Jump to content

Does God care?


Recommended Posts

God cares, but not about who wins.God cares about how you live and appreciate life. If you live a great life and respect people and treat them as you would want to be treated and you win win win, then God cares about the winning if it's helped you achieve your life success.... otherwise God cares not. Even still it's not the 'winning' that he cares about, it's just a vice by which you achieved your life success.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a feeling that someone would post this topic after reading the most recent blog and other comments Daniel makes about reading religious material.What I cant believe is that anyone attempted to answer this question. As if anyone here truly knows.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe that you question someone trying to contemplate this question. It's human nature.In addition nowhere in my response did I say i was speaking for God or anyone else, no fool would do that. I was answering with my own personal opinion.If someone can pose a question it is free to be answered.In addition this is a public forum.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a cringe of embarrassment for Daniel when I read his "prayer" comment. I just shake my head when I hear that apparently mature adults actually believe in that sort of childish religious hogwash. There is no god, Jesus never existed, etc. Wake up, folks, the Maytag Superscrub Brainwashing Machine comes with a lifetime warranty.

Link to post
Share on other sites

teknowledg...I did not mean to ruffle any feathers. I have read many of your posts as I visit the site daily since the new look and forums went up.Just thought this topic was good for nothing. Just like political discussions.. Could talk all day and in the end it is everyones personal view that counts for them.I understand how it came across... Truly did not mean to offend.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I had a cringe of embarrassment for Daniel when I read his "prayer" comment. I just shake my head when I hear that apparently mature adults actually believe in that sort of childish religious hogwash. There is no god, Jesus never existed, etc. Wake up, folks, the Maytag Superscrub Brainwashing Machine comes with a lifetime warranty.
I tend to agree with this general opinion. I can't say "God" doesn't exist for sure because I don't know. I can however say that the Bible is an adults storybook as I firmly believe that there's never rained bread from the skies...I'm probably never going to bet any money on God existing :)Religion is nothing but an outdated guideline in life, for human kind who were formerly savages to do good. Personally, I don't need religion to tell right from wrong and be a good human being. Also, I think religion has caused as many deaths due to war and fighting as lives it has improved over the years. I was born to catholic parents if it makes a difference. I didn't choose not to believe, I chose to not clutter my mind with uncertainty. I SAVE THAT FOR THE POKER TABLES!Religion: POKER!
Link to post
Share on other sites
I had a cringe of embarrassment for Daniel when I read his "prayer" comment. I just shake my head when I hear that apparently mature adults actually believe in that sort of childish religious hogwash. There is no god, Jesus never existed, etc. Wake up, folks, the Maytag Superscrub Brainwashing Machine comes with a lifetime warranty.
At least you have an educated opinion for your disbelief.Oh wait, I'm assuming you don't have an educated reason for your belief, aren't I? I guess I should be worried about offending you, cause perhaps you did come to your stated conclusion through "mature" means. However, you shake your head at "mature" adults, and probably assume the same about them in their beliefs."There is no god, Jesus never existed, etc."There is a god, Jesus existed, etc.I guess we have conflicting statements with about the same amount of support for each.In conclusion, don't post what you don't know. Or assume what you think you know of another.- Jordan
Link to post
Share on other sites

Heard of Horus? The Egyptian god? Horus "existed" long before your boogie-man, but strangely Horus has some familiar attributes:Horus:"...Horus, a mythical figure whose miraculous birth was heralded by a star in the east; who was baptized by someone who was later decapitated; who had twelve followers; who walked on water, cast out demons, and healed the sick; who was transfigured on a mountain; who was crucified between two thieves, buried in a tomb, and resurrected; and who was known as the KRST or "anointed one", as well as the "good shepherd," "the lamb of God," "the bread of life," "the son of man," "the Word," and the "fisher"."You starkly misunderstand something; I am not operating on an article of faith, I am moving forward from a complete absence of evidence for either your god or your jesus. But don't get me wrong; I am an equal opportunity disbeliever; I also patiently await the lightning bolts of zeus.[/i]

