disturbing to my sensibilities.

Mano,  you seem to believe that, in order to be true, Christianity must be unique.

No, I believe that it would be nice if the stories that prove Christ's divinity, like the miracles and the resurrection, were unique to him.  I find it HIGHLY improbable that his deeds would bare that much resemblance to those of other pagan and major religion deities.

If Christian doctrine were strange and deviant and had no similarities at all to that of other religious systems, it would be more likely to be a weird, aberrant construct, not less.

This has absolutely nothing to do with doctrine, MoS.  Of course the doctrines are similar to other major religions, that's a discussion for a whole other thread.

This is about the individual accomplishments of the protagonist of your scripture and how they are eerily similar to the accomplishments of a handful of other, more ancient and, at that time, accepted protagonists of the major religions of the day.

So the very truth here is commonness between Christianity and other religions is not to be based on similarities, but on actual core belief comparisons and at that point your illogical comparative breaks down. 

I don't care about the core beliefs, so nothing of my argument has broken down at all.

And these points of contact between Christianity and other religions are damaging to Christianity's truth claims only if actual borrowings can be proven - not if the parallel features have simply sprung from the same psychological source common to all humans - that is, from the innate religious instinct which Christians regard as a gift of God. You know, similar to the innate instincts you and our friend R2 have promulgated many times in past posts here on the FSM !

I apologize, but I think I'll need you to explain this part of the paragraph to me a bit better.  Are you trying to say that the concept of believing in a deity that sends his "son" to earth to perform miracles, die and rise back into heaven is an innate instinct of our race and that, therefore, it is only appropriate that many religions have similar stories throughout our history?

Sorry, MoS, you have completely lost me here...

I cannot think of a single case in which Christianity can be shown to have borrowed a core doctrine from another religion, can you ?

Sure, they borrowed the vast majority of their doctrine from Judaism.  You can find many similar "core doctrines" in the religions of the far east, like Hinduism.  Again, though, I could really care less about the doctrine...it has absolutely NOTHING to do with this conversation.

I swear, its like I'm arguing with myself or something...you have completely changed the subject while trying to make me think you haven't!  Its a nice try, but it isn't working!

None of the attempts made by you to demonstrate that Christianity is false because it contains alleged pagan elements is credible or convincing.

They are credible, and very convincing to someone who enters the discussion with an open mind.  You are not capable of having that open mind in this case, MoS, because it goes against your very core.  I don't hold that against you, its just who you are and I accept you for it, my friend.

Almost all of Christian symbology is borrowed from paganism.  Almost all of the miraculous acts of Jesus were once attributed to another deity before him.  Do these facts cement that Christianity is a farce?  Of course not.  I am not trying to convince you that your faith is invalid because the stories of Jesus were borrowed from other religions of the day.  I am just showing you that it isn't just as simple as taking what the bible says as truth.  There just has to be doubt when looking at it logically.  If your faith allows you to put that doubt aside and believe, then so be it.

Regarding your repeated statements that "it is only the similarities that matter" when contrasting Christianity with other religions... depending on your measure of DNA, you may range anywhere from 98.2% to 99.7% the same as a woman.  If it is only the similarities that matter you might be a chimpanzee, since you share about 98.7% of the genetic makeup there.  So, does the fact that you are a chimp (or a woman, your choice) explain why you feel the way you do about organized religion?

Boy, you Christians and your circular logic!  You guys aren't following the conversation at all, just shooting from the hip and hoping to hit something.

I am not contrasting Christianity with anything. 

For the last time...all I am doing is providing you with very STRONG evidence that the very stories your faith points to in order to prove the divinity of Jesus have been repeated in some form or another throughout history in various other, earlier, religions.

The pagan religions have very little in common with Christianity in general from a doctrinal standpoint.  I don't argue this.  But you also cannot argue with the FACT that much of Christian symbology is taken from those same pagan religions.  Couple that with many common miraculous occurances that seem to have been conveniently woven into the fabric of the story of Christ and you end up with what appears to be a fabrication.

As I said to MoS...if your faith allows you to ignore that evidence and believe, then so be it.

I apologize, but I think I'll need you to explain this part of the paragraph to me a bit better.  Are you trying to say that the concept of believing in a deity that sends his "son" to earth to perform miracles, die and rise back into heaven is an innate instinct of our race and that, therefore, it is only appropriate that many religions have similar stories throughout our history?

That was probably one of the best responses i have read in this thread. Kudos.

2k

My church:

http://www.thechurchofgodatbladensb
urg.com

not sure how to do this as a web link, sorry

My church:

http://www.thechurchofgodatbladensb

urg.com

not sure how to do this as a web link, sorry

Interesting.  It is a non-denominational place of worship.  This seems to be becoming more and more prevelant as people become disenchanted with the main sects of Christianity.

I'd love to hear some details about your doctrine.  What is it that your pastor teaches that makes it different from the mass Christian religions?  What exactly do you find "strict" about your practice?