Ending the Myth of Horus

Posted by Consigliere on Monday, January 10, 2005 at 06:43 AM. Read 45643 times. Tags:
{name} pic

[Editor’s Note: It was my intent to have a reply ready before posting this, but I’ve found myself putting it off due to a busy weekend so I’m going to go ahead and post it as is. I’ll address it properly in the comments as soon as I have the opportunity though I’m sure there are several regulars who will probably be more than capable of addressing it first.]



I’ve heard repeated here several times that Horus, an Egyptian god, is carbon copy of Jesus.  The obvious implication by those that have made this statement is that Jesus is a copycat version of an earlier Egyptian deity.  The purpose of this entry is to disembowel that proposition once and for all. 

When I first heard that Horus was the inspiration for Jesus several years ago, I didn’t give it much credence because I couldn’t establish any source material for the claims.  I still can’t, but the internet is as adept at allowing anybody and everybody to pass on misinformation. 

Upon further research, I’ve concluded that this theory originated with Gerald Massey, an English poet, born 1828, died 1927.  He published primarily poems, but had an interest in Egypt.  He parlayed that interest in Egypt into several books and lectures in which he set forth the proposition that Horus was in essence the first Jesus, and Jesus was a cheap imitation.  The primary basis for his writing is the Egyptian Book of the Dead.  This is available on-line and you can easily look it up to read it yourself.  Be forewarned that forced reading of this would be an extremely efficient form of torture. 

It should be noted that Massey’s actual proposition was that Jesus was a copycat from more than just Horus.  According to Massey, Jesus was a compilation of an innumerable number of Egyptian deities.  There were over 2,000 deities who had every human and godlike characteristic one can think of, excepting Superman’s power to stop a speeding bullet.

Since Massey, there is a dearth of anybody with any credentials that has adopted a straight Horus=Jesus theory.  There is a one individual that has adopted some of Massey’s thoughts and incorporated them into a book-The Christ Conspiracy.  This appears to be the basis for the claims that I see.  The author is Acharya S.  Her website is http://www.truthbeknown.com I note that Richard Price, a noted Christ Myther, and one that I take much more seriously then Acharya, said the following:

“Those of use who uphold any version of the controversial Christ Myth theory find ourselves immediately the object not just of criticism, but even of ridicule. And it causes us chagrin to be lumped together with certain writers with whom we share the Christ Myth butt little else.....

His other criticism, like mine, is that she uses very dated sources (19th Century) who were in Price’s words “eccentrics, freethinkers, and theosophists.”

Les, I am using your post from 1/3/05 as an example of the claims because you carry more credibility than most. That said here are the claims and what I have found:

Claim #1-Horus and Jesus are born from a virgin. 

Horus’s mother is Isis.  Isis was married to Osiris.  We do not know for what length of time, but presumably the marriage was consummated.  Whether it was or wasn’t doesn’t matter though.  After Osiris is killed, Isis puts him back together again (he was hacked into 14 pieces) except for his penis which was tossed in a river or a lake.  Iris fashions a substitute penis for him, humps him and here comes Horus.  There is nothing virginal about that.

Claim #2-Both Horus and Jesus were born to a Mary and Joseph. (Seb)

As noted Isis is Horus’s mother’s name not Mary.  In addition, Seb is not Horus’s father, Osiris is.  Seb is Osiris’s father.  Further, Seb is a distinct name from Joseph.  Putting them side by side does not make them synonyms, and that appears to be what was done here.

Claim #3-Both were born of royal descent.

This is accurate.

Claim #4-Both births were announced by angels and witnessed by shepherds. 

I can find nothing that mentions that the birth of Horus was announced by an angel or witnessed by shepherds.  I have found that Horus was born in a swamp, which is a pretty unlikely place for shepherds.  In addition Acharya mentions that Horus was born in a cave.  Massey makes no mention of this, although he does represent that Mithra was born in a cave. 

Claim #5-Both were heralded by stars and angels. 

There is no star that heralded Horus’s birth nor is there any angel announcing it.  Archarya in a footnote in The Origins of Christianity indicates that that there are three stars named the three kings in Orion and then relates this to the birth of Jesus.  When we look to the stories regarding Horus, we find no star or angel announcing his birth.  To the extent that Acharya S relies upon Massey and Massey relies upon what is depicted in the panels at Luxor see (from an atheist) further regarding virgin birth and pronouncement by angels http://www.frontline-apologetics.com/carrier_luxor_inscription.htm

Claim #6-Both had later visitors (Horus-3 deities and Jesus-3 wisemen.)

