Response: Horus and Jesus
Offline This is a response to American Atheist's post on the blog entry, "What about Jesus?"
I've tried posting this twice now. Both times it has been posted and then has mysteriously disappeared some time later. I'm wondering if it's just a glitch, or if someone's actually deleting my post. Either way, I'll post it here and find out.
AA, if you're going to respond to this, please don't cite Wikipedia anymore. Do you understand the essential difference between copying and pasting a Wikipedia entry and copying and pasting a peer-reviewed article on Egyptian religion written by a scholar? One could have easily been written by a 14-year-old who was reading Kersey Graves, and the other is written by a confirmed expert. Please don't do Wikipedia, and if you do, I won't take you seriously.
Now, here we go....
============
For future reference, my source for most of this information is located here:
http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/osy.html
[quote=American Atheist]1. Both were conceived of a virgin.[/quote]
Horus was NOT born of a virgin at all. Indeed, one ancient Egyptian relief depicts this conception by showing his mother Isis in a falcon form, hovering over an erect phallus of a dead and prone Osiris in the Underworld. The description of the conception of Horus will show exactly the sexual elements that characterize pagan 'miracle births', as noted by the scholars earlier:
"But after she [i.e., Isis] had brought it [i.e. Osiris' body] back to Egypt, Seth managed to get hold of Osiris's body again and cut it up into fourteen parts, which she scattered all over Egypt. Then Isis went out to search for Osiris a second time and buried each part where she found it (hence the many tombs of Osiris tht exist in Egypt). The only part that she did not find was the god's penis, for Seth had thrown it into the river, where it had been eaten by a fish; Isis therefore fashioned a substitute penis to put in its place. She had also had sexual intercourse with Osisis after his death, which resulted in the conception and birth of his posthumous son, Harpocrates, Horus-the-child. Osiris became king of the netherworld, and Horus proceeded to fight with Seth..."
[quote]2. Both were the "only begotten son" of a god (either Osiris or Yahweh)[/quote]
Which means nothing at all if it's true, of course.
[quote]3. Horus's mother was Meri, Jesus's mother was Mary.[/quote]
Yeah, that's intelligent. Comparing the English translations of names...Hahaha...
Don't fall for the etymological trick or treat: You can't get from "Meri" to "Mary" just by putting the names next to each other. The same goes for below.
[quote]4. Horus's foster father was called Jo-Seph, and Jesus's foster father was Joseph.[/quote]
Horus's father was [i]Seb[/i]. I don't know where you're getting "Jo-Seph" from.
[quote]5. Both foster fathers were of royal descent.[/quote]
Joseph was of royal descent through many, many generations of gaps. This is extremely weak. Horus was often identified with the living Pharaoh, but so commonplace as to be meaningless.
[quote]6. Both were born in a cave (although sometimes Jesus is said to have been born in a stable).[/quote]
I have found no reference to a cave/manger in any scholarly literature, so I'll assume you're making stuff up again. In fact, a scholar named Frazer has Horus born in the swamps.
[quote]7. Both had their coming announced to their mother by an angel.[/quote]
There is no reference to that either in the Horus story.
[quote]8. Horus; birth was heralded by the star Sirius (the morning star). Jesus had his birth heralded by a star in the East (the sun rises in the East).[/quote]
Well, that seems to have been missed by scholars too. Frazer and knows nothing about a star.
[quote]9. Ancient Egyptians celebrated the birth of Horus on December 21 (the Winter Solstice). Modern Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus on December 25.[/quote]
Irrelevant. You should never use this as a valid comparison. Nowhere in the Bible is Jesus's birth ascribed to December 25th.
[quote]10. Both births were announced by angels (this si nto the same as number 7).
11. Both had shepherds witnessing the birth.
12. Horus was visited at birth by "three solar deities" and Jesus was visited by "three wise men".[/quote]
There's nothing on these either. I'm really beginning to wonder if you really believe this stuff, since there's absolutely no evidence in the originals for any of those.
[quote]13. After the birth of Horus, Herut tried to have Horus murdered. After the birth of Jesus, Herod tried to have Jesus murdered.[/quote]
Once again, you're comparing Hebrew names to Egyptian names because they sound similar in ENGLISH.
Plus, I haven't found this as part of the story. Evidence, please?
[quote]14. To hide from Herut, the god That tells Isis, "Come, thou goddess Isis, hide thyself with thy child." To hide from Herod, an angel tells Joseph to "arise and take the young child and his mother and flee into Egypt."[/quote]
I haven't found this as part of the story. Evidence, please?
