No more Horus and Mithras please

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was no claim about "causation," Granddaddy's Girl. fact is we're all influenced by the past . . .

Just b/c you can't get it through your head that myths were indeed instrumental in explaining the world around you doesn't mean you're right.

You moronic Christians have no ability to think critically, to make connections, to get past your insular worlds.

It's all about the bible and Jesus and his virgin birth and the Holy Spirit and his death and his resurrection.

So he had to DIE in order to free our souls. ever think about that one, dumb ass? He died, descended into hell to FREE the souls condemned down there so that they, too, could hit heaven.

oh yeah - We have evidence to prove that.

So I guess if those imprisoned in hell could hit heaven, why can't an atheist?

lol

Gosh, this mean-spirited, poorly reasoned, poorly punctuated rant really makes me respect the author's POV.

I don't think anybody disagrees with you that we're all "influenced by the past." The disagreement is over the leap you make to "therefore, the Jesus birth narrative can't possibly be true and, because all stories [you insist] are based on earlier stories, the Jesus story must be based on Horus and Mithras." (The causation bit.)

As for finding positive proof of the Jesus narrative, many of us see the four gospels, written so soon after his death, together with the beauty and logic of the message, to be compelling proof. Certainly more compelling than an argument that 1. there is nothing new under the sun, story-wise, therefore 2. Horus and Mithras, despite the massive narrative dissimilarities and chronological issues. Anyway, since you don't believe, it doesn't seem worth spending so much of your time and emotional energy on this, so why don't you let us worry about satisfying ourselves re proof.

^^^ Reading this over, I should have stopped at "compelling." The gospels are evidence, but they aren't proof. Horus-Mithras, however, given the aforesaid massive narrative dissimilarities and chronological issues, can't even be called "evidence" of much of anything. That's why people laugh. Far from being evidence, HM doesn't lend even weak support for a mis-applied theory that every story is based on earlier stories, as opposed to having its own origins and truth. That's the issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow! A tad nasty there.

What evidence is there that Christians deny that myths have been instrumental in explaining the world around us? Christianity sees that very well--witness the adoption of midwinter as the time to celebrate Christ's birth.

No one knows when Christ was born but why not choose mid-winter to symbolize the age of light Christians believe Christ brought? There's a mythic connection. That it was a pagan connection isn't a strike against Christianity, it speaks in Christianity's favor because it embraces the natural and universal human tendency to look forward to the new life spring brings in the depths of darkness.

interesting bit of rationalization there - fascinating how one can hang on to the premise that one story is real while surrounded by similar myths. I bet it's possible to do that with any myth. It also sounds like something learned in law school.

Similar? No, that's why everyone is laughing and rolling their eyes. Horus isn't similar - ISIS was no virgin amd it doesn't matter what metal she used to make Osiris' penis, the whole thing is hilarious but not similar. Mithras, whether or not you think the resurrection bit is similar, is too late and many scholars think the transmission actually went the other way, from Christianity to Mithraism.

If you want to keep insisting on that Christianity is a myth (which is a debatable premise itself) based on earlier myths, then you really need to come up with credible source myths that don't make everyone here roll their eyes. Yesterday you waved your hands and mumbled something about how maybe Horus and Mithras were based on a single earlier myth, but a hypothetical doesn't work as "evidence" and you need to name that earlier myth. Until then, so long as you keep basing your arguments on the silly HM, people will keep calling you Groundhog.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Talk about a leap! Talk about emotional energy! Talk about trying to discourage/block out/minimize the value of logic and rational investigation! All without one word about faith -- which is the underlying theme and driving force of this post. With faith anything is possible - including using ones intellectual skills to support it.

ps - I'm not immediate pp

If logic and investigation had been involved, believe me, we'd all sit up and listen. Groundhog, though, thoughtlessly pulled some quips about Horus and Mithras off an atheist website and pasted them here, which doesn't exactly make Groundhog a great philosophical mind.

Also, you're switching the subject. Of course faith is important. But Groundhog claimed that HM were "evidence" so we're talking about the worthlessness of HM as "evidence." Except, of course, the humor value.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow! A tad nasty there.