There is no indication that there ever were 3 wisemen.  The bible never mentions the number of wisemen, nor is there any document that reflects 3 deities at the birth of Horus.  See the website referenced in Claim #5.

Claim #7-Both had murder plots against them. 

There is mention that Seth did want to kill Horus, and Herod wanted to kill Jesus.  so this is accurate.

Claim#8-Both came of age at 12, were baptized and their baptizers were executed. 

There is no indication that Horus was preaching in a temple when he was 12.  In fact, Massey indicates that Hours the child was depicted as a “weakling.” That doesn’t jive with story of Jesus preaching in the temple.  Again this appears to have been a confabulation from Acharya and repeated by others. 

Horus was never baptized in any of the Horus stories.  In addition, Acharya mentions that John the Baptist is actually Anup the Baptizer.  This individual is never mentioned anywhere in any Horus account.  There is not even a footnote in Archaya’s on-line work The Origins of Christianity to support this.  There is nothing.

Claim #9-Both had 12 disciples. 

According to the Horus accounts, Horus had four semi-gods that were followers.  There is some indication of 16 human followers and an unknown number of blacksmiths that went into battle with him.  Horus did not have 12 disciples. Jesus reportedly did.  Acharya failed to give a footnote to support this.

Massey points to a mural in the Book of Hades in which there are twelve reapers.  Horus is not present in this scene.  For Massey to make this connection he goes to a different scene within the same mural.  In this scene there is a picture of a god whose name is the Master of Joy.  Horus is never depicted although in other murals the artists do depict Horus.  Had the artists ascribed 12 reapers in any relation to Horus all they had to do was put Horus at the scene.  They did not. 

Claim #10-Both walked on water.

Horus didn’t, or at least there is no record that I can find that he did.  Massey does not maintain that Hours did.  Massey uses wild conjecture to connect the story of fish man, Oannes, not Horus, to Jesus.  Oannes came out of the sea during the day, and went back into the sea at night.  Massey makes the two analogous because by his calculations, Jesus walked on water during the day. 

As to Acharya, she as usual provides nothing to substantiate this. 

Claim #11-Both performed miracles. 

This is true although the miracles were different in scope and nature.

Claim #12 Both exorcised demons and raised Lazarus. 

The actual claim is that Horus raised Osiris from the dead and that the name Osiris morphed to Lazarus.  It doesn’t matter because Horus did not bring Osiris back to life.  There is no mention of this in any document regarding the story.  Horus did avenge Osiris’s death, but that did not raise Osiris from the dead. 

Claim #13-Both held a Sermon on the Mount; both were transfigured on a mountain, died by crucifixion along with two thieves and were buried in tombs where they paid a quick visit to Hell and then rose from the dead after 3 days time, both resurrections were witness by women, and both will supposedly reign for 1,000 years in the Millennium.

These are the most damning claims if they were proven true in my opinion.  Yet, I can locate none of this.  No sermon, no transfiguration, certainly no crucifixion w/ two thieves, no trip to hell and no resurrection.  There was an incident in which Horus was torn to pieces and Iris requested the crocodile god to fish him out of the water he was tossed into, which was done, but that’s it.  I am at a loss to refute this because I can not find anything to support it.

Massey does compares a story about the Autumn Equinox related to Osiris, not Horus, as the symbolic crucifixion.  There is no indication that Horus is involved in any way.  There is no mention by Massey of any Sermon on the Mount.  No mention or any actual crucifixion, no two thieves, no burial in a tomb.  Massey does not maintain that anything of the sort occurred with Horus. 

In short, of the claims outlined in this entry, I find the comparison between Horus and Jesus to consist of the following: they were of royal descent, they allegedly worked miracles and there were murder plots against them. 

Comments:

Page 24 of 27 pages « First  <  22 23 24 25 26 >  Last »

TruthAlone Great Britain (UK) Posted on 03/15/2008 at 03:35 AM

TruthAlone pic

To MisterMook
Captain America...lol..cute , but duhhhh does Captain America, have a legacy of about 40 different authors ‘making up silly prophecies’ for about 1400 years about him saved in a snazzy lil book called the Bible!! Sure by all means pray to him too, and be sure to share your experience with us.
Rationality is about asking questions, studying the unknown, experimenting and analysing and finally knowing WHY you believe. Blind faith in atheism too is only a religion , not proven by fact. You need to prove atheism too, for us to believe you.