[quote]15. When Horus came of age, he had a special ritual where hsi eye was restored. When Jesus (and other Jews) come of age, they have a special ritual called a Bar Mitzvah.[/quote]
Which shows you don't know your mythology. Horus's eye was never restored: He gave it to Osiris, and he ate it.
Stupid comment. Bar Mitzvahs are different from what Horus would have experienced, if what you said was true. Of course, Egyptian religion scholars know nothing of this either.
[quote]16. Both Horus and Jesus were 12 at this coming-of-age ritual.[/quote]
Which would come as no surprise. And your point is what?
[quote]17. Neither have any official recorded life histories between the ages of 12 and 30.[/quote]
Another stupid comment. If you knew anything about ancient biographies, you'd know that they almost never covered anything in the childhood years, or the years before manhood. It simply wasn't important.
[quote]18. Horus was baptized in the river Eridanus. Jesus was baptized in the river Jordan.
19. Both were baptized at age 30.
20. Horus was baptized by Anup the Baptizer. Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist.
21. Both Anup and John were later beheaded.[/quote]
Egyptian scholars know of none of this either. Please stop making things up.
[quote]22. Horus was taken from the desert of Amenta up a high mountain to be tempted by his arch-rival Set. Jesus was taken from the desert in Palestine up a high mountain to be tempted by his arch-rival Satan.[/quote]
[quote]23. Both Horus and Jesus successfully resist this temptation.[/quote]
[quote]24. Both have 12 disciples.[/quote]
I can find references to four "disciples"--variously called the semi-divine Heru-Shemsu ("Followers of Horus"). I can find references to sixteen human followers. And I can find reference to an unnumberered group of followers called mesniu/mesnitu ("blacksmiths") who accompanied Horus in some of his battles, although these might be identified with the Heru-Shemsu. But I cannot find twelve anywhere... Horus is NOT the sun-god (that's Re), so we cannot use the 'all solar gods have twelve disciples--in the Zodiac' routine here.
[quote]25. Both walked on water, cast out demons, healed the sick, and restored sight to the blind. [/quote]
He was thrown into the water, but he never walked on it.
As I've said before, miracle stories abound, even among religious groups that could not possibly have influenced one another, such as Latin American groups (e.g. Aztecs) and Roman MR's, so this 'similarity' carries no force.
[quote]26. Horus "stilled the sea by his power." Jesus commanded the sea to be still by saying, "Peace, be still."[/quote]
I can find no reference for that either...This is getting tiresome. Please be specific.
[quote]27. Horus raised his dead father (Osiris) from the grave. Jesus raised Lazarus from the grave. (Note the similarity in names when you say them out loud. Further, Osiris was also known as Asar, which is El-Asar in Hebrew, which is El-Asarus in Latin.)[/quote]
It still makes me giggle a little bit that you're comparing the English translations of names in two seperate languages. Wow, you're ignorant.
Oh, and by the way, there's no record of such resurrection. "The reference to this specific resurrection I cannot find ANYWHERE in the scholarly literature. I have looked under all forms of the name to no avail. The fact that something so striking is not even mentioned in modern works of Egyptology indicates its questionable status. It simply cannot be adduced as data without SOME real substantiation. The closest thing to it I can find is in Horus' official funerary role, in which he "introduces" the newly dead to Osirus and his underworld kingdom. In the Book of the Dead, for example, Horus introduces the newly departed Ani to Osirus, and asks Osirus to accept and care for Ani."
[quote]28. Osiris was raised in the town of Anu. Lazarus was raised in Bethanu (literally, "house of Anu").[/quote]
...Again. You're a moron. And, noting what I just said above, even if that were actually true, it would mean nothing at all.
[quote]29. Both gods delivered a Sermon on the Mount.
30. Both were crucified.
31. Both were crucified next to two thieves.
32. Both were buried in a tomb.
33. Horus was sent to Hell and resurrected in 3 days. Jesus was sent to Hell and came back "three days" later (although Friday night to Sunday morning is hardly three days).[/quote]
Congratulations for completely making things up. None of that is found in any literature. In fact,
"I can find no references to Horus EVER dying, until he later becomes "merged" with Re the Sun god, after which he 'dies' and is 'reborn' every single day as the sun rises. And even in this 'death', there is no reference to a tomb anywhere..."
"I found in Budge one idea that Horus had died and been cast in pieces in the water, and his parts were fished out by Sebek the crocodile god at Isis' request. But that's a funny sort of baptism at best."
[quote]34. Both had their resurrection announced by women.[/quote]
Not so, since there was no resurrection to speak of.
