Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yes, thank you Mr. Ephraimanesti. I do appreciate that you show such unselfish concern for me. However, our conversation has gone hopelessly off the rails here. If you could please save this thread for the topic at hand, you may use my "Introducing myself…" thread to make direct comments on my person and philosophy.i am, in a sense, secretly happy with this situation because i do enjoy our occasional chats--even though one could wish that you did feel empowered to choose a different path than the one you have instinctually taken.
I feel that this may be due to a mere failure of rhetoric, or as Rousseau so eloquently put it, "the poverty of language." I intended no implication of this nature, and mean exactly what I have written here. Nothing is tacit.Well but you are saying that by implication.
Not at all what I have meant, dear sir. I was referring to incarnations of the virgin-borne resurrected god-man. There are many, many examples of this. To save us some time and space, we might concentrate on a couple of the best known of this lot.He fulfilled an idea that some people had already had.
Yes, this is what I am saying. As my moniker suggests, I am an atheist.So you're saying the supernatural acts didn't happen; that they were lies?
and thenIt seems an extremely difficult task on the face of it. That's why I asked for specifics. For example, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said "blessed are the peacemakers". Even if I don't live by it, I recognize it's a beautiful idea, but in the same sermon, Jesus said he was the Lord who would judge men's souls at their death, which (unless you're a very, very good person) really isn't a beautiful idea. So I'd like to know, did Jesus say the one and not the other, or both, or what exactly?
I believe perhaps it has been Ephraim's mischievous interferences here, but I seem to have lost the thread of your argument here. What was it again that you are trying to prove with this quote?The Sermon on the Mount is in Matthew chapters 5-7. The part I think you're asking about is in chapter 7 verses 21-23:
"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."
Dear Chesterton,
I feel that this may be due to a mere failure of rhetoric, or as Rousseau so eloquently put it, "the poverty of language." I intended no implication of this nature, and mean exactly what I have written here. Nothing is tacit.
Not at all what I have meant, dear sir. I was referring to incarnations of the virgin-borne resurrected god-man. There are many, many examples of this. To save us some time and space, we might concentrate on a couple of the best known of this lot.
The myth of Horus, in comparison to the Galilean messiah, can be examined by viewing the chart on this page, which is continued on the chart on this page. The whole article may be started at this page.
The myth of Krishna, in comparison to the Galilean messiah, can be examined by viewing the information on this page. Sadly it is not as neatly organized as the Horus chart. This page does organize it nicely in a chart, but I find some of his facts to be suspect when compared to other research. It is also not as gentlemanly composed as the the previous link that I offer, so please read at your discretion.
Yes, this is what I am saying. As my moniker suggests, I am an atheist.
I believe perhaps it has been Ephraim's mischievous interferences here, but I seem to have lost the thread of your argument here. What was it again that you are trying to prove with this quote?
I believe perhaps it has been Ephraim's mischievous interferences here, but I seem to have lost the thread of your argument here. What was it again that you are trying to prove with this quote?
In regard to the supposed parallels between Jesus and Horus, it was not mentioned that Horus had the head of a bird. Very similar indeed.
Surely we can come up with something better in the effort to debunk Christianity than to compare Jesus with a bird god of Egypt or the Hindu Krishna. We can all do a quick Google search and find that these touted "striking" similarities between Jesus and these pagan gods are highly suspect as they are obviously embellished by those who would like to discredit the Lord.
Hmm... you may be correct if we take this tack, however, the agnostic principle would apply equally to yourself. Really, what evidence do we have that any of the words of the bible have or have not been altered by interested parties?You say "we can't determine which words are Jesus' and which are counterfeits", and that certainly does imply that you believe some statements at least could be counterfeit. The trilemma asks "Lord, liar or lunatic?", and you are suggesting a fourth option ("somebody else lied"), but seem unwilling to posit it outright. If your position is that you don't know what Jesus said, then you're leaving open the possibility that Jesus said everything he's reported as saying, right? And if you admit that possibility, then you are admitting the possibility that he was telling the truth and is Lord. That might a tenable position for someone who identifies himself as agnostic, but it doesn't seem to be for an atheist.