To Infernus, YES I HAVE.. I’m SORRY I can’t reveal what He said to me, or what it was like at the time, in a public forum..It’s been 11 years since I met Jesus and my life has changed dramatically, though it feels like only yesterday. (I’m 30)I have peace of mind, an aversion to sin, a love for Jews for crying out loud(didn’t even know about them before) and a sense of brotherhood with whom so ever i meet, (yea yea, even people who don’t like me). I once had to leave my job due to personal reasons and did not have a single problem with finances during that time which was about 2 years long,neither before nor after. Yes, I don’t win any popularity contests..but that doesn’t matter much when you have joy on the inside. My partner quit smoking cold turkey and didn’t even realise it. I lost my Dad a few years after my experience, but it was almost as if I was ‘cushioned’, even inspite of all my grief and suffering. The miracles I’ve seen..and believe me I hardly ever visit a church !so no there’s no brainwashing..i didn’t even grow up in a christian environment, but He saved me none the less. I’m no religious nut or illiterate fool..in fact I have a Masters degree in Health Sciences and a Bachelors degree in Lifesciences as well. Having studied paleontology a bit, I can tell you that while the laws of physics are actual’ laws’ like Newton’s laws of motion, the law of gravity etc; Darwin and his contemporaries ‘findings’ are still termed ‘theories’ because there is still no undeniable proof for them...the missing link is stillll missin, go figure. Google studies on evolution and the eye for instance.

But then again,I’m probably a joker making the whole thing up..so don’t take my word for it, try it out for yourself. If you’re honest with yourself, out to debunk myths and find out the TRUTH ABOUT CHRIST, and are humble about it, you SHOULD EXPERIENCE HIM WITHOUT any human help. Also the Bible in itself is a literary masterpiece and taking it literally out of context can be quite dangerous. PS:- I still do not attend any church at all because I’ve found thats not compulsory for one to know Jesus on a day to day basis..God bless.

To Zilch,
dunno ‘bout gullibility, try a little humility the next time u’r at it. u just might get lucky, eh? Swearin and cussin just gonna get you all hot n worked up not convicted or saved.

To elwedd..,
Since I sound like an atheist to you, why don’t you try my brand of atheism for a change, it’ll change you’re life. A wise person once said “God doesn’t belive in atheists either, there’s no proof that they exist”..

To leguru..
Go ahead , I’m all for questioning..aren’t you gonna check out for yourself if He really exists? make a simple prayer about it and see for YOURSELF, don’t take my word for it. I was as much a sceptic, secular even, till I found the answer in 1996.

zilch Sweden Posted on 03/15/2008 at 07:12 AM

zilch pic

TruthAlone: Actually, I’m quite nice in person.  Drop me a line if you’re ever in Vienna.  I do try to stay on the right side of the line between humility and false modesty, but sometimes I get carried away.

I have been known to cuss and swear, but where did I do so on this thread?  If you mean my saying “Jesus Haploid Christ”, how is that swearing?  Jesus must be haploid, since He only has genes from Mary- God presumably doesn’t have genes, since genes are the result of evolution, and God didn’t evolve, or did He?  Of course, that would mean that Jesus is a woman, since Mary didn’t have a Y chromosome to give Him.  No wonder Jesus had issues!

 Signature 

You were born.  And so you’re free.  So happy birthday.
- Laurie Anderson

Patness Canada Posted on 03/15/2008 at 08:56 AM

Patness pic

You need to prove atheism too, for us to believe you.


My 2c. here; I’m not out to get anyone to believe my side of things. No, I don’t have to prove atheism. It makes no claims; it’s about not jumping to the conclusion that God exists. That’s a rational exercise.

Different atheists have different reasons why. The simplest reason is because there’s never been a shred of concrete evidence.

 Signature 

The Kidney Punch Of Legendary Peace

One sure and primary and fundamental fact is the joint existence of a subject and of its world. The one does not exist without the other. I acquire no understanding of myself except as I take account of objects, of the surroundings. I do not think unless I think of things — and there I find myself. - Bruce Lee

MisterMook United States Posted on 03/15/2008 at 10:07 AM

MisterMook pic

The whole point of atheism isn’t to prove anything, it’s to point out the absolute lack of proof.

does Captain America, have a legacy of about 40 different authors ‘making up silly prophecies’ for about 1400 years about him saved in a snazzy lil book called the Bible!! Sure by all means pray to him too, and be sure to share your experience with us.

So basically your argument is that because the Bible is older it’s more valid? Then why aren’t you praying to Inanna the goddess of fertility? Or is the amount of authors? Religion is more valid when it’s assembled by committee then?

I can’t “affirm” atheism. That’s simply not what atheism is. It’s not a statement that says “this is how the world is,” because quite frankly no atheist out there has the time to sit down and talk the irrational down from every fiction they could possibly choose to place their faith in. Atheism is about declaring fictions invalid without rational explanations and validations why they should be treated as non-fictional. It’s not about telling you why you shouldn’t worship Captain America or Knight Rider because they aren’t real, it’s about pointing out that essentially (for good or ill, no automatic value judgment on what you’re getting out of religion) sitting down in a church and worshiping a man claiming supernatural powers written about in a book with morality plays to place them in context is no more valid than Superman or Sherlock Holmes because it was endorsed by political entities and written thousands of years ago.