[quote]35. Both are supposed to return for a 1000-year reign.
36. Horus is known as KRST, the anointed one. Jesus was known as the Christ (which means "anointed one").[/quote]
There is no evidence for either of these.
[quote]37. Both Jesus and Horus have been called the good shepherd, the lamb of God, the bread of life, the son of man, the Word, the fisher, and the winnower.[/quote]
I have found these titles: Great God, Chief of the Powers, Master of Heaven, Avenger of His Father (since he beat up Set, who "killed" Osiris). He may have been called rightly "Son of Man" as the son of royalty (see [url=http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/sonofman.html]here[/url]) but I have found no evidence for this.
[quote]38. Both are associated with the zodiac sign of Pisces (the fish).
39. Both are associated with the symbols of the fish, the beetle, the vine, and the shepherd's crook.[/quote]
These are vague and weak at best. There's very little evidence for this.
[quote]40. Horus was born in Anu ("the place of bread") and Jesus was born in Bethlehem ("the house of bread").
41. "The infant Horus was carried out of Egypt to escape the wrath of Typhon. The infant Jesus was carried into Egypt to escape the wrath of Herod. Concerning the infant Jesus, the New Testament states the following prophecy: 'Out of Egypt have I called my son.'" (See Point 13)[/quote]
You're getting more and more vague as we go.
[quote]42. Both were transfigured on the mount.[/quote]
In addition to being very vague, I have no idea what you mean here. "Transfiguration" isn't what I'd use to describe the Sermon on the Mount.
[quote]43. The catacombs of Rome have pictures of the infant Horus being held by his mother, not unlike the modern-day images of "Madonna and Child."[/quote]
Right, so a picture proves influence? I think not.The term wasn't even coined until after 400 A.D. This is a complete nonfactor.
[quote]44. Noted English author C. W. King says that both Isis and Mary are called "Immaculate".[/quote]
Good for C.W. King, a modern author. I'm sure C.W. King is an expert of Egyptian religion too...
[quote]45. Horus says: "Osiris, I am your son, come to glorify your soul, and to give you even more power." And Jesus says: "Now is the Son of Man glorified and God is glorified in him. If God is glorified in him, God will glorify the Son in himself, and will glorify him at once."[/quote]
I'll wait for a reference from you. Even if it is true, it's hardly surprising, since there were many gods who had sons.
[quote]46. Horus was identified with the Tau (cross).[/quote]
Prove it, since there's no reason for Horus to be identified one. He certainly wasn't crucified, because he never even died.
And thus, we see that you've fallen victim to intellectual lethargy. You accept everything uncritically from an expert of nothing named Gavin Schmitt, whereas I take my data from Egyptian religion scholars. A lot of what you've posted is either an outright lie or an extreme extrapolation of the data we have. So unless you can provide direct evidence that any of these happened to Horus (i.e. quotes from scholars of Egyptian religion confirming this, or better yet, real quotes from the original stories), I'll call you a liar and feel sorry for you.
Oh, and by the way, the Orpheus amulet [i]is[/i] a confirmed forgery. Even Freke and Gandy, where you undoubtedly got the image from (it's on the cover of one of their books) KNEW this when they posted it. See [url=http://www.bede.org.uk/orpheus.htm]here[/url].
no, just so that all of christianity becomes theists with a belief in a historical figure and no crappy laws or beliefs in creationism
Oh, I see.
For some reason, Guruite, you remind me of Mick Foley.
I don't know why I just told you that.....
[quote]K, I am fine with Jesus revising the old bible. The old testiment was not a nice work. Jesus cleaned it up, but still had some things in there that we no longer follow, and it is no longer nessiscary to follow. So, why don't we get another prophet to revise the new testiment and take out/ add a new book of stuff that is still relivent?[/quote]
First, you're begging the question of whether Jesus was merely a "prophet." Obviously, as a Christian, I disagree.
There's not much in the New Testament, I believe, that isn't relevant. The Epistles were written to specific people in a specific context, sure, but they can still be easily applied today. The NT Application Commentary is an excellent way of seeing this. We still see some of the same things described in books like James and the Corinthians in churches today.
We live in a day and age that this type of process you suggest would be impossible. Practically no Christian, I think, would agree with editing massive amounts of text out of the Bible at this point. Plus, we already have, what, billions of Bibles in circulation in the world? We'd have to track them all down and replace their Bibles, because otherwise there'd be massive amounts of confusion.
