Christianity A Copy of Egyptian Theology?

[vekarppe]

FreeThinkers.org sums it up well

Oh yes, free thinkers...

 

[vekarppe]

Easter: Myth, Hallucination, or History?
by E. M. Yamauchi

http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/yama.html

 

[timmeh]

Oh yes, free thinkers...

I'm sorry, but what?? If you are trying to imply that people that critically examine, are not mentally constrained by doctrine are not freethinkers, then I hate to think what you class religious believers as!

 

[timmeh]

Easter: Myth, Hallucination, or History?
by E. M. Yamauchi

irrelevant and biased link

Thanks for the off topic post. A theological website cannot be used to back up your position...hardly unbiased...let alone even marginally correct.

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

Thanks for the off topic post. A theological website cannot be used to back up your position...hardly unbiased...let alone even marginally correct.

And you're suggesting that a site with an atheistic worldview is not going to be biased?

Right...


LDG

 

[MrGoodbar]

At my seminary, I've been taught to be critical of the text, and have yet to have a "doctrinal constraint" put on my thinking. Several of my fellow students have greatly struggled with their faiths as a result.

I can tell you how the Epic of Gilgamesh is similar to Genesis, and how Ugaritic literature is similar to the account of Abraham. I don't accept a $5 dollar answer to the questions it raises, but to be honest, looking at the text critically has greatly deepened my faith and understanding.

Theological thinking and critical thinking aren't mutually exclusive. And the freethinkers are also making a theological point, btw.

 

[BelovedSonofRock]

As noted by earlier by MagnusEmboden C.S. Lewis saw similarities between many of the Pagan myths and the Gospels; these similarities were also noted by the early church fathers.

The early church fathers' argument of these similarities can be summed up as diabolical plagiarism; that the devil knew about God's plan (knew the mind of God?) and planted the story in other religions prior to the arrival of Jesus. Whereas C.S. Lewis thought that God prophesied through pagan myths to prepare the pagans for the Gospel. (It should be noted that C.S. Lewis apparently did not have an orthodox Protestant view of Christianity.)

A more probable explanation is that the Gospel is a variant form of the pagan mystery religions and Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are most likely the portico to a deeper mystery. Whether or not there was a historical Jesus, one that can be gleaned from Matthew, Mark, Luke and John is moot. A historical Jesus is not a life changing figure as the Jesus present in the Gospel.

 

[vekarppe]

If you are trying to imply that people that critically examine, are not mentally constrained by doctrine are not freethinkers, then I hate to think what you class religious believers as!

These freethinkers are constrained by naturalism and their critical examinations are strongly biased. And I am not sure do they even try to be critical.

 

[timmeh]

And you're suggesting that a site with an atheistic worldview is not going to be biased?

Right...


LDG

There is no such thing as an "atheistic worldview", atheism is purely the lack of belief in a god. What bias do you think that a freethinkers website would have, which doctrine of beliefs are they trying to promote?

 

[timmeh]

These freethinkers are constrained by naturalism

Please go on, how does this constrain them?

and their critical examinations are strongly biased.

In what way, do they have a reason to be biased?

And I am not sure do they even try to be critical.

An emotional response with no evidence to back your claim up.

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

There is no such thing as an "atheistic worldview", atheism is purely the lack of belief in a god.

Sure there is - your fellow atheist freethinkers affirm that atheism is a worldview even if you deny it. Atheism is part of the more broad worldview called naturalism. Other types of naturalism include communism and secular humanism. Also the Nazis were naturalists at their core, and based much of what they did on social Darwinism.

So really naturalism doesn't have a very good track record with Hitler's concentration camps killing millions of people, and Stalin's purges killing millions of people, and Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge killing millions of people.

What bias do you think that a freethinkers website would have, which doctrine of beliefs are they trying to promote?

Verkarppe did sum it up well in a single sentence. But they do promote naturalism of course, with all its implications of a closed universe and determinism.


LDG

 

[vekarppe]

Please go on, how does this constrain them?

Naturalism is limited and narrow basic assumpton. It leaves out of account all (possible) supernatural beings and holds that only natural factors could have an effect on the subject being examined. God is blocked out from the beginning. Naturalism is actually ideological assumption.

In what way, do they have a reason to be biased?

First of all, objectivity is an illusion. All examinations or explanation models are more or less biased. Second, their goal, defined in advance, what they are trying to support. I feel they are more anti-Christianity missionaries than critical researchers.

 

[vekarppe]

Freethinkers freedom is fictitious. It is free only within the scope of naturalism and this limitation opens their criticality of the question. Can we expect critical results if all beliefs or assumptions but one are rejected from the beginning?