A lot of atheists over the years have presented this argument to believers in the context of other religions. But the idolatry that Christians place upon their holy text has led me to believe that it needs to be placed separately in context. As a thought experiment, imagine if in Jerusalem two thousand years ago they HAD written the Superman stories: wildly popular, moral themes, etc. Why wouldn’t Superman be just as valid a religious concern as Jesus Christ other than “I’m used to praying in a church rather than a Stronghold of Solitude?”

At this point in the debate, the believer usually simply retorts “because I know Jesus is real.” But the fact of the matter is you don’t know Jesus is any more real in the scenario than Superman. The Superman books would even be more culturally comfortable, not having Leviticus to explain where its appropriate to sell daughters and why you shouldn’t touch you wife while she’s having her menses. If Superman (or Captain America, or Sherlock Holmes, or Michael Knight) could possibly appear just as valid to a believer if placed in an appropriate context though, then rationally you have to assume that any religion stands a good chance of having the same flaw: It’s a work of fiction, given moral significance, and allowed politics. Basically Christians are Trekkies for Jesus.

Now, that doesn’t really mean religion is bad. Personally religion bothers me because it represents to me a certain lack of self-determination a lot of times - people involved with religion often would rather consult a book or some guy with a degree in studying a book about important decisions and how to act upon them. But religion, like attending Trek conventions and reading comic books and whatever, also makes people feel good too. Who am I to say that people’s need to sit down and talked at for an hour a week is a bad thing? But imagine if every work of fiction had a mass of politically inclined followers, working tirelessly to promote their interpretations of the moral lessons in their books (even when the moral lessons were more or less non-existent and they were creating them out of vague statements and translations as justifications and rationalizations for their cultural mores.) Imagine if the people who watched American Idol were willing to blow themselves up, or set bombs in clinics, or ask you to change the Constitution to support the beliefs they’d developed while watching the show?

No, I can’t prove atheism. All I have to do is to show that a book is just a book, and if I’m supposed to treat one unprovable, unlikely set of fictions as reality then I’d have to treat all such fictions as reality. That’s irrational, no more real than astrology or phrenology or Tarot cards. Atheism isn’t about setting out proof of one thing or another, it’s about showing out the illogic of the illogical. Christianity might be older, but it still makes as exactly as much sense as L Ron Hubbard and Scientology.

elwedriddsche United States Posted on 03/15/2008 at 10:41 AM

elwedriddsche pic

To elwedd..,
Since I sound like an atheist to you,

ROTFL

Whatever gave you that idea?

why don’t you try my brand of atheism for a change, it’ll change you’re life.

And I can tell right away that I’ll lose the facility to grasp the difference between “your” and “you’re”.

Regardless, I’ll pass. I’m quite happy the way I am.

A wise person once said “God doesn’t belive in atheists either, there’s no proof that they exist”..

That wasn’t a wise person, but a dumb apologist.

Show of hands?

 Signature 

Science is answers that must always be questioned.
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered.
Religion is answers that must never be questioned.
Politics is answers that lobbyists pay for.

elwedriddsche United States Posted on 03/15/2008 at 10:59 AM

elwedriddsche pic

By the way, isn’t it time to move this exchange into the current ”proselytize us heathens” thread?

Or perhaps somebody can be bothered to update the wiki with two old saws:

- atheism is a religion (bald is a hair color)
- atheism must be proven (reversal of burden of proof)

 Signature 

Science is answers that must always be questioned.
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered.
Religion is answers that must never be questioned.
Politics is answers that lobbyists pay for.

MisterMook United States Posted on 03/15/2008 at 11:00 AM

MisterMook pic

The Smurfs fail to acknowledge the Green Bay Packers, therefore the Smurfs are as valid as the Green Bay Packers.

TruthAlone Great Britain (UK) Posted on 03/15/2008 at 05:21 PM

TruthAlone pic

To Patness
Can we explain what is matter..or why electrons behave funnily in the double slit experiment(never mind, I read alot of quantum mechanics bullshit..only if you’re interested..)
‘Great minds’ of the human race in the 21st century with ALL our technology and objective reasoning, can’t figure out what matter is..we’re gonna figure out What God is? Are our sensory and mental faculties alone sufficient to gauge such a dimension?