[quote]Oh yeah, We do it was jo smith and his newfangled book of mormon! But it is too easy to show that he just made that stuff up. [/quote]
Joseph Smith did no such thing. He didn't take anything out of the New Testament...He merely added his own literature in a seperate book.
[quote]I think that we need to do to the NT what jesus did to the OT, revise/write a new book. We need a new liberal prophet. One that takes out all of the bad stuff in religion.[/quote]
By liberal, you mean "politically correct," I see.
[quote=American Atheist]So we can convert?[/quote]
You'll only convert if the Bible suits your personal intuitions? That's very telling of you, AA.
I wonder if you're ever going to decide that your personal intuition tells you to actually answer my arguments against you yourself, rather than getting Rooky to do it for you. By the way, where [i]is[/i] Rook? I guess I understand now what it means when people call him the "fundy atheist on the run."
[quote]First, you're begging the question of whether Jesus was merely a "prophet." Obviously, as a Christian, I disagree.[/quote]
Sorry, I did not mean to call him a prophet. I will revise that statement "Someone who is qualified to revise the bible" - dosent need to be a profit, or a savior (but it would add spunk if it were)
[quote]
There's not much in the New Testament, I believe, that isn't relevant.[/quote]
Okay, but there is some? If you are a christian then all you need to know is Christ. Paul is sexist - Revelations is wacky at best - And I still want to know how we know what jesus said in the garden. The bible was voted on, we should put back in all of the other stuff that didn't make it.
[quote]We live in a day and age that this type of process you suggest would be impossible. Practically no Christian, I think, would agree with editing massive amounts of text out of the Bible at this point. Plus, we already have, what, billions of Bibles in circulation in the world? We'd have to track them all down and replace their Bibles, because otherwise there'd be massive amounts of confusion.[/quote]
Yeah, but when is this stuff to hard for god's work?
[quote]Joseph Smith did no such thing. He didn't take anything out of the New Testament...He merely added his own literature in a seperate book.[/quote]
No, he did a translation (interpretation) of many of the scriptures in the NT, as well as rewrite Matthew. - under many scriptures in the bible as presented by Mormons, there is the JST or Joseph smith translation... it goes to a corresponding scripture that Joseph adds/takes stuff out.
[quote]By liberal, you mean "politically correct," I see.[/quote]
Or at least moral.
[quote]
You'll only convert if the Bible suits your personal intuitions? That's very telling of you, AA.[/quote]
No, he was wondering why we would do such a thing. I would not convert to Christianity even if we revised the whole bible to say that there was no god. - Christianity is just too violent....
[quote]I wonder if you're ever going to decide that your personal intuition tells you to actually answer my arguments against you yourself, rather than getting Rooky to do it for you. By the way, where is Rook? I guess I understand now what it means when people call him the "fundy atheist on the run."[/quote]
*cries and runs to rooky* - Haha, why does it matter who answers your arguments? But, I do not call people to do my argueing, I can make a fool of my self by my self, Without anyone else's help.
[quote=P-Dunn][quote=American Atheist]So we can convert?[/quote]
You'll only convert if the Bible suits your personal intuitions? That's very telling of you, AA. I wonder if you're ever going to decide that your personal intuition tells you to actually answer my arguments against you yourself, rather than getting Rooky to do it for you. By the way, where [i]is[/i] Rook? I guess I understand now what it means when people call him the "fundy atheist on the run."[/quote]
Everytime I read [url=http://atheismsucks-sucks.blogspot.com/2007/01/frank-waltons-friend-p-dunn.html]this,[/url] everything seems much better. :D
But anyway, you can come over here www.rationalresponders.com
We've been talking about that over there. Feel free to come.
[quote=Guruite]
*cries and runs to rooky* - Haha, why does it matter who answers your arguments? But, I do not call people to do my argueing, I can make a fool of my self by my self, Without anyone else's help.[/quote]
Well yeah, but I haven't seen you make a fool of yourself lately. I prefer debating creationists, science is my thing but I still try to debate about the bible if I feel like it. I never got a respond from Seraph0000 in the "Creation versus Evolution" forum, but you don't see me calling him a "Fundy Creationist on the run".
[quote=American Atheist]Everytime I read this, everything seems much better. [/quote]
You know, that's really quite classy. Stalking someone's Myspace and posting their pictures and laughing is [i]really[/i] mature, guys. Especially since you neglect to answer anything I've said. I guess that when you run out of arguments, all you can do is belittle your opponent.
It's also really classy to belittle someone for never having a "real" girlfriend without knowing their history. I had a dating relationship with a girl for over a year and a half, but she wouldn't call me her boyfriend because she wanted to keep it on the down low, and her parents didn't seem to like the idea. We were basically in an untitled relationship. And you also neglect to mention that practically every picture of me on Myspace is me with some girl. Does that still qualify me as a "loser?"