Link to post
Share on other sites

I read ivan's posts on a different religion related thread. I expected similarly uninformed bile to spill from his mind to the keyboard here. Perhaps he should read some of the scholars on the subject, rather than the infidels.org, Acharya S or Freke and Gandy. One thing that abounds with these silly claims is the complete lack of any actual evidence.There is no evidence that Horus walked on water.Horus merged with the Sun-God and after that died and was reborn every day, thus there was no tomb or decapitation... and this isn't a resurrection like Jesus' resurrection... Also, you misunderstand your own references, John the Baptist died of decapitation, not Jesus.In other stories Horus was stung by a scorpion and then revived. Being nothing at all like Jesus's death and resurrection.http://www.earth-history.com/Egypt/Legends...7dead-horus.htmThere are references to Horus having 4 or 16 followers, or a specifically UNNUMBERED number of followers... never a reference to 12. This is an unwarranted conclusion drawn from his merging with the sun god, thus using the 12 signs of the zodiac to argue for 12 diciples, which is a completely ridiculous argument. Whoever you were quoting got the argument his source used wrong too. The claim is that Horus performed the miracles, not his disciples. His titles were: Great God, Chief of the Powers, Master of Heaven, Avenger of His Father. There is no evidence for him being called son of man.He was never baptised, he might've been cut into pieces and then fished out of a river, but that is only speculation, with little evidence to support it. Even if that were true, it's not anything like baptism.You seem to have gotten one thing right, on divine birth."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" - Frazer, J. G. "Adonis, Attis, Osiris"http://www.earth-history.com/Egypt/Legends...-10summary5.htmBut this is not at all analogous to a virgin birth. Nor was there any herald by a star in the east. The star in the east is OSIRIS, his father.There are, perhaps, 2 or 3 real historians who think Jesus never existed. Many of the people these claims come from have absolutely no qualifications for saying he didn't exist.I could offer several arguments for God's existence... but chances are you would not understand them or would answer them by quoting from infidels.org or some such thing.Perhaps before you go boasting on how you're following evidence, you ought to look at the evidence you boast of. Also, in case you didn't catch it in the other thread, you completely misunderstand the christian notion of faith.

Link to post
Share on other sites
There is no evidence that Horus walked on water.
LOL! There is exactly as much "evidence" for Horus's as there is for Jesus's aqueous stroll, i.e. none: the entire point being that the Horus myth is surprisingly very similar to the Jesus myth and also vastly predates it. Intelligent, objective, clear-thinking people can draw their own conclusions from the evidence. LOL!(Read Massey. Read Higgins. Read Kuhn.)Your reading comprehension skills also are falling far short, my friend. Example:
 Also, you misunderstand your own references, John the Baptist died of decapitation, not Jesus.
Nope. Your incorrect insinuation that my post claims Jesus was decapitated is perhaps evidence you need to read more carefully and not flail quite so much.
I could offer several arguments for God's existence... but chances are you would not understand them or would answer them by quoting from infidels.org or some such thing.
I've never heard of the websites you have mentioned. I trust you have read Higgins, Massey and Kuhn on the subject, then? Putting your ad hominems and the dick-waggling aside for a moment, let's have a look at these "proofs" of yours. As a fairly skilled dialectician, I'm game. :wink: :D
Link to post
Share on other sites
LOL! There is exactly as much "evidence" for Horus's as there is for Jesus's aqueous stroll, i.e. none: the entire point being that the Horus myth is surprisingly very similar to the Jesus myth and also vastly predates it. Intelligent, objective, clear-thinking people can draw their own conclusions from the evidence. LOL!
You miss the point. There is no evidence for Jesus walking on water, obviously. There is only the claim in the Bible. There is not even a claim that Horus walked on water in the egyptian mythology. The fact that the Horus myth is NOTHING like the Jesus "myth" completely invalidates whether one predates the other(even if they were similar, this would mean precisely nothing). I trust you read my links, which are links to translations of the actual ancient texts about Horus, and some glyphs depicting his birth, and so forth. As I said, only one thing you said appears to be true based on the actual evidence about the Horus myth.
Nope. Your incorrect insinuation that my post claims Jesus was decapitated is perhaps evidence you need to read more carefully and not flail quite so much.