Atheism as the word says is a ‘belief’ in the absence of God..as I see it there are just two options..There is God vs There is No God. Atheism ‘jumps to a conclusion ‘ that he doesn’t exist.
You can’t take either supposition as a given....the burden to prove rests on both equally, if one is being fair, as neither is universally established.

Why shouldn’t an atheist be asked for proof of his/her beliefs? That’s being an escapist. Why aren’t atheists agreeing on their reasons for disbelief in God? They should educate the rest of us mere mortals...withholding knowledge is worse than ‘blind belief’.

To MisterMook
Have you read a bible?

To elwedriddsche
why do i waste my time...YOU’RE right , I’m outta here…
I hope I never ever get the chance to say(smugly at that) “I told you so...”
adieu

elwedriddsche United States Posted on 03/15/2008 at 05:48 PM

elwedriddsche pic

Atheism as the word says is a ‘belief’ in the absence of God..as I see it there are just two options..There is God vs There is No God. Atheism ‘jumps to a conclusion ‘ that he doesn’t exist.
You can’t take either supposition as a given....the burden to prove rests on both equally, if one is being fair, as neither is universally established.

Nope.

There are only theists and atheists. The former affirm the existence of deities, the latter do not affirm this. Note the subtle but all-important distinction between not affirming a proposition and denying it.

Theists make a claim and the burden of proof rests on the theist alone, much to the chagrin of apologists.

Why shouldn’t an atheist be asked for proof of his/her beliefs? That’s being an escapist. Why aren’t atheists agreeing on their reasons for disbelief in God? They should educate the rest of us mere mortals...withholding knowledge is worse than ‘blind belief’.

It’s nothing of this kind. Apologists always define atheism as the positive denial of the existence of deities in an transparent attempt to shift the burden of proof.

To elwedriddsche
why do i waste my time...YOU’RE right , I’m outta here…
I hope I never ever get the chance to say(smugly at that) “I told you so...”
adieu

Given the history of drive-by proselytizers on this site, I doubt that we’ve seen the last of you wink

 Signature 

Science is answers that must always be questioned.
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered.
Religion is answers that must never be questioned.
Politics is answers that lobbyists pay for.

leguru United States Posted on 03/15/2008 at 09:29 PM

leguru pic

Just in case TruthAlone does the unthinkable:

Go ahead , I’m all for questioning..aren’t you gonna check out for yourself if He really exists? make a simple prayer about it and see for YOURSELF, don’t take my word for it. I was as much a sceptic, secular even, till I found the answer in 1996.

In response, been there, done that, more than once. Also I have read the Bible, more than once, in English and in Portuguese. In fact, I taught the Bible for twenty years. The more I studied it, the more it became obvious to me that it was a work of men, NOT a work of God, nor of men inspired by God. I believe you’ll find many at this site with similar experience. Part of the problem of proving the existence of God, or any diety, is that there is no verifiable evidence. If there were verifiable evidence of God’s existence, there would be no atheists, other than those who “believe” in atheism. There is, however, scientific evidence that certain areas of the brain that receive the right stimulus will result in what we call a “religious” experience (the posterior superior parietal lobe, for one - see skeptic.com) that appears to be real to the person who has been stimulated. Since it is purely subjective, it is impossible to prove to another, hence it is not repeatable nor verifiable, unless the other person has similar wiring and receives similar stimulus - therefore, not all can nor will come to the same conclusion. That makes it beyond scientifically provable. If you believe, good for you, but don’t expect me nor anyone else to believe your subjective experience to rise to the level of “truth.” And please don’t force or manipulate us because that, too, doesn’t work on everyone. “You can fool all of the people some of the time. You can fool some of the people all of the time. But, you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.” Well, maybe in politics and religion.  tongue wink

 Signature 

“What is a good man but a bad man’s teacher?
What is a bad man but a good man’s job?
If you don’t understand this, you will get lost,
however intelligent you are.
It is the great secret.” LAO-TZU

Tomorer Great Britain (UK) Posted on 03/17/2008 at 08:45 PM

Tomorer pic

Ive read the first page of comments, and the argument certainly degenrates into a battle of beliefs, faithfully bourne out of sources ultimately questionable. The answerability of the truths within proposals here hinges on the originality of the sources. I, here, cannot hope to conclude any validity towards the origins of the stories, histories, or historic stories, even, people use for their arguments. Maybe a general indifference is necessary for anyone to be able to ascertain truthful factualities (histories), as well as authenticate fictitious truths (stories). Bias is the scholars worse enemy… unless they wish to fight an endless war.

