h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

<>

No, ElvenFire, I couldn't agree less! There are considerable differences (look it up!) I can (literally) give chapter and verse, if you really want to know) but somehow I feel that you do not. Am I right?

I really want to know.

Me too. Simply telling someone you disagree and to 'look it up' themselves is hardly debate.

And neither is quoting chapter and verse.

So, what exactly are the differences between various other religion myths and the Christ myth?


az

Oh, azahar! Honestly! The reason I told her 'look it up' is because I don't have time(or the expertise) to go into 2000 years of history! (And because she used the term 'look it up' herself as you could see for yourself if you looked.)

<>

Let's see - everything? Sin, salvation, afterlife, human relations, history...

If you can't be bothered looking anything up, although as your friend Hoo is fond of saying, you have the most comprehensive encyclopaedia ever invented at your fingertips, I've googled a thing or two, and maybe you *can* be bothered reading?
http://www.riverpower.org/answers/christianity_difference.htm
"The object of the Christian faith is Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is what makes Christianity different than (sic) other religions. Described below are the specific differences:"
http://guide.gospelcom.net/resources/religion.php
http://www.newswithviews.com/religion/religion17.htm
This one has several pages, each dealing with a specific religion.
http://www.christlife.org/faith/articles/C_comparingindex.html

I haven't had time to more thn glnce at those links, Apple, but as general observation whether you think of all religions are essentially the same, or essentially different, depends on interpretation and which factors you choose to concentrate on (the similarity factors tht make them all religions, or the difference factors that make them different religions).

With regard to Mithraism, it *did* come out of a similar cultural/religious milieu as Christianity, so the similarity factors are more numerous, and the difference factors less numerous, than in a comparison between say Christianity and Hinduism.

Noggin

Nogg

Well Apple,

First, the reason I said 'look it up' is because I think it is better if people find things out for themselves instead of being told what to believe (my reason for being an atheist)

Second, what chapter and verse? from what source? I would not mind to see what source it is that you are quoting.( I hope you are not referring to the "big bad holy book")

Thirdly, I said it was the *basis* of the myth, not the same myth; Christinanity is know to have taken a hodgepodge of different beliefs and included them in theirs...e.g. Mithra was said to be the son of god and his birth was said to be on Dec. 25...little details like that were assimilated by Christianity. Also, when I said ancient and modern religions are the same, I meant it as to say that their core beliefs are the same (belief on a god, different rituals to get that god's attention, they are the chosen people, etc.)not that they are a complete carbon copy of each other.

It seems to me that you took some of my comments a little out of context, or I did not do a good job getting the point across.

It strikes me as funny that you only found fault in this one sentence of my posting...but I digress.

Love,

hi ElvenFire,

I thought your question <> was quite interesting.

I've always been quite interested in the various religion and god myths, specifically because so many of them are very similar. Many have almost identical creation, flood & destruction stories, as well as similar after-life concepts. But some also vary, having a benign and caring 'mother god' idea rather than an angry and vindictive 'father god' figure. And well, pretty much everything in between.

I'm neither an agnostic nor an atheist (perhaps an 'aztheist'? ) in that I think the thing most people talk about when they are trying to explain their own personal 'god concept' does actually exist, but that it is something beyond our ken.

Hence, people create gods and religions to make some sense of the mystery of life and all that. And most god myths reflect the human condition, which is why so many of them are similar, even though they were created on opposite ends of the planet.

<> (me)

<> (Apple)

That could actually describe a lot of different religion myths, Apple.

I tend to agree with ElvenFire (if I have read them correctly) that all these myths are equal, in that they were all invented by humans. I also think there is a place for mythology and story-telling in our lives, as an attempt to express what cannot be known or explained. It's only when myth changes to religion and becomes a huge political machine (as with Christianity, amongst others) that the original concept is lost.


az

The "debating" technique of Apple has evolved to a new stage, wherein she pretends she doesn't have time, then posts a handful of links to windbag articles that don't prove anything. If one does not have time or expertise to discuss a point, one should not bring it up, particularly in an online forum whose sole purpose is discussion.

As for the similarities between Mithras and Jesus, if they're so similar that Tertullian and Justin Martyr were forced to come up with that ridiculous cover story (the Devil went back in time and planted the Mithras mythology to discredit Jesus), then the similarities must be awfully damned significant. And, as it happens, they are.

If Apple would actually care to discuss the subject, she could simply identify one particular trait of Jesus or of general Christian practice that is unique... that is, we cannot find a parallel to it in any non-Christian religion. Or, at the very least, we cannot prove that the Christians were not the first to do it.

I say "general Christian practice" because there are some historical practices (papal infallibility, indulgences, etc.) which were unique to Christianity, but Christians in general strongly object to them. Thus, the qualifier.

az: I totally agree with your ElvenFire agreement.

You know, I agree Azahar, and you read me correctly...