I did misread this. I apologize. But Horus was never "baptized" by anyone as per the above.I assume you're talking about Alvin Kuhn, Gerald Massey and Geoffrey Higgins,Kuhn was a high school language teacher, having earned his degree by writing a dissertation on THEOSOPHY.Higgins was a real scholar, but he died in 1834, as I understand, and is thus heavily outdated. Few egyptian texts had been translated at that time, and interpretations were not agreed upon. He's completely irrelevant.Massey had no degrees whatsoever, wrote in the early 20th century, and was not respected by egyptologists then any more than he is now(not at all).In other words, your sources are about as credible as you think the Bible is.Jesus may never have performed miracles, may never have been resurrected, I think you can deny both of those rationally. But it's simply not within reason to suppose he never existed. Supposing everything you said was true, they would not count as reasons to believe he never existed.I would never proposed to offer proofs of God's existence. Only good arguments which support belief in God. What Massey, Kuhn and Higgins have to say on the arguments for God's existence would be outdated as well. This is the area of philosophy, and unlike other centuries, there has been great progress in philosophy in the last 100 years.I have no desire to argue God's existence with you because, for example, I notice you completely avoided answering anything I referenced. This is a great debate move, but I'm not here to debate. I am not a dialectician, I am a philosopher, concerned with arguments. Arguments being a matter of formal logics. It is not a matter of persuasive speaking, which you are obviously talented in.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Scientists claim that we all dream everytime we sleep, although their PROOF is that they can monitor brainwaves. Brainwaves are created all the time in our brain. The cause of these brainwaves is only an educated guess and therefore, despite what we are told, incredible. The theory of relativity is taught as a fact, but was never proven until the unprovable postulate that the speed of light is relative to all observers was incorporated into the theory. If i'm not mistaken, it was incorporated by Einstein, who is often quoted (not sure whether the quote is accurate, but i'm loosely paraphrasing anyway) to have said something about research being scientists fooling around with things they don't understand until they know what they are doing, or something like that.The big bang theory, or the creation of the solar system or the life of stars is taught as fact, but the only evidence is the way stars look right now to us. The light we are seeing from these stars took eons to get here, and the lifespan of these stars are supposed to be longer than man has existed, yet we have only been studying them for a couple hundred years, which is not long enough to actually have strong evidence as to what the life of a star is, since we haven't actually been able to witness too many stars' transitions from one phase to another.Black Holes are a made up explanation to phenomena that scientists don't know how to research except from a distance that we cannot travel, yet are positive they are right and teach black holes as fact. The only proof we have that these black holes exhist are the phenomena that black holes were made up to explain.My point? Your evidence is lacking on both sides of the argument. We believe what we want to believe, because that is what we believe. Look up the definition of faith, and you will realize that you have it. One side has faith in God which you define as religion, which I believe is different anyway. The otherside has faith in science and numbers and what you believe is logic, although you refuse to refer to it as your "God." Count the letters in God. There are not 4. I just thought I'd put a new argument in here to upset you both for the sake of fun arguing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say that everything you said is right with one caveat. There are converging lines of "evidence" for all of the things you listed above. There are no "proofs" as in a logical proof of the form: if a, then b; a, therefore b. But there are many forms of evidence and there is certainly much evidence for a big bang, much evidence for relativity, etc. We call this "abductive" evidence, or inference to the best explanation.I have "faith" in God. I trust logic and mathematics. I have minor trust in science.I have not argued for the existence of God, so I don't see how what you said is actually relevant to anything I said. I merely provided the actual texts and facts concerning the Horus myth, rather than the completely unsubstantiated stories about the myth of Horus made up by a clique often called "Christ-Mythers" in order to try to show parallels between the stories about Jesus and the stories about other deities/persons like Horus, Mithras, Dionysus, Hesus of the Druids, Sargon, Adonis, Salivahana, etc.There are argument for the existence of God of the form: if a, then b; a, therefore b. And, if the premisses are sound, they would constitute a logically deductive "proof."But I find the inductive and abductive arguments to be much more acceptable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Metaphysician will now unfold for us his vast knowledge of Egyptian hieroglyphs, Aramaic, ancient religious texts, etc. :roll:Nice smokescreen you've laid down. You well know that only a complete comprehesive reading of all of the Horus material can confirm or refute the Jesus/Horus congruity. Your website link is far from comprehensive or complete, and you falsely take this for conclusive supporting evidence.A good start for you would be to read Tom Harpur's book "The Pagan Christ". It should be easy to find.

