Horus/Jesus

[Angela Harlem]

I’m not sure AussieU2fanman asked any sort of clear cut question. He “stumbled across” a web site that provide parallels between two different belief systems and declared, on the basis of the parallels, that one must have plagiarized the other (and declared Christianity as myth in the process). Perhaps that is not the best method to invite discussion despite the self declaration of non-malicious intent. The process of drawing parallels between two sets of facts, absent other forms of direct evidence, does little to create a logical connection between the two.

I noticed that AussieU2fanman hinges the divine nature of Christ on a thirty year delay in writing on his life. Would that really make all the difference for you?

Why are you being so rude?
Every response by you in this thread has done nothing but belittle and insult anyone who is not Christian, either directly, or with subtle sarcasm and displays of superiority.

What is your problem, if you are so comfortable with your faith? Back off a little, huh. This isn't unusual for you, either, in threads like this. I think you need an impartial person to read what you say, and be honest with you on just how you present yourself and your faith. Also, considering that you came from a background not too dissimilar regarding faith and Christianity, it's rather hypocritical of you.

 

[kimby]

Also, considering that you came from a background not too dissimilar regarding faith and Christianity, it's rather hypocritical of you.

Maybe that's the reason...kind of like ex-smokers are usually the most critical of smokers.

 

[maycocksean]

Really, I'd say that both still require large amounts of faith, but, most importantly, they demonstrate that science and religious beliefs are not inherently incompatible.

Melon

I should be clear that I'm not arguing that science and religious beliefs are inherently incompatible.

I believe that there are "scientific roots" to God, if you will. I don't know what those roots are because they haven't been discovered yet. But as has been pointed out already, science is a dynamic field--it's constantly changing, our knowledge is constantly being added to or revised with each new discovery. I believe that someday (whether in "this life" or in a "heaven to come") we'll see how that which seems impossible in light of our present scientific understanding, becomes totally possible (i.e. it can be observed and tested).

Put it this way, if you'd approached the leading scientists of the day 300 years ago and told them that it would be possible to put several hundred people into a large metal container and that container would then propel itself into the air and hurtle to far distant parts of the world at hundreds of miles per hour they would have such talk as the ravings of a madman or mythmaker, right?

 

[80sU2isBest]

Why are you being so rude?
Every response by you in this thread has done nothing but belittle and insult anyone who is not Christian, either directly, or with subtle sarcasm and displays of superiority.

I think the originator of the thread is the one being rude. This thread had "poop stirrer" written all over it from the very beginning. It was antagonistic at best.

It's like the people who started the whole damned "Darwin fish on the car" thing. That wasn't intended to promote Darwinism. It was intended to mock people who put fishes on their cars.

 

[nbcrusader]

It was properly noted that I was once a strident non-believer, before becoming a strident believer. My recollection from my days as a non-believer was that I did not have the license or right to ridicule, mock or be rude to those of faith. I simply believe they were wrong. Apparently, this view is not shared by all.

In the world of rudeness, it might be best to take a careful look around, perhaps even glance in the mirror before wagging a finger at someone else.

 

[Angela Harlem]

Now you have the right to mock or ridicule?
If someone else's stinks, then your shit doesn't? Is that how it works? I might very well be all that you imply. It, however, does not remove from what you are; and that is a rather arrogant condescending judgemental guy who is so smug in their own faith that you have lost common curtesy. Those around you might very well be the same, but it does not remove what you appear to outsiders.

Alas, it seems once more to not bother you one iota. Infact, you seem to vehemently disagree, oddly. Says much for your faith pushing you to strive to be a better person.

 

[Angela Harlem]

I think the originator of the thread is the one being rude. This thread had "poop stirrer" written all over it from the very beginning. It was antagonistic at best.

It's like the people who started the whole damned "Darwin fish on the car" thing. That wasn't intended to promote Darwinism. It was intended to mock people who put fishes on their cars.

That is perhaps true. I have seen years of ridicule from both sides on this forum, and I supose reflecting what is in our societies. It really makes me wonder when it is denied when one 'side' participates. It's willful ignorance to paint oneself constantly as free from guilt. It truly stinks. I almost feel for you guys who live so studiously through these beliefs, yet cannot accept valid criticism.
All it means at the end of it all is that both have something to answer for.

 

[nbcrusader]

Perhaps if I had started the "Athiests are stupid" thread you would have a point.

But I didn't (and wouldn't), and your comments are without merit in this instance.

 

[80sU2isBest]

That is perhaps true. I have seen years of ridicule from both sides on this forum, and I supose reflecting what is in our societies. It really makes me wonder when it is denied when one 'side' participates. It's willful ignorance to paint oneself constantly as free from guilt. It truly stinks. I almost feel for you guys who live so studiously through these beliefs, yet cannot accept valid criticism.
All it means at the end of it all is that both have something to answer for.

Have you ever seen me start a thread against athiests like this one was against Christians, one that insulted athiests and deliberately provoked a fight with them? No, you haven't, so yes, I am guilt-free on that.

 

[yolland]

I recall a similar thread with a similar tone being started by the same poster about two years ago, yielding similar results. And, then as now, the initial question was a perfectly discussion-worthy one that could have yielded a lot less tension and a lot more substance had it simply been put differently.

When you start from the position of condescending to or belittling people ("any normal rational human being would have to say..." "arguments based on an empty, intellectually sterile...propensity of 'faith' ") then for better or for worse, you can expect to get some responses in kind. Some of the responses were, in fact, exemplary instances of polite, respectful, thoughtfully put counterargument in the face of what wasn't. Others were less so. But I would not gauge the difference between the two in terms of "Christian"-ness; that is presumptuous, and takes ownership of the term in an inappropriate way. I think it's probably safe to say we're all more impressed by the grace-under-fire approach, though hopefully that's not because we assume those taking it have something more to prove when it comes to deserving being heard. Neither faith nor intellect make you immune to defensiveness, lecturesomeness, resentment, overestimating your argument's strengths, or whatever other blind spots we might name.

With all due respect to some of the more constructive and interesting tangents that developed during the course of this thread, it looks to me like the initial question has now been answered as thoroughly as it's going to be. And I'm not willing to invite any more recriminations for the sake of letting a tangent continue. So this thread is over.