[quote]But anyway, you can come over here www.rationalresponders.com
We've been talking about that over there. Feel free to come.[/quote]
Sorry, I'm going to have to decline. You made the post [i]here[/i]. I responded [i]here[/i]. You brought Rook to complain [i]here[/i]. We're going to finish it [i]here[/i].
You seem to keep wanting me to come over to that forum, saying that you have "experts" over there. Know that it doesn't intimidate me one bit. Heck, TheologyWeb.com, where I frequent, has had Farrell Till, Dan Barker, Ed Babinski, John Loftus, Frank Zindler...Those might qualify as "experts."
[quote]You know, that's really quite classy. Stalking someone's Myspace and posting their pictures and laughing is really mature, guys. Especially since you neglect to answer anything I've said. I guess that when you run out of arguments, all you can do is belittle your opponent.
It's also really classy to belittle someone for never having a "real" girlfriend without knowing their history. I had a dating relationship with a girl for over a year and a half, but she wouldn't call me her boyfriend because she wanted to keep it on the down low, and her parents didn't seem to like the idea. We were basically in an untitled relationship. And you also neglect to mention that practically every picture of me on Myspace is me with some girl. Does that still qualify me as a "loser?"[/quote]
Im gonna agree with P-Dunn on this one. Why in the world do you care if he has had a girlfriend or not? People should have better things to do then take screen shots of P-Dunn's myspace and post them....
[quote=Guruite]
Im gonna agree with P-Dunn on this one. Why in the world do you care if he has had a girlfriend or not? People should have better things to do then take screen shots of P-Dunn's myspace and post them....[/quote]
I don't. Frank Walton has done the same stuff with everyone else. No one seems to be asking him why he cares so much. Check out some of Frank's blogs. Like "How old is Sapient?"
"Richard Dawkins: Wannabe thinker?"
Frank even bothered to write about Rook's blog.
http://atheismsucks.blogspot.com/2007/01/rook-hawkins-gives-us-taste-of-his.html
Frank is worse, I don't know why everyone's making a big deal out of this.
If he does it to everyone, then fine... I just read the one link... diddnt search around or read too much
People don't matter. Ideas are what matter. Making personal attacks is a waste of time for everyone, because Ideas don't change when someone else presents them. It does not matter if you feel as though other people are wasting their time insulting you or your friends. Doesn't mean you have to be a jerk too.
Tell that to Frank, the guy who once claimed atheists had his home address and wanted to hurt him, so he writes blogs to bash atheists because of his personal experiences.
[quote]I don't. Frank Walton has done the same stuff with everyone else. No one seems to be asking him why he cares so much. Check out some of Frank's blogs. Like "How old is Sapient?"
"Richard Dawkins: Wannabe thinker?"
Frank even bothered to write about Rook's blog.
http://atheismsucks.blogspot.com/2007/01/rook-hawkins-gives-us-taste-of-his.html
Frank is worse, I don't know why everyone's making a big deal out of this.[/quote]
Let me get this straight, AA. I don't seem to understand something. If you don't like Frank Walton's tactics, then [i]why did you use them?![/i] And as I recall, "Because Frank did it," stopped being a valid excuse for misbehavior in elementary school. You seem to be living locked in 5th grade with other comments you've made.
Especially since I wouldn't consider myself to be Frank Walton's friend. He and I both are members of TheologWeb.com, and I believe we've been in the same conversation [i]once[/i]. I've read some of his material, and in some cases I feel he is too overboard. But the difference is that he always tries to deal with their arguments as well, not just ridicule them.
By the way, whenever Rook decides to show up again, he can check that Fitzmeyer page about Poimandres.
[url=http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/attachment.php?attachmentid=40799&d=1171061987]Scanned copy of the page.[/url]
If the link doesn't work, try [url=http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1851843&postcount=103]this[/url] instead.