There is not even a claim that Horus walked on water in the egyptian mythology.
See page 77 of "The Pagan Christ" for source notations on 180 close similarities between Christ and Horus.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand what you were doing with your posts, and I apologize that I seemed to target you as one of the arguments instead of just pointing out that there seemed to be just two sides in this thread. I was trying my best to point out the problem with arguing this topic, while adding a twist to the discussion for the people who want to argue it anyway.I also trust math, and have faith in God with little trust (or faith) in Science. The statements about the big bang and such is that regardless of the evidence we might choose to cite in favor of which arguement. It comes down to which side we truly believe regardless of the evidence. The fact that the big bang was essentially all of the matter in our universe lumped up into one analogous teaspoon and then unleashed itself into being the universe never answers the question of where the matter came from, while the belief that God created the world would imply a cause for the big bang, yet not explain where God came from. The problem I have with the best explanation (i infer that this is best explanation derived from available information) reasoning is that it is so obviously results oriented and limited in information available to such an extent that we can't go back far enough to witness the small errors in our reasoning that would compound themselves into an eventually wrong conclusion. This type of thing doesn't have a control experiment either, so all conclusions are less credible than they are treated. While I don't want to say whether one thing is wrong or not, I just wanted to say that whether God cares or not depends on your definition of God. People who claim not to believe in God put faith in something else. This then is who/what they believe is infallible and thus "God." Atheists have a God. It is science. People who believe in nothing (nihlists?), by my understanding, probably subconciously believe that they are their own god and therefore feel whatever they do is justified. Therefore the question "Does God care?" depends on what you choose to believe.Why my post is relevant to your post is that you are arguing against an argument that is against the existence of God in a thread that is about whether God cares. We can easily infer that your choosing to argue against the argument means that you are arguing the other side of the argument, although I did not specifically point anything in your direction. I understand that you probably love to debate and that (debating) is merely what you were doing. I love to argue, which we all know is not as advanced as debate, therefore I would not be as good as you ,as you will notice I didn't say anything about Egyptian mythology or even mythology based around the residents of Mt. Olympus, knowing I was severely outclassed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom Harpur's book is well-known. And also thoroughly refuted. Harpur is himself merely a journalist, lacking credentials in the relevant subject matter, and is no more credible than his dubious sources. I had supposed you were using Harpur after you mentioned Massey, Kuhn and Higgins.I suppose it's time for me to reveal my main source...http://www.tektonics.org/harpur01.htmlHolding himself does not have credentials in the relevant fields, but his sources DO, quite unlike Harpur's sources.You've smokescreened quite a bit more than I have, I'd have to say. Avoiding answering objections with data and all. Your position is considered fringe, and lunatic, by 99% of historians, scholars, egyptologists. I have unnecessarily assumed the burden of proof, when it is really the person making incredibly implausible claims who ought to shoulder that burden.But so far you've only shown your debate skills. I'll give you the last word, lest this become a month long flame fest.Should you have any more objections or questions you can direct them to Holding. He answers quickly, and if you make yourself look stupid enough, he'll post you on the website.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom Harpur's book is well-known. And also thoroughly refuted. Harpur is himself merely a journalist, lacking credentials in the relevant subject matter, and is no more credible than his dubious sources. I had supposed you were using Harpur after you mentioned Massey, Kuhn and Higgins.