I see storifics, as well as historics, in the Bible, with numerous authors, yet too often held to be “Gospel”, authentic by the merit of the religiousness of the book (Bible), rather than by the merit of the people who wrote it. Either way you wish to look at it. Dont swallow it whole and digest it on the basis of one yes or no answer. Ask questions. Explore. Only if you see things right can only the truth be left for your eyes to perceieve.

Not to embroil myself in too deeply now, Ill just get to the point I want to forward:

All the Jesus is just another SUN GOD proselytisations really disgust me. I can appreciate the motives behind demarcation of the religious zealots, yet to contrive pan-mythic cruxifictions is odious, to the point it is for anti-religious zealots. The Bible is a history, wound in stories, not the contrary. Must it be said zealots are the bane of our happiness on the Earth, and the cause of dire confrontation avoidable by the simple adherance to reason. Reason by the honest, not by the dishonest. We must step back and regard all we see, to be full of both these. Our task is reason itself, not genius, just common sense.

Of course I do not entirely disregard the evidences for the supposition of Christianity upon pagan worship. Sirrius and the Three Kings, and the Sun’s position on the 25th of December are truely the force behind the Nativity rituals. This is a far as I care to agree for now though. Anything else is murky to me. Other than the crucifiction. No other figure of myth was put to death in this way. It seems Horus wasnt, Krishna wasnt, Dionysius wasnt, Mithras wasnt. I just cant see any proof to support these claims. Other than rather dubious info on the web. Maybe I am wrong here. Certainly this form of execution was not only Roman, yet it is a step too far to say it was not done against Jesus, the man, on the basis there is manipulation of his life’s story to further malign ends. Historically, the Bible stands strongly in respect to the plight of the Jews, and the obstinacy of the priesthood, Herod, Pilot, the Temple, and further evidences in support of a real Christ, even if this name spells myriad contradictions.

Jon - Iceland Iceland Posted on 03/18/2008 at 12:26 PM

Jon - Iceland pic

Hmm I have alot of interest in this matter and am on the side of the Atheists, even after having gone to a Roman Catholic School I have no inkling of religion in me now, other than the belief of I guess human kindness.

But yes to my point. Before when people have been talking about Zeitgeist the movie, Christians have pointed out that Zeitgeist gets its sources/quotes from books that are written by atheists that are trying to disprove Christianity.

But have you forgotten that ALL your sources and quotes ALL come from the Bible which is exactly the opposite, it’s stories and recollects from people who are trying to prove Christianity.

If I were to write a book tomorrow and tell everyone to worship particles, because hey everyone and everything is made up of particles and would say that particles spoke to me and told me to do this. Then I would ask a bunch of my friends to write stories about how particles were the gods of their world and that we should all worship them.

Well hey, it would sound stupid but it would have just as much credibility as the Bible. I don’t see any older literature out there that backs up the bible so all Christians are doing is following the guidelines of a 2000 year old book that has itself no sources or backings and is seriously outdated.

p.s. wrote this just in a quick hurry and didnt really put in too much thought so I apologize for any typo’s or if I wrote something that didn’t fit together heh.

elwedriddsche United States Posted on 03/18/2008 at 06:22 PM

elwedriddsche pic

It’s amusing how many people feel the need to weigh in here. It bears remembering that a single poster made a claim about the relationship of two mythical figures, Jesus and Horus and another poster took offense. I’m not going to refresh my memory by rereading the thread, but I don’t recall anybody else jumping in to defend the original claim.

Speaking for myself only, I (still) have neither the scholarship about the primary sources nor the interest to form an opinion one way or the other. Having said that, it’s also (still) self-evident to me that all religions are man-made and that religions evolved and borrowed and co-opted from each other. The degree of their genetic ancestry and/or new ideas they incorporate is an academic question to me which I leave to those interested in comparative mythology.

It makes sense, however, that religions are rooted in what the earliest inventors were preoccupied with—survival, implying food. In the dawn of human civilization, the turn of the seasons and a certain preoccupation with astronomy must have been very much on people’s minds. It’s not necessarily a stretch if many religions were an allegory on the sun and seasons.

I’m not entirely sure why so many people jump in to defend Christianity, which is another topic altogether for which on-topic threads are readily available (this one, say).

The Bible is a history, wound in stories, not the contrary.

That remark made me laugh. I’ve yet to read the aforementioned work of fiction, but other than SEB Debunking Christianity is a good place to debate claims like the above.

 Signature 

Science is answers that must always be questioned.
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered.
Religion is answers that must never be questioned.
Politics is answers that lobbyists pay for.

MisterMook United States Posted on 03/18/2008 at 09:01 PM

MisterMook pic

The Bible is a history like a transvestite is a woman. It might look like a history in a dark room just because it’s wearing lipstick and a dress, and some people might really WANT it to be a history because otherwise they’ve got a dirty little secret.