[quote=P-Dunn]Let me get this straight, AA. I don't seem to understand something. If you don't like Frank Walton's tactics, then [i]why did you use them?![/i] And as I recall, "Because Frank did it," stopped being a valid excuse for misbehavior in elementary school. You seem to be living locked in 5th grade with other comments you've made.[/quote]
Actually, I'm using his tactics against him and other theists. As someone once said:
[i]Turn Frank's ridiculous rhetoric back in on itself. A lovely parody of the sites that mock and parody our own site I think. :D [/i]
[i]Imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery, but what is imitation of imitation of parody of imitation? *head asplodes* [/i]
[quote]Especially since I wouldn't consider myself to be Frank Walton's friend. He and I both are members of TheologWeb.com, and I believe we've been in the same conversation [i]once[/i]. I've read some of his material, and in some cases I feel he is too overboard. But the difference is that he always tries to deal with their arguments as well, not just ridicule them.[/quote]
No, he is usually concerned with making people think that the RRS are fascists, a cult, or evil people. He says that the RRS have idiots as members when some of those "idiots" like Kellym78 went to college and studied philosophy, Yellow Number Five is a chemical engineer and is fixing to get his PhD soon. Brian, Razor, and Rook are not idiots.
[quote]By the way, whenever Rook decides to show up again, he can check that Fitzmeyer page about Poimandres.
[url=http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/attachment.php?attachmentid=40799&d=1171061987]Scanned copy of the page.[/url]
If the link doesn't work, try [url=http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1851843&postcount=103]this[/url] instead.
[/quote]
I have to be a member to look at the first link, but I've seen the second link. Then I clicked that other link inside of it and it led me to the one where I have to sign up. I'll try it again later.
[quote]Actually, I'm using his tactics against him and other theists. As someone once said:
Turn Frank's ridiculous rhetoric back in on itself. A lovely parody of the sites that mock and parody our own site I think.
Imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery, but what is imitation of imitation of parody of imitation? *head asplodes* [/quote]
And this makes it right and mature?
[quote]No, he is usually concerned with making people think that the RRS are fascists, a cult, or evil people. He says that the RRS have idiots as members when some of those "idiots" like Kellym78 went to college and studied philosophy, Yellow Number Five is a chemical engineer and is fixing to get his PhD soon. Brian, Razor, and Rook are not idiots.[/quote]
In his view, anyone who adamently supports the idea that Jesus did not exist, or uncritically accepts everything that The God Who Wasn't There says, or makes a fool of themselves asking for people in the ancient world who don't have contemporary evidence of their existence in a contest, or makes a video telling you do blaspheme on YouTube as if they really think it's a big deal, is automatically an idiot. This is one concept I happen to agree with Frank Walton on. To fly in the face of almost all scholarship regarding Jesus and resort to conspiracy theories is, plain and simple, idiocy.
I'm curious. What are Brain, Razor, and Rook's qualifications? I see you neglect to mention them, so I'd like to know what I'm dealing with. Rook's only qualifications, as of now, seem to be, "I've read a lot of books, and C. Dennis McKinsey called me an expert!"
This may be due to my lack of understanding of the topic, but what license does a Chemical Engineering degree give you to make a successful case against Christians? Does it give you the right to be an expert on anything pertaining to religion?
[quote]I have to be a member to look at the first link, but I've seen the second link. Then I clicked that other link inside of it and it led me to the one where I have to sign up. I'll try it again later.[/quote]
Okay. By all means, register and join the discussion if you want. I'd be interested to see you debate lilangelofterror, jpholding, or ApologiaPheonix...Or me.
[quote=P-Dunn]In his view, anyone who adamently supports the idea that Jesus did not exist, or uncritically accepts everything that The God Who Wasn't There says, or makes a fool of themselves asking for people in the ancient world who don't have contemporary evidence of their existence in a contest, or makes a video telling you do blaspheme on YouTube as if they really think it's a big deal, is automatically an idiot. This is one concept I happen to agree with Frank Walton on. To fly in the face of almost all scholarship regarding Jesus and resort to conspiracy theories is, plain and simple, idiocy.[/quote]
He's also written about their personal lives and nobody ever wants to mention that.
[quote]I'm curious. What are Brain, Razor, and Rook's qualifications? I see you neglect to mention them, so I'd like to know what I'm dealing with. Rook's only qualifications, as of now, seem to be, "I've read a lot of books, and C. Dennis McKinsey called me an expert!"[/quote]
Brian and Razor were college students, I'm not sure about Rook. I don't know much about Razor, but the guy is not an idiot. I've seen him debate at the message board, and he mentioned something from his college days.
[quote]This may be due to my lack of understanding of the topic, but what license does a Chemical Engineering degree give you to make a successful case against Christians? Does it give you the right to be an expert on anything pertaining to religion?[/quote]
Actually, I'm trying to show you that some of the members don't spend the whole day doing what Frank thinks they do.