I do not disagree to people having mythology to comfort them and make sense of their world (even if I personally don't have use for it).
When people start to use those beliefs to deny the rights of other people, persecute and alienate, or mix religion with government (separation of church and state anyone?)when I start having a problem with it.

I really don't care if you believe in Buddah, Christ or the Amazing Magic Pink Unicorn, as long as you don't try to force your belief down my throat, try to teach it in public schools, or start discriminating everybody who believes on anything else (or nothing, as might be the case); even towards people that only believe in an unicorn of a slightly different shade of pink (Lutherans and Catholics )

Ciao and Love,

<< I would not mind to see what source it is that you are quoting.( I hope you are not referring to the "big bad holy book")>>

Well, I would have been,if I hadn't been persuaded that that would have been a bad idea, only of course, to me, it's *not* a bad book...

<>
There are similarities, yes, but no proof whatsoever, that Christianity took anything from Mithraism. Like many atheists, you seem to think that I had no prior knowledge of Mithraism and the others, but many, perhaps most educated Christians are well aware of, and unbothered by, these similarities.

<>

I didn't find fault with your use of the phrase, azahar did, and as she is wont to do, attributed the phrase to me! She is often quite confused, and is always accusing me of saying things I didn't say, and I was just clarifying!

<>

Err... wrong. We're not talking about similarities so much as we are talking about bits which are exactly identical. Matthew's tale of the birth of Jesus, for example, was lifted whole from the cult of Mithras.

Two identical stories, one predating the other by over three centuries. Coincidence? I think not.

I won't say this is totally unbiased, but a mine of information nevertheless.

http://www.askwhy.co.uk/christianity/index.html

Noggin

<< I would not mind to see what source it is that you are quoting.( I hope you are not referring to the "big bad holy book")>>

'Well, I would have been,if I hadn't been persuaded that that would have been a bad idea, only of course, to me, it's *not* a bad book..."

Well, it would have been a bad idea, since you cannot use the bible as proof that Christianity is true. (it is a circular argument) If this was proof, then the Muslims would be right, because they have the Koran, and it has chapters and verses that prove they are the chosen ones. It would also mean that Puff the Magic Dragon is real, because there is a book that says he lives somewhere pretty (by the way, just because the bible is old doesn't mean that it is true).

Also, you said that you could quote the chapter and verse? So does the bilble explicitly say "and by the way, we are in no way related to Mithraism"? That would make me doubly suspicious.

And not everyone knows about Mithraism, and since this conversation is read by more people than just you, Apple, then I would not mind planting a seed of knowledge.

The assertion that Christians are "not bothered" with Mithraism is true; they are not bothered with many things (here I am talking almost exclusively about fundies, don't get your panties in a bunch). They are not bothered by the theory of evolution, the Big Bang, and other such things...

Anyways, I think that is all I wanted to say for now...
Ciao and Love,

The Bible is true.
The precise sense and extent of its truth is not really known.
It mentions things which are corroborated by other sources.
So some of it is admittedly true. What about the rest? Inexplicable things are possible. [Conceivability->Possibility is shoddy isn't it?]
Given our own lack of ancient eyewitnesses still living, and given the existence of certain deep truths (be they hidden meanings or no) contained in the Bible, it seems wasteful to discredit its other parts, for which most of the time there is no better account of what went on.
Sometimes to get the best out of a book you have to give it more credit than a reluctant reader is willing to give.
To understand something, it's sometimes necessary to have sufficient faith that it makes sense.

Anyone who believes only what their own two eyes can tell them, still has faith, that is, in the two organs in the front of his head.

It's up to every individual what they wish to place their faith in. Axioms are arbitrary and are usually chosen on criteria of convenience.

I happened by and saw this post and have been sort of itching for a chance to wade into debate with a theist.

"The Bible is true."

So you say. Are we to take your word for this? And which "Bible" are we talking about? There's several of them floating around last I checked.

"The precise sense and extent of its truth is not really known."

Well, er, how would you know then?

"It mentions things which are corroborated by other sources."

Those parts of it ripped off from other sources do. So does the Encyclopedia. So what?

"So some of it is admittedly true."

Admitted by who? Corroboration or assimilation of other sources doesn't make a source 'true' or 'false', it makes it an assimilation or cocrroboration of another source.

"What about the rest? Inexplicable things are possible."

A fact that does what to advance your central thesis, exactly?

"[Conceivability->Possibility is shoddy isn't it?]"

What?

"Given our own lack of ancient eyewitnesses still living, and given the existence of certain deep truths (be they hidden meanings or no) contained in the Bible,"

Sorry, what deep truths have we established are contained herein?

"it seems wasteful to discredit its other parts, for which most of the time there is no better account of what went on."

I thought you just said corroboration of "Biblical" accounts is what lends "The Bible" veracity, and now you're arguing the lack of corroboration for "Biblical" accounts is what lends it veracity. Seems like you should pick one.

"Sometimes to get the best out of a book you have to give it more credit than a reluctant reader is willing to give."