You will forgive me if I do not agree that Harpur has been refuted, and also forgive me for laughing just a little bit at you, and at this Holding, who writes the way a professional wrestler talks, while I pour water on your hot contention that Harpur is somehow "merely" a journalist:
Tom Harpur, Canada's best known spiritual author, journalist, and TV host. Tom Harpur's books, videos, and columns have made him a compelling spiritual leader for every generation and all faiths.    Tom has been a journalist at the Toronto Star covering ethics, spirituality and religion for the past 30 years. He was the Religion Editor for The Toronto Star for twelve years and since 1984 has contributed regular columns to The Star on ethical and religious topics. He:    • Won several scholarships at University of Toronto including the Jarvis Scholarship in Greek and Latin; The Maurice Hutton Scholarship in Classics; The Sir William Mulock Scholarship in Classics; and the Gold Medal in Classics.    • Attended Oxford University on a Rhodes Scholarship 1951-1954.    • Studied theology and tutored in Greek at Wycliffe College, University of Toronto, 1954-56. Won prizes in homiletics and Greek.    • Won full colours in rugger at U of T and an ice hockey Blue at Oxford.    • Began career as an Anglican priest at St. Margaret’s-in-the-Pines, West Hill, Ontario (1957-1964);    • Professor of New Testament at University of Toronto (Toronto School of Theology) from 1964 to 1971.    • Fellow of the Religious Public Relations Council (USA).    • Awarded The Silver Medal for Outstanding Journalism by the State of Israel in 1976.    • Listed in U.S. Who’s Who in Religion, Canadian Who’s Who, and the most recent edition of Men of Achievement, (Cambridge, England).    • Has appeared on major television and radio networks. Was host of the following shows, all based on his books by the same names:        - a 10-part series on Vision TV, City TV and The Learning Channel called "Life After Death";        - a weekly hour-long interview programme, "Harpur’s Heaven and Hell";        - a 12-part series on Vision TV:  "The Uncommon Touch";    • Author of the following books (eight of which were Canadian "best-sellers"):              * The Spirituality of Wine (Northstone Publishing)        * The Pagan Christ (Thomas Allen Publishers)        * Harpur’s Heaven and Hell (Oxford)        * For Christ’s Sake (Oxford)        * Always on Sunday (Oxford)        * Communicating the Good News Today (Lancelot)        * Life After Death (M&S)        * God Help Us (M&S)        * The Uncommon Touch (M&S)        * The God Question (Lancelot)        * The Divine Lover (Lancelot)        * Harpur vs. Hancock (Lancelot)        * Would You Believe (M&S) (published in the U.S. as The Thinking Person’s Guide to God, Prima Press, 1996)        * Prayer - The Hidden Fire (Northstone Publishing)        * Prayer Journal (Northstone Publishing)        * Finding the Still Point - A Spiritual Response to Stress (Northstone Publishing, September, 2002)    and two children’s books:        * The Mouse that Couldn’t Squeak (Oxford)        * The Terrible Finn MacCoul (Oxford)    
And so on.An amusingly fallacious read, that Holding. :D There is nothing in that source of yours that is not ad hominem, except the numerous times where Holding inverts an appeal to authority. Here's another sliver of Holding's preference for style.
Our friends in Canada had now and then asked me about a journalist up their way named Tom Harpur, who writes all manner of squishy New Agish columns for the Toronto Star. Harpur's work doesn't get down here to the States easily; in fact his book of interest here, The Pagan Christ [Thomas Allen, 2004] I could not find in local bookstores and it could not be had via Amazon's American site until more recently (I ordered it via the Canadian one). Perhaps that may have had something to do with laws against importing foreign toxic waste.