[quote]
Okay. By all means, register and join the discussion if you want. I'd be interested to see you debate lilangelofterror, jpholding, or ApologiaPheonix...Or me.[/quote]
I'm already the member of like 6 message boards, it's hard to keep up, but I might join. ;)
[quote]He's also written about their personal lives and nobody ever wants to mention that.[/quote]
Which he shouldn't have done, especially if it's in a mocking way. It's like the one atheist on WWGHA's board that posted all of the info he could pull of my Facebook and Myspace as he could and posted it for no reason at all...It was stupid and uncalled for. Or that one fundy who stalked my Myspace and posted my pictures on a blog without addressing my arguments. Hmm...
[quote]Brian and Razor were college students, I'm not sure about Rook. I don't know much about Razor, but the guy is not an idiot. I've seen him debate at the message board, and he mentioned something from his college days.[/quote]
Okay. Do you happen to know their degrees?
[quote]I'm already the member of like 6 message boards, it's hard to keep up, but I might join. [/quote]
I guess the difference with this one may be that it's a Christian-run forum, but has a large group of atheists as well. Most of the people there on both sides are very intelligent as well...You'll encounter a troll every now and then.
I hope to see you join in the discussion, but I completely understand your hesitation...The same is true for me as well.
[quote=P-Dunn]Which he shouldn't have done, especially if it's in a mocking way. It's like the one atheist on WWGHA's board that posted all of the info he could pull of my Facebook and Myspace as he could and posted it for no reason at all...It was stupid and uncalled for. Or that one fundy who stalked my Myspace and posted my pictures on a blog without addressing my arguments. Hmm...[/quote]
If you meant "fundy atheist", you got yourself an oxymoron right there.
[quote]Okay. Do you happen to know their degrees?[/quote]
I don't know, but I don't think it matters.
Jesus Christ didn't have a degree, right?
[quote]I guess the difference with this one may be that it's a Christian-run forum, but has a large group of atheists as well. Most of the people there on both sides are very intelligent as well...You'll encounter a troll every now and then.
I hope to see you join in the discussion, but I completely understand your hesitation...The same is true for me as well.[/quote]
Oh, ok, and...
[IMG]http://www.flags.com/images/products/lg-happy-valentines-day.jpg[/IMG]
[quote=American Atheist]If you meant "fundy atheist", you got yourself an oxymoron right there.[/quote]
I dont see how its an oxymoron at all. Athiests can be just as dogmatic and close minded as religious believers(sometimes even more so).
[quote=Sir-Think-A-Lot][quote=American Atheist]If you meant "fundy atheist", you got yourself an oxymoron right there.[/quote]
I dont see how its an oxymoron at all. Athiests can be just as dogmatic and close minded as religious believers(sometimes even more so). [/quote]
Atheism isn't a religion. I guess I could presume that they look at the fundamentals of science then see if they can prove the principals through scientific method. If they can, then they can expound the truth of their findings.
Can the fundy Christian do the same? Can they prove, through scientific method, that god exists?
From [url=http://atheism.about.com/od/isatheismdangerous/a/Fundamentalist.htm]here[/url]:
If fundamentalism is primarily about the promotion of "fundamental" beliefs, it's not possible for this to be applied to atheism because [b]atheism has no beliefs, much less "fundamental" beliefs[/b]. Atheism is the absence of belief in gods, nothing more and nothing less, so [b]there is nothing "fundamental"[/b] for atheists to "get back to" in order to achieve a more pure or original atheism.
[quote]If you meant "fundy atheist", you got yourself an oxymoron right there.[/quote]
I like to define "fundy atheist" in two ways:
1) Someone who was once a fundamentalist Christian, interpreting the Bible completely literally, and then became an atheist. However, they still kept their fundamentalist-like attitude when reading the Bible, and therefore use arguments like "The Bible says pi = 3," or "The Bible says that prayer will give you ANYTHING, but when I prayed for a bike I didn't get one. Therefore God doesn't exist." They merely assume that they were literal despite the context, and do everything else fundy Christians do, without the religion.
2) Someone who overall has the intelligence of the typical, unquestioning fundamentalist, but is an atheist.
[quote]I don't know, but I don't think it matters.[/quote]
It certainly does matter if they want people to take them seriously.
If you were about to have brain surgery, who would you trust more: a licenced doctor and graduate of John Hopkins University or someone who read a book about brain surgery?
Similarly, if you want information regarding the historical evidence behind Jesus Christ that is as accurate as possible, who would you trust more: a licenced historian with a doctorate in New Testament studies or Ancient Near Eastern studies, or someone who's read a book?
This is why I prefer scholarship to nonscholarship, and therefore, people like N.T. Wright over Brian Sapient and Rook Hawkins any day of the week.