 

[Touma]

Let's take a look at some of these myths that Christianity supposedly copies. Since you mentioned Egypt, I'll talk about the Osiris legend first. The legend first begins that Osiris was killed by his brother Seth by being drowned in the Nile river. Another account in the Plutarch says he was dismembered into 14-26 peices. Let me ask you real quick, does any of this sound like what happened to Jesus? Of course not. Anyways, he was assembled by Isis, minus one piece. He became the god of the underworld, meaning he was the god of the dead. Jesus is the God of the living. Furthermore, this myth like many more, are tied to fertility rites, or the renewing of vegetation over the year. Christ came to save people from sin, and was killed for it. There is no fertility rite. There is only renewing of the soul. How are these things similar in anyway?

Another common myth is that Jesus virgin birth was copied. For instance, it has been said on the internet,(although easily refuted by anyone with half a brain) that the secret god Mithras was born of a virgin, just like Jesus, Osiris, Bacchus, Attis etc... I'll tackle Mithras first. 1, he was not born of a virgin. He was made from a rock. He was not born in a cave or manger. His "birth" was celebrated at the winter solstice, yes, but Jesus was not born on that day.


Most of these myths which people say Christ copied, are simple over generalizations, or at many times are very innaccurate representations of what happened. Furthermore, we have real historical proof of Christ's death and resurrection, while those myths thaat were told, were just that, myths. They happened at some time in the past, with no specific dates, or circumstances. Many times those gods would take on human characteristics, such as lust. But none of them were like Jesus. Jesus was the human form of a Good and Holy God. Jesus didn't lust, like Zeus. Jesus never killed anyone. He was the human embodiment of God, where as those other gods were godly imbodiments of humans.

So please, don't believe everything you read online, or hear on the television. Pick up scholarly articles and books. They will teach you the truth in no time.

 

[timmeh]

Sure there is - your fellow atheist freethinkers affirm that atheism is a worldview even if you deny it.

Please explain to me, WITHOUT shifting the goalposts by bringing in naturalism, how atheism is a worldview?

Other types of naturalism include communism

That's an ideology which has nothing to do with naturalism. Do you know what naturalism actually means?

Also the Nazis were naturalists at their core, and based much of what they did on social Darwinism.

So really naturalism doesn't have a very good track record with Hitler's concentration camps killing millions of people, and Stalin's purges killing millions of people, and Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge killing millions of people.

You are being quite sickening. Trying to evolve atheism into genocidal activities is absolutely foul and you should be ashamed of yourself for thinking like this.
Naturalism has nothing to do with Hitler's concentration camps and the other atrocities you mention....it's very intellectually dishonest of you.
I see you conveniently left out the part where Hitler was a Catholic and thought he was doing god's work and that the regime had help from the Vatican.

I'm actually shocked that there are people out there with views like this.

 

[timmeh]

Naturalism is limited and narrow basic assumpton. It leaves out of account all (possible) supernatural beings and holds that only natural factors could have an effect on the subject being examined.

Well, we do live in the real world, we need reality as a guideline. Could anything be achieved if we had to take in the possibility of any and all types of supernatural activities one's imagination could dream up?
eg. When a doctor wants to investigate an illness, do you think he should also take into account the possibility that it was angry fairies in the patients body, or a vengeful spirit, that god put the pain there? How would this work in the real world?

God is blocked out from the beginning.

Of course, why wouldn't god be blocked out? Just like pink unicorns don't enter into the reasoning.

Naturalism is actually ideological assumption.

No. It's the reality that you and I live in each and every day

All examinations or explanation models are more or less biased.

Incorrect, if it's biased, then it's bad science. Plain and simple.

Second, their goal, defined in advance, what they are trying to support.

Yes, the goal may be defined in advance....but the science to support it has to be true, science will not bend the truth to fit a desired outcome. This is for the realm of theology

I feel they are more anti-Christianity missionaries than critical researchers.

Naturalists are not on an anti-christian mission. Science doesn't care for faith, be it christianity, judaism, hinuism, skynoodlism or islam, it searches for truthful answers irrespective of how painful that truth maybe to some people. This is, I believe, why you think they are anti-christian missionaries, because it exposes so many fallacies in what you believe.

 

[timmeh]

Most of these myths which people say Christ copied, are simple over generalizations, or at many times are very innaccurate representations of what happened.

No one claims that they're word for word copies, but it's blatantly obvious that previous stories were taken and expounded upon for the bible.

Furthermore, we have real historical proof of Christ's death and resurrection,

Now you've done it. Please provide this genuine, historical evidence.

while those myths thaat were told, were just that, myths.

Yeah, I know...the whole "those past gods? Pfffft, all fairytales....now THIS one is actually true" ideology.

