No more Horus and Mithras please

[Anonymous]

Having come up with Horus Thief, might I suggest renaming Groundhog Mithras Mary Quite Contrary?

[Anonymous]

After that Mithras Mary suggestion, I find myself wondering - am I being droll or troll?

[Anonymous]

19:41 here. I did medieval history as an undergrad at a seven sisters college, and I loved it. Too bad the prospects for employment are so bad!

[Anonymous]

19:41 here. I did medieval history as an undergrad at a seven sisters college, and I loved it. Too bad the prospects for employment as a historian are so bad!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:After that Mithras Mary suggestion, I find myself wondering - am I being droll or troll?

Maybe you're being punny?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After that Mithras Mary suggestion, I find myself wondering - am I being droll or troll?

Maybe you're being punny?

Always a proud punster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After that Mithras Mary suggestion, I find myself wondering - am I being droll or troll?

Maybe you're being punny?

Always a proud punster.

We should punish you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:After that Mithras Mary suggestion, I find myself wondering - am I being droll or troll?

a bore

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After that Mithras Mary suggestion, I find myself wondering - am I being droll or troll?

a bore

I heard an interesting piece on NPR today about the value of boredom -- it leads to the most creative thinking. I'm glad I was able to contribute to your creativity.

[Anonymous]

I'm just glad this isn't a name thread!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What?

Exactly my reaction. Batty people

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After that Mithras Mary suggestion, I find myself wondering - am I being droll or troll?

Maybe you're being punny?

Take thee to a punnery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After that Mithras Mary suggestion, I find myself wondering - am I being droll or troll?

Maybe you're being punny?

Take thee to a punnery.

We should put you in the punitentiary!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There’s at least one atheist poster and one Christian poster who can’t seem to go of the mythological Horus and Mithras. Please give it up. It doesn’t matter if there’s anything to them being precedents to Jesus or not. Believers don’t rely on evidence; they rely on faith.

If they do weigh evidence about religion, they will eventually come out with their faith grown stronger, because that’s how it works with faith. If faith is deep, it will ultimately win out over any doubts, no matter how compelling the common sense or empirical evidence pointing away from faith claims. This is not to say that people with true religious faith are not logical or intelligent. Some are highly educated, hold demanding jobs and have studied religion in depth.

In many denominations, doubt itself is a not a bad thing and people are encouraged to let themselves doubt when questions arise. If a person investigates and weighs the evidence – not just about Horus and Mithras – but any challenge to their faith, and ultimately decides against faith, it just means their faith wasn’t strong enough. People who don’t lose their faith should not revile those who do. They should pity them and pray for them. If they change their minds before they die, Christianity still promises them eternal life.

I agree with the idea that believers should question their faith constantly, and that believers should meet any serious challenge with equally serious investigation.

The thing is, Horus and Mithras are a joke. They don't fall into the category of serious challenges to faith. I'm one of the over-educated history majors who sees them as more of an amusement. Trust me when I say that I read very widely, and I'm well aware of legitimate challenges to my particular faith and to the idea of God in general. H&M don't come anywhere close to being serious challenges, or to being the "evidence" the HM poster is always claiming, because as a historical matter the whole argument is wrong on the historical facts.

The HM argument seems reasonable only to people who know almost nothing about religion or history, who don't know enough to ask the more provoking questions, and who are happy to go with something that's obviously based on bad facts. That's what makes HM so amusing to this history major who welcomes a good history discussion, with bonus points for the ludicrous aspect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s at least one atheist poster and one Christian poster who can’t seem to go of the mythological Horus and Mithras. Please give it up. It doesn’t matter if there’s anything to them being precedents to Jesus or not. Believers don’t rely on evidence; they rely on faith.

If they do weigh evidence about religion, they will eventually come out with their faith grown stronger, because that’s how it works with faith. If faith is deep, it will ultimately win out over any doubts, no matter how compelling the common sense or empirical evidence pointing away from faith claims. This is not to say that people with true religious faith are not logical or intelligent. Some are highly educated, hold demanding jobs and have studied religion in depth.

In many denominations, doubt itself is a not a bad thing and people are encouraged to let themselves doubt when questions arise. If a person investigates and weighs the evidence – not just about Horus and Mithras – but any challenge to their faith, and ultimately decides against faith, it just means their faith wasn’t strong enough. People who don’t lose their faith should not revile those who do. They should pity them and pray for them. If they change their minds before they die, Christianity still promises them eternal life.

I agree with the idea that believers should question their faith constantly, and that believers should meet any serious challenge with equally serious investigation.

The thing is, Horus and Mithras are a joke. They don't fall into the category of serious challenges to faith. I'm one of the over-educated history majors who sees them as more of an amusement. Trust me when I say that I read very widely, and I'm well aware of legitimate challenges to my particular faith and to the idea of God in general. H&M don't come anywhere close to being serious challenges, or to being the "evidence" the HM poster is always claiming, because as a historical matter the whole argument is wrong on the historical facts.

The HM argument seems reasonable only to people who know almost nothing about religion or history, who don't know enough to ask the more provoking questions, and who are happy to go with something that's obviously based on bad facts. That's what makes HM so amusing to this history major who welcomes a good history discussion, with bonus points for the ludicrous aspect.

There was another PP who said it succinctly, and I won't do him/her justice in rewording his/her idea. However, PP said that with so many myths around, it was only natural for religions to fold into each other. Romans, for example, absorbed Greek myths and tweaked them as a form of "ownership." It's only natural for cultures, once stronger ones have overpowered weaker ones, to absorb beliefs.

Horus and Mithras and Osiris were myths, as were stories from ancient Greece. They were created by people to help them understand their world at the time. And while there's a wide gap btw the Christ story (a story IMO) and Osiris' resurrection, for example, they still share a common thread.

Furthermore, Cain killed Abel just as Set killed Osiris. Claudius killed his brother in the famous Shakespearean play. So the stories live on.

bottom line - We borrow from each other. So I fail to see why people are up in arms over these myths.

I suppose it's hard for Christians to think that their god could stem from myths.