Jesus Christ didn't have a degree, right?[/quote]
Jesus Christ also lived at a time and location where getting a college degree in Philosophy of Religion or New Testament wasn't possible. Plus, he didn't need a degree if he was already the Son of God, which I'd of course argue. Your point is moot.
[quote]Oh, ok, and...
Happy Valentines Day[/quote]
Same to you.
[quote=P-Dunn]Similarly, if you want information regarding the historical evidence behind Jesus Christ that is as accurate as possible, who would you trust more: a licenced historian with a doctorate in New Testament studies or Ancient Near Eastern studies, or someone who's read a book?[/quote]
Wait a minute, don't you usually link us to tektonics? JP Holding is not a licensed historian. He's the laughing stock of Christianity online.
[b]What are your credentials?[/b] [i]I have a Masters' Degree in Library Science. What the runs down to is, I'm an expert at looking things up and answering questions. [/i]
Here's where it says that.
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/mission.html
That's what he has...LIBRARY SCIENCE!
He's an expert in looking things up? SO IS ROOK!
Also, did you forget that Yellow#5 debunked fishdontwalk.com and he didn't even have his Ph.D yet?
Try going there. www.fishdontwalk.com
[quote]This is why I prefer scholarship to nonscholarship, and therefore, people like N.T. Wright over Brian Sapient and Rook Hawkins any day of the week.[/quote]
Sure you do. :D
[quote]Jesus Christ also lived at a time...[/quote]
Wait...Jesus lived?
[quote]Wait a minute, don't you usually link us to tektonics? JP Holding is not a licensed historian.[/quote]
I never said he was. He [i]does[/i] use licenced, serious historians to make his point, which the RRS don't seem to do.
[quote]He's the laughing stock of Christianity online.[/quote]
So debate him on TheologyWeb and show him what a laughing stock he is. I'm sure he'd love to know that he's worthless, since he's a full-time apologist who runs the largest apologetics ministry run by one person on the internet. You should convince him to get a new career, if his arguments are bad.
[quote]What are your credentials? I have a Masters' Degree in Library Science. What the runs down to is, I'm an expert at looking things up and answering questions.
Here's where it says that.
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/mission.html
That's what he has...LIBRARY SCIENCE![/quote]
Yep. He was a librarian in a prison, but now runs a full-time apologetics ministry.
I never said that Holding was himself qualified to be a historian, or an expert of Biblical criticism. But he does cite experts who [i]are[/i], and makes his point around them. At least he has a degree that's relevant to the research process.
[quote]He's an expert in looking things up? SO IS ROOK![/quote]
He has a Library Science degree as well? ;-)
Of course, Rook restricts his sources to a small population of fringe "scholars" who believe Jesus never existed.
[quote]Also, did you forget that Yellow#5 debunked fishdontwalk.com and he didn't even have his Ph.D yet?
Try going there. www.fishdontwalk.com[/quote]
I also never said that you had to have a Ph.D. before you could debunk anything, especially if they're bad arguments in the first place. If I did, it would have been hypocritical...I didn't need any degree at all to debunk GodIsImaginary.com. But it does make people take you a lot more seriously.
[quote]Sure you do. [/quote]
Yes, I do. Holding cites these sources all the time, and they are much more qualified than Rook Hawkins.
[quote]Wait...Jesus lived?[/quote]
Yes, moron. If you care to actually debate me on this subject, rather than ducking and running again, or posting stupid soundbites like that, start a topic that's simply me vs. you. No Rook or anyone else, just you. We'll debate the historical information surrounding Jesus's life and whether we have enough information to believe he existed.
I really doubt you'll go down this road with me.
EDIT: Just kidding. I'll start it for you.
[quote]I like to define "fundy atheist" in two ways:
1) Someone who was once a fundamentalist Christian, interpreting the Bible completely literally, and then became an atheist. However, they still kept their fundamentalist-like attitude when reading the Bible, and therefore use arguments like "The Bible says pi = 3," or "The Bible says that prayer will give you ANYTHING, but when I prayed for a bike I didn't get one. Therefore God doesn't exist." They merely assume that they were literal despite the context, and do everything else fundy Christians do, without the religion.
2) Someone who overall has the intelligence of the typical, unquestioning fundamentalist, but is an atheist.[/quote]
I'd add another one:
An athiest who adopts beliefs just as kooky as religious fundy's(such as Nazarath didnt exist when Jesus was alive, or that Christianity was completely stolen from pagen gods) and holds to them just as dogmaticly.
I suppose that fits with #2 though so it doesnt matter.