But none of them were like Jesus. Jesus was the human form of a Good and Holy God. Jesus didn't lust, like Zeus. Jesus never killed anyone. He was the human embodiment of God

Right, so all the death, disease and suffering god dished out in the old testament doesn't equate to god killing anyone? Jesus is god, therefore Jesus was genocidal.

So please, don't believe everything you read online, or hear on the television.

I don't. And I find this somewhat rich judging by your arguments

 

[Touma]

No one claims that they're word for word copies, but it's blatantly obvious that previous stories were taken and expounded upon for the bible.

You are making a fallacy. In fact, most of the arguments for this whole thing is a part of this fallacy. You assume that because action A was done by Y that if Z does anything similar, then Z is copying off of Y. I believe its a form of Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Very unfortunate for you.

Now you've done it. Please provide this genuine, historical evidence.

Enemy attestion is first. Why would enemies of Christianity attest to its beliefs? The birth of the Church is second. That should make sense. How would this religion get off the ground if its adherents knew that its main statement, that Jesus rose from the dead, was false. Its not logical to think that people knew this was a lie and were still willing to die for it. And they would know if it was a lie, because they wouldn't have seen Jesus risen, or found an empty tomb. If Christianity were false, then the enemies of the day could have easily given them an empty tomb to prove it false.

Yeah, I know...the whole "those past gods? Pfffft, all fairytales....now THIS one is actually true" ideology.

The problem with your logic here is that people who believed the myths at the time KNEW that they were just myths. They happened in a far away place, in a far away time in the past. There are no historical evidences to back them up at all. They were just told as stories, and not used as real life

Right, so all the death, disease and suffering god dished out in the old testament doesn't equate to god killing anyone? Jesus is god, therefore Jesus was genocidal.

Jesus never killed anyone on His time here on earth, so Jesus never killed anyone. Besides, that death and such you mention, why did it occur? Because of judgement on the people. They would not heed the Word of the Lord, and God said if you don't do this properly, then you will recieve this judgement. No different from Laws that say if you speed, you get a ticket, or if you kill you get life in prison/death penalty.

I don't. And I find this somewhat rich judging by your arguments

 

[vekarppe]

Of course, why wouldn't god be blocked out? Just like pink unicorns don't enter into the reasoning.

The problem with naturalism is its basic assumption, that all beings and events in the universe are natural. There is no room for supernatural causes and effects. This assumption, then, is the starting point of the naturalistic science; not effect of it.

We have, also, sound reason to believe that God exist. If our intellectual abilities like perception, memory, and logical reasoning are ensued as a result of haphazard process, it is not rationally possible to expect they are reliable.

No. It's the reality that you and I live in each and every day

Naturalism is an ideology, i.e. "a theory, or set of beliefs or principles."

Incorrect, if it's biased, then it's bad science. Plain and simple.

My mistake, but my point is that there is no objectivity.

This is, I believe, why you think they are anti-christian missionaries, because it exposes so many fallacies in what you believe.

Pardon? What fallacies they exposes? No, that is not the reason why I think so.

 

[timmeh]

You are making a fallacy. In fact, most of the arguments for this whole thing is a part of this fallacy. You assume that because action A was done by Y that if Z does anything similar, then Z is copying off of Y. I believe its a form of Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Very unfortunate for you.

Wrong. Incorrect usage of Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Enemy attestion is first. Why would enemies of Christianity attest to its beliefs? The birth of the Church is second. That should make sense. How would this religion get off the ground if its adherents knew that its main statement, that Jesus rose from the dead, was false. Its not logical to think that people knew this was a lie and were still willing to die for it. And they would know if it was a lie, because they wouldn't have seen Jesus risen, or found an empty tomb. If Christianity were false, then the enemies of the day could have easily given them an empty tomb to prove it false.

Where can I read this enemy attestation? Links please. Your argument about the religion getting off the ground is irrelevant.

The problem with your logic here

It wasn't a logic argument....I think you need to come back when you've thought your answers through some more.

is that people who believed the myths at the time KNEW that they were just myths. They happened in a far away place, in a far away time in the past. There are no historical evidences to back them up at all. They were just told as stories, and not used as real life

Is that a fact, is it? Not possibly just your belief?

Jesus never killed anyone on His time here on earth, so Jesus never killed anyone.

But Jesus IS God....now do you see the illogical nature of your retort?

Besides, that death and such you mention, why did it occur? Because of judgement on the people. They would not heed the Word of the Lord, and God said if you don't do this properly, then you will recieve this judgement. No different from Laws that say if you speed, you get a ticket, or if you kill you get life in prison/death penalty.

Aaaaaand here come the excuses. So what was it? Was he a genocidal murderer or did he not kill anyone as you claim?