In essential, fundamental ways that can’t be ignored though, the Bible still has important bits that stick out as absolutely ahistorical and fictional.

leguru United States Posted on 03/18/2008 at 09:13 PM

leguru pic

MisterMook - You’ve hit it on the head. And, like Elwed mentioned, the original posting had to do with the comparison of two myths. There are some pretty good historical references to the origin of all those myths in the book, “The Hiram Key,” by Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas, especially Chapter Six. Again, as Elwed said, what is the importance of which myth came first or how they are related - they are ALL MYTHS. DUH! LOL

 Signature 

“What is a good man but a bad man’s teacher?
What is a bad man but a good man’s job?
If you don’t understand this, you will get lost,
however intelligent you are.
It is the great secret.” LAO-TZU

Tomorer Great Britain (UK) Posted on 03/19/2008 at 09:00 PM

Tomorer pic

These comments above after my comment are exactly the kind of cynicism I think is not any good on the part of scholarship. Maybe they are not cynical through and through, although for Elwe to laugh at the comment they frame (I hope not too much for the purpose of mockery) is cynical. I think this is a fair statement. There is historicity, as well as storicity in the Bible. All I mean is the history is at the core of it, and the stories not all too true embelish it. This is why I wonder at people who look at the fantastical things (some more, some less, true) and assume the Book is a fiction in its entirety.

Egyption mythology is probably all myth. Christianity on the other hand, is probably not all myth. This is all my point is. My religious thought does not consider much of the Christian religion to be worthy of belief, and the people who put their faith in the ‘Gospel’ truth, cannot see too much of their reality with such a veil over their eyes. Likewise, people who discount wisdom on the basis of its corruption by the ignorant, terrify me more than ignorance itself. This is just careless, and the thing we must be, if not anything else, is careful. Dont you think Elwe? Do not mock if you run amock yourself!

Patness Canada Posted on 03/19/2008 at 09:04 PM

Patness pic

Likewise, people who discount wisdom on the basis of its corruption by the ignorant, terrify me more than ignorance itself.

Truly spoken, but that’s a good question: is that what’s being done? I’m not disregarding it outright - but I do demand more of the information being given to me if the source isn’t credible. Doesn’t mean there’s not wisdom in the book - it just means we need other, more reliable methods of establishing it as such.

In which case, provided the wise advice was not provided to the inquisitive mind by any other means, whence came the need for the Bible?

 Signature 

The Kidney Punch Of Legendary Peace

One sure and primary and fundamental fact is the joint existence of a subject and of its world. The one does not exist without the other. I acquire no understanding of myself except as I take account of objects, of the surroundings. I do not think unless I think of things — and there I find myself. - Bruce Lee

Tomorer Great Britain (UK) Posted on 03/19/2008 at 09:07 PM

Tomorer pic

Really, what good is there that can be done if Christianity is debunked? It is a far better strategy to be theological, and purify the ‘Gospel’ truth!

Patness Canada Posted on 03/19/2008 at 09:11 PM

Patness pic

If, as has been suggested, Christianity is not necessarily inherently good (particularly, if it is inherently evil) then there is plenty good coming from the “debunking” of it - especially in the purging of falsehood from it.

This is what is necessary to purify the Gospel truth - to subject it to criticism, the likes of which cause good people to doubt doubtful assertions and to embrace what is truly wise because it is wise.

 Signature 

The Kidney Punch Of Legendary Peace

One sure and primary and fundamental fact is the joint existence of a subject and of its world. The one does not exist without the other. I acquire no understanding of myself except as I take account of objects, of the surroundings. I do not think unless I think of things — and there I find myself. - Bruce Lee

elwedriddsche United States Posted on 03/19/2008 at 09:18 PM

elwedriddsche pic

Did Radio Eriwan ever make it across the pond?

I’ll leave it up to the reader to apply the following canonical example of Radio Eriwan to the Bible:

[Question asked of Radio Eriwan] Is it true that Ivan Ivanovich won a red car in the lottery?

[Answer] In principle, yes. However, it wasn’t Ivan Ivanovich, but Petr Petrovich. It wasn’t a car, but a bicyle. He didn’t win it, instead it was stolen. But at least the color was red.

 Signature 

Science is answers that must always be questioned.
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered.
Religion is answers that must never be questioned.
Politics is answers that lobbyists pay for.