So I'm unsure how to proceed here. I really can't argue with your beliefs unless I know what they are.
Yes, as addressed in my response to Masquelier, I note that there are controvertible theories on the matter. If you wish a better source from among their contemporaries, I might point you to James Frazer or Jane Harrison.The claims presented in the chart range from very liberal interpretation to outright fabrication. Virtually all the ideas about similarities between Horus and Jesus came from the imagination of Gerald Massey, a 19th century spiritualist. His ideas are dismissed by experts, but continue to be trotted out by people with an anti-Christian agenda. Even Wikipedia says he was a "self-styled Egyptologist", and that "His work, which draws comparisons between the Judeo-Christian religion and the Egyptian religion, is not considered significant in the field of modern Egyptology and is not mentioned in the Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt or any other work of modern Egyptology." Further, it says "W. Ward Gasque has written that Egyptologists have rejected many of the specific claims made by Massey as fallacious: for example saying that there is no evidence of a virgin birth for Horus." At the bottom of the Wiki entry, you'll also notice he's placed in the category ""Pseudoscientists".//
Again, old, bad information from a bad source. As noted in the article itself, this information is based on another 19th century amateur with an agenda, Kersey Graves. You should also read the Wiki entry for Graves, which says about his Christ/pagan ideas that "...modern scholarship has cast serious doubt on the veracity of such claims, and demonstrated that Graves' scholarship is deficient. Graves massaged his data to fit his thesis, and where he had no data he falsified it."//
And the few vague similarities with Krishna which actually do exist, appear for the first time in Hinduism from the 4th to the 11th centuries after Christ, so if there was any borrowing, it was Hinduism which borrowed.
A corporation of people is profoundly stronger than one person. The church becomes a political force when it unites all christians under one mandate. There have to be some four million or so christians. That is quite a political body with which all of our lives may be influenced and our destinies (if you will) altered to the will of those who make decisions within the church. Consider the land issue in the early days of the church in England. They became as great a landowner as the King himself. The church in Rome has a city, which is entirely a castle, and even a standing army. This seems like motivation enough, do you not think so?Why do you think they made that stuff up?
Yes, as addressed in my response to Masquelier, I note that there are controvertible theories on the matter. If you wish a better source from among their contemporaries, I might point you to James Frazer or Jane Harrison.
I would rather that we not waste time trying to prove or disprove that a dying-and-rising god mytheme existed before, after, or in tandem with the Galilean messiah. As with Mr. Masquelier, I ask that you please address the fact that dying-and-rising god myths so accurately parallel the story of the Galilean messiah.
A corporation of people is profoundly stronger than one person. The church becomes a political force when it unites all christians under one mandate. There have to be some four million or so christians. That is quite a political body with which all of our lives may be influenced and our destinies (if you will) altered to the will of those who make decisions within the church. Consider the land issue in the early days of the church in England. They became as great a landowner as the King himself. The church in Rome has a city, which is entirely a castle, and even a standing army. This seems like motivation enough, do you not think so?
Certainly though, do not take my word for it for I am a godless infidel, am I not? Allow me to quote from one of your own reformers, M. Rousseau (my, I do find myself quoting him a lot on this forum) who said, " religion and politics have the same purpose among men; it is simply that at the birth of nations, the one serves as the instrument of the other." (B. II, C. 7, SC, translated to the greater language, of course.)
Please let me know if I have left any of your questions unanswered. I find myself rudely rushing off this response between the obligations of travel.
I realize that I'm arriving a little bit late to the party. I had never visited this particular sub-forum until yesterday. I will try to answer your original question directly. First just let me express my appreciation for the contributions you've made here and for your dedication to remaining polite even when things get heated. If we had more peoplpe like you, the board and the planet would be a much nicer place.In any case, this thread was about Lewis. Does the myth argument seem valid to you?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?