You will forgive me if I refuse to take this man seriously. :roll:Unfortunately your Holding relies heavily on the efforts of one W. Ward Gasque (et al) and his criticisms of Harpur, to which Harpur has replied with:
 Response to Ward Gasque et alThe critical response to The Pagan Christ has been most interesting and stimulating. The individuals range from:    *      the general professional academic, who despite the explanation at the beginning of the book that it was not written for scholars (hence the minimum of footnotes) insists that the lack of lengthy references, suitable for a Ph.D. thesis, undermines the book's integrity. This is nonsense;    *      the scholars with some credentials in Egyptology, who have not yet come across the same findings, who haven't read the same sources, but who resist any intrusion into their field. I have come to realize that if you put any ten Egyptologists into a room you'll get ten different opinions on the same data; and    *      the ultra-conservative and/or fundamentalist Christians, who are always deeply threatened by any ideas that do not support and agree with their traditional beliefs.Ward Gasque fits into the latter category. He is a conservative Christian proselytizer, hence he is biased from the beginning and cannot produce a neutral review. Clearly the book presents a major challenge to his entire position, no doubt accounting for the highly charged nature of his attempted critique. His major criticisms do not stand up under closer scrutiny, and some of them amount to a form of slander. But, he lets off such a shotgun blast that it would be impossible to begin to answer each of his pronouncements. A few cases, however, will serve as an example.Contrary to what most people believe, there is no general unity among Egyptologists. "Egyptology" simply means the study of Egypt, and what I have found is that every "Egyptologist" I have read or heard from has his or her own individual interpretation of the same data and it would be hard to find two who agree. In the Pagan Christ, I have worked extensively with several Egyptologists. It comes down to a question of whose interpretations stand up to scrutiny and common sense.Gasque states that "virtually none of the alleged evidence for the views put forward in The Pagan Christ is documented by reference to original sources." Anyone reading the book will find numerous references to such original sources as The Egyptian Book of the Dead, The Pyramid Texts, the Book of Thoth. The works of the esteemed Egyptologist E. Wallis Budge are also cited, as well as many other contemporary scholars. Critics will always go after sources even if the material presented is factual. They will ignore the mention early in The Pagan Christ that the book was not written for scholars, hence the deliberate curtailment of copious references and notes. They will also not accept that I have the credentials to be considered an expert in the field myself. I have been not just a gold-medalist classical scholar and veteran journalist in the field of religion, but a long-time student of the Greek New Testament (being a former professor of the same) and did post-graduate work in the early Fathers of the Church at Oxford under some of the best scholars in the world. Religion has been the area of my expertise for over forty years. In other words, I am a scholarly expert in my own right, capable of weighing evidence and making my own judgements. I have met and debated with many of the leading religious figures of our time.The fact that the "Egyptologists" in his selectively reported responses had not heard of three of the key sources in the book, despite the fact that their works have been reprinted to this day is revealing. The comment that an early source, Godfrey Higgins, could have "no value whatsoever because hieroglypics had not yet been deciphered" at the time he wrote, is stunningly pompous! According to that theory, Christian writers over the centuries who had no access to the hieroglypics either have all held opinions on Egyptian religion and culture which likewise would have no value. And, the fact remains, that not one of the would-be detractors of The Pagan Christ has read the works of Godfrey Higgins, Gerald Massey, or Alvin Boyd Kuhn. This is not the mark of a truly scholarly critique.By the way, Alvin Boyd Kuhn was not an "autodidact" as Gasque falsely has claimed, but a highly educated man with a PhD from Columbia University. His book, The Lost Light, by Academy Press, New Jersey, bears on its title page the following quote: "This book will be to religion what Darwin's work has been to science" with attribution to President National Library Board, USA.Gasque is critical of my statement that "Paul's Jesus lacks any human quality for the very reason that, in Paul's understanding, he was not a human person at all." But, of this claim there can be no doubt - numerous other writers and authorities over the centuries have noticed the same thing. Paul's Jesus is a non-historical, Gnostic or mystical reality, as brought out extremely well most recently by Earl Doherty in The Jesus Puzzle.His statement that the name Jesus is a Greek derivation of a semitic name "Jeshu'a" borne by many in the first century is grossly misleading. The name Yeshua or Yehoshua is the title of the earliest Hebrew hero, Joshua, many centuries earlier; the Septuagint, (the Greek version of the Old Testament) has the word Jesus about 200 times and it was written c. 300-250 B.C.E.) Yahweh, which is also related to Yehoshua, according to Diodorus Siculus (a primary source) in the first century BCE comes from the Egyptian IAO. I have read Massey and Kuhn on this-which Gasque has not-and he is simply wrong. The origins of Jesus as a name go far back into