Tomorer Great Britain (UK) Posted on 03/19/2008 at 09:28 PM

Tomorer pic

Just saw your comment there Pat (by the way I love your Bruce Lee comment there). You are right. There must be a way to get it right. Just to look at the Bible and try and separate wisdom and ignorance is difficult. Yet it is not impossible. We must consider the motives of its authors, and the context of its authorship. The cultres and powers in the regions it was written in. Lies may be attributable to people, and the reasons for their corruptions can be seen quite clearly, I think, within affairs of the states they were part of. Deification of Christ (Chosen One, rather than GOD), is the number one fallacy, as well as the masculiniseation of divinity. If we separate all the stuff about ways to get to Heaven and avoid Hell, and obediance to the Lord, from ideas set around respect of each other, and equality, this might be a good way to begin. Jesus is unlikely to have intentionally made Rome the centre of his Church, for he said the Church, or GOD, even, is in everything, and nothing can be apart from it. I suppose this includes people of any creed. Actually, I think this is the only point of any real consequence really. It is certianly a reasonable benchmark of truth.

Tomorer Great Britain (UK) Posted on 03/19/2008 at 09:46 PM

Tomorer pic

Just to say, my religion is nature, and anything within it. I call all the bad things capure, and the masculiniseation of divinity is the core of this, and the divination of femininity is the way of goodness. Christianities’ truths hinge on this concept… I think. Indeed, this is quite a widely held view, although I hold my view independantly. It is really a matter of common sense, and honesty.

leguru United States Posted on 03/19/2008 at 11:15 PM

leguru pic

Tomorer: Please read the reference I used earlier - Chapter Six in “The Hiram Key,” by Knight & Lomas. The title of the chapter is, “In The Beginning Man Made God.” They offer multiple sources to come to this conclusion. Have you heard of the “God of Abraham?” This is the God that the Israelites, Christians, and Muslims were founded upon. You will discover that the reason He is referred to in that manner is that He was, in fact, a personal, family god, NOT the God of the world. And, yes, He was invented by man. Not woman, man. Some oriental philosophies offer a more neutral deity. Refer to “The Tao Te Ching,” translated by Stephen Mitchell.

 Signature 

“What is a good man but a bad man’s teacher?
What is a bad man but a good man’s job?
If you don’t understand this, you will get lost,
however intelligent you are.
It is the great secret.” LAO-TZU

Tomorer Great Britain (UK) Posted on 03/20/2008 at 09:37 AM

Tomorer pic

I am not sure what it is that this is meant to mean to me, leguru. It is really my point also, and the Tao Te Ching is something I know quite well. ‘In the Beginning Man Made God’, is a maybe a step too far though. If this is meant to be serious then it is a perfect example of the arrogance of Atheists in their apparantly infallable stance on the notion of God, held on the basis of disagreement with an equally arrogant and apparantly infallable stance. I think the Tao Te Ching, with an all too neutral deity, is something like an Atheist stance too. At least it embraces reality, even if the presence of conciousness within the Tao is not of any mention. It is just a muse on the opposites really, equally applicable to people and God, in my view.

It is I suppose a consequence of civiliseation that what is natural and good cannot be part of the capural and bad system. If it was part of it, the system might not be able to lie to itself anymore. Listen to the Amazonians… people in touch with the otherside. We persue a life that disrupts and distorts what we really are, and God is. ‘I like the quote of an Indian victim of the U.S.A ‘Only when all the fish are gone, and the buffalo are no more, will the white man realise he cannot eat money’. It is truth, we destroy ourselves with. We are all guilty.

Most important here is to argue on the right side. This is obvious. Yet it is not so obvious what it is that we may call the right side. Atheists mirror Bible Bashers, they play the same game with the same book on the table, or even books, with all the various arguments for and against God.
Nothing original is brought to the table. I think, consequently bothe sides are equally wrong, and the right side considers the argument itself to be wrong. This is the point I want to forward.

leguru United States Posted on 03/20/2008 at 10:29 PM

leguru pic

Actually, Knight and Lomas are both Christians, not atheists. Please read the book and then send me a reply. As to the Tao Te Ching, it does not deify a person, but rather what you seem to feel is supreme, i.e. nature. One of the problems with most deities is that they cannot be proven wrong, therefore they must be right (they have all the authority). What if the most advanced creature on our planet, homo sapiens, is, in fact, the most advanced creature on our planet? Would not a humanistic philosophy that seeks to make each one of us the best we can be and help others to bring out the best in them, also, be a worthwhile philosophy? At least worthy of investigation?

 Signature 

“What is a good man but a bad man’s teacher?
What is a bad man but a good man’s job?
If you don’t understand this, you will get lost,
however intelligent you are.
It is the great secret.” LAO-TZU

Page 24 of 27 pages « First  <  22 23 24 25 26 >  Last »

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys


Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


<< Back to main