So "truth" can be drawn or inferred from the text of "The Bible" if you "give it credit" or assume that it is true? That doesn't strike you as vaguely circular?

"To understand something, it's sometimes necessary to have sufficient faith that it makes sense."

Others have developed these things called "scientific method" and "reasoning skills" as alternative approaches to understanding things, and I understand such methods have been quite popular since the late 17th century.

"Anyone who believes only what their own two eyes can tell them, still has faith, that is, in the two organs in the front of his head."

So blind people are better at being objective? What's your point?

"It's up to every individual what they wish to place their faith in."

Hold up. Speak for yourself. I have opinions and judgments and ideas and suspicions, but I don't have "faith". Whatever that means.

"Axioms are arbitrary and are usually chosen on criteria of convenience."

Sort of like your opening statement?

I'm not Neil, but I'd like to nip in and answer one or two points...

<>

There are different versions, different translations, but they do not differ in any important or material respect (except of course for the Jehovah's Witness one, for their own doctrinal reasons...)

<>

Please specify...

"There are different versions, different translations, but they do not differ in any important or material respect (except of course for the Jehovah's Witness one, for their own doctrinal reasons...)"

Your statement here is somewhat self-defeating. The context of the argument is that "The Bible" is true, and already we have established doctrinally motivated differences between at least two versions of a text claiming to call itself that. How does that help your case? Need I remind you that the Catholic church and Protestant church differ over the inclusion of Apocryphal texts in their respective versions? Which one of those groups of mouthbreathers have the real truth? And what evidence can they offer to prove it? Idiots living in the deep south of US claim only the KJV 1657 version is the "true" true "Bible".

"Please specify..."

What, you think "The Bible" just materialised out of nowhere? What you call "The Bible" is a conglomeration of multiple sources and documents written by a variety of people from a variety of backgrounds over a rather lengthy stretch of history for a variety of reasons, then abridged, edited, decried, revised, rewritten, translated, censored, edited some more, and finally venerated as a political control instrument. If God really did inspire all those people, then he's got a leg up on Stalin for revisionist histories. Some notable examples are...

The numerous stories in Genesis and the rest of the Tetragrammaton which were originally Babylonian or pre-Babylonian in origin and are known to have been incorporated into Judaic mythology during the reconstitution of Jewish society as a theocracy at the directive of Cyrus of Persia. Included are: the "in the beginning" myth in Genesis, (though the Garden of Eden thing is authentically Jewish or so I hear), the story of the tower of Babel (sumerian analogues), the flood myths (nearly universal). See also the bit about God and Satan having a chess game at the beginning of the book of Job (Zoroastrian prologue), not to mention the numerous borrowings from Mithraism (itself probably a variation of themes in the Akkadian pantheon) sown throughout the so-called New Testament. Ecclesiastes may have been an eastern text originally, but even if it isn't I gotta love the first line in Chapter 1 verse 1... "Everything is meaningless!" Ha. Stick that in your "The Bible is the Word of God" pipe and smoke it. I need not go on, but I wonder how anyone (plural, not you specifically) who makes such a big deal about the importance of "The Bible" could apparently be so appallingly uninformed about its origins.

<>

It's quite simple, inasmuch as the difference even between the JW version and the usual, amount afaik, only to a matter of punctuation!

Ah, the O.T...I am quite aware of the fact that the Bible is a collection of books, not just one book, and IMO, there's considerably less of a link between the OT and the NT than many other Christians accept.

<>

Please be more specific! Also, have a look at this site. This man knows a great deal more than I do, and in his writings covers the issue of Mithraism...
http://www.bede.org.uk/contents.htm

Twophlag, check out this in particular...

http://www.bede.org.uk/seekers1.html#8

Extract... "The King James Version ("KJV") stands supreme in terms of art. If you are not a Christian but want to admire the Bible as the great piece of literature that it is, make a bee line for the KJV. It was written in the language of Shakespeare on the orders of James I and can reach heights of such sublime beauty you might end up thinking it really was inspired. Even today, many Christians will not use anything else. This is slightly unfortunate because as a translation it leaves a lot to be desired. It is based on 12th century Byzantine manuscripts whereas modern translations use codices going back to the fourth century. There are now corrections of the KJV which have attempted to make good these shortcomings."

I did look over the site you mentioned as much as time permits. Suffice to say I wasn't terribly impressed from the get-go, since the section devoted to "Religion" focused unabashedly and exclusively on only one particular religion, which hardly gives me the impression that the collection's editor has a holistic or well-rounded take on the subject.

That said, I'm vaguely bewildered what it was you hoped me to get from reading the site. Do you have a specific point you were trying to back up? I'd rather leave the onus on you to establish a point and argue it effectively than try to guess what you're thinking.

The passage you sited seem to indicate that you're arguing that "The Bible" is a great work of literature. So was Lady Chatterly's Lover. I see no reason to disagree vociferously with this assertion, but I don't see how we can infer from this that it is "True" or "infallible" or whatever you're trying to argue that it is.