earliest times and in fact lie behind the much later Jewish terms. Herodotus in Book II c.43 confirms this.He says there is no evidence for the idea that Horus was virgin born. This is simply false. There are various versions of how Horus was conceived, it is true. But, all of them involve a miraculous birth. In one tradition, Isis was impregnated by "a flash of lightening or by the rays of the moon." In The Golden Bough, Frazer tells how Isis conceived "while she fluttered in the form of a hawk over the corpse of her dead husband." In the ancient Syrian and Egyptian rituals of the nativity, the celebrants retired into inner shrines from which at midnight they issued with a loud cry "the Virgin has brought forth!" The Egyptians even represented the newborn sun by the image of an infant, which on his birthday, the winter solstice, was brought out and exhibited to the worshippers. Isis retained her virginity perpetually and was given the epithets "Immaculate Virgin" and "uncontaminated goddess," as well as "Mother of God." By the way, I nowhere suggest that the N.T. Mary was a goddess like Isis, as Gasque says. But, there were so many images and statuettes of Isis holding the baby saviour, Horus, throughout the ancient Mediterranean world that when Christianity finally triumphed these same figures became those of the Madonna and child without any break in continuity. No archaeologist can now tell whether some of these artifacts represent the one or the other.Regarding the age of Osirian religion, which Gasque naively assumes began in 2350 BCE, primary sources (which he declares I never refer to) such as the historian Herodotus and Diodorus Siculus make clear that the oral tradition indicates he "walked the earth" as God's Incarnation thousands of years previously. Osiris was both God and man exactly the same as Jesus. So were a host of other ancient deities. What's more, the Incarnation was also believed in for millennia BCE in Vedic religion. Krishna and Buddha both reflect this widespread belief.Gasque denies that Horus had twelve disciples. This he says is a "questionable claim." However, the twelve disciple gods is a prominent theme in the ancient Egyptian religion (as also in the cult of Mithras). Horus, the sun god, is surrounded by the twelve signs of the zodiac, his "helpers" and "disciples."Gasque says that "according to Harpur there is no evidence that Jesus of Nazareth ever lived ." It's not according to Harpur-despite all the conservative sophistry there's NO solid evidence for him of an extra-biblical kind contemporaneous with the time of Jesus' alleged advent on earth. The fact that Gasque is unaware of this reality or of the many books (which I cite) being written today on this theme, (eg. The Jesus Puzzle, Doherty, The Jesus Mysteries, Freke and Gandy, The Fabrication of the Christ Myth, Leidner, etc.) argues against his own pompous stance of expertise unlimited. If he possesses such evidence, as he implies, he should produce it forthwith. The entire world waits with baited breath for his "incontrovertible evidence" of an historical Jesus' existence.To sum up: Gasque has a problem with my using authors he's never heard of, nor, has ever bothered to read. That's the whole point of the book! It's high time this material was widely known and studied. The Pagan Christ has a timely message for Christianity, other religions, and the world. All the nit-picking and distorting of its message can't change that. What saddens me is the extent to which literalist fundamentalists will go to discredit others who follow the Christ within.Re: James Patrick Holding:James Patrick Holding is a pseudonym used by Robert Turkel to write website articles in defense of biblical inerrancy. For some reason, he doesn't want his real identity to be known, even though almost everyone familiar with his attempts to reply to articles written by Jeff Lowder, Brian Holtz, Earl Doherty, and me (among other skeptics) knows what his real name is. His rationale for concealing his identity was that he worked as a librarian in a prison, so he was afraid that if he wrote under his real name, inmates upon their release might seek vengeance on him for "disciplinary reports" he had written. He was never able to explain why using a phony name to write internet articles, which prison inmates would have no access to, was going to protect him from vengeance seeking ex-inmates who from daily contacts with him while they were in prison already knew his real name.    
Metaphysician wrote:
I have unnecessarily assumed the burden of proof, when it is really the person making incredibly implausible claims who ought to shoulder that burden.
Actually, the original claim is yours -- that god exists -- and therefore the burden of proof belongs to you as well, as you well know. I'm still waiting, btw. I'm interested in seeing if your "proofs" can be made without begging the question. Oh yeah, dialectics is not as much about making arguments, in the way that you mean -- you are confusing dialectics with rhetoric, I think -- dialectics is a means of examining conditions and arriving at the truth. There are two schools of dialectic analysis, Socratic and Hegelian.
But so far you've only shown your debate skills. I'll give you the last word, lest this become a month long flame fest.
Well, if you can keep your wits there's no need for all that. And I have no interest in the last word; if I am addressed politely I will reply in turn -- it's only polite. :-) In addition to your impending "proof of god's existence" we can also discuss, perhaps, Pierce's The Fixation of Belief or any of a surprisingly wide range of subjects! :wink:Here. Have a go!http://www.peirce.org/writings/p107.html [/i]
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...