What evidence is there that Christians deny that myths have been instrumental in explaining the world around us? Christianity sees that very well--witness the adoption of midwinter as the time to celebrate Christ's birth.

No one knows when Christ was born but why not choose mid-winter to symbolize the age of light Christians believe Christ brought? There's a mythic connection. That it was a pagan connection isn't a strike against Christianity, it speaks in Christianity's favor because it embraces the natural and universal human tendency to look forward to the new life spring brings in the depths of darkness.

interesting bit of rationalization there - fascinating how one can hang on to the premise that one story is real while surrounded by similar myths. I bet it's possible to do that with any myth. It also sounds like something learned in law school.

Similar? No, that's why everyone is laughing and rolling their eyes. Horus isn't similar - ISIS was no virgin amd it doesn't matter what metal she used to make Osiris' penis, the whole thing is hilarious but not similar. Mithras, whether or not you think the resurrection bit is similar, is too late and many scholars think the transmission actually went the other way, from Christianity to Mithraism.

If you want to keep insisting on that Christianity is a myth (which is a debatable premise itself) based on earlier myths, then you really need to come up with credible source myths that don't make everyone here roll their eyes. Yesterday you waved your hands and mumbled something about how maybe Horus and Mithras were based on a single earlier myth, but a hypothetical doesn't work as "evidence" and you need to name that earlier myth. Until then, so long as you keep basing your arguments on the silly HM, people will keep calling you Groundhog.

"Everyone here" is not rolling their eyes. There is no way to know that. Making such a claim is an example of trying to discourage and dismiss points of view that threaten one's own -- similar to, but snarkier than other posters' attempts.

It's possible to embrace Christian teaching without believing Christian myth as fact. It seems a shame that instead, some people who identify as Christian depend on rationalization and ad hominem attacks and subtle and not-so-subtle invitations for people presenting other information and points of view to please exit the conversation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Similar? No, that's why everyone is laughing and rolling their eyes. Horus isn't similar - ISIS was no virgin amd it doesn't matter what metal she used to make Osiris' penis, the whole thing is hilarious but not similar. Mithras, whether or not you think the resurrection bit is similar, is too late and many scholars think the transmission actually went the other way, from Christianity to Mithraism.

If you want to keep insisting on that Christianity is a myth (which is a debatable premise itself) based on earlier myths, then you really need to come up with credible source myths that don't make everyone here roll their eyes. Yesterday you waved your hands and mumbled something about how maybe Horus and Mithras were based on a single earlier myth, but a hypothetical doesn't work as "evidence" and you need to name that earlier myth. Until then, so long as you keep basing your arguments on the silly HM, people will keep calling you Groundhog.

"Everyone here" is not rolling their eyes. There is no way to know that. Making such a claim is an example of trying to discourage and dismiss points of view that threaten one's own -- similar to, but snarkier than other posters' attempts.

It's possible to embrace Christian teaching without believing Christian myth as fact. It seems a shame that instead, some people who identify as Christian depend on rationalization and ad hominem attacks and subtle and not-so-subtle invitations for people presenting other information and points of view to please exit the conversation.

Ad hominems? Have you checked out the abuse at 22:40? And you have no problem with it? Or was that you?

The only problem here is Groundhog's endless attempts to shove the silly and pointless Horus and Mithras stuff down everyones' throats and derailing several threads in the process. Nobody would mind so much if she had reason and logic on her side, but her random, unrelated myths don't cut it in adult conversation. You talk about shutting down conversations -- that's exactly the problem with Groundhog.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Similar? No, that's why everyone is laughing and rolling their eyes. Horus isn't similar - ISIS was no virgin amd it doesn't matter what metal she used to make Osiris' penis, the whole thing is hilarious but not similar. Mithras, whether or not you think the resurrection bit is similar, is too late and many scholars think the transmission actually went the other way, from Christianity to Mithraism.

If you want to keep insisting on that Christianity is a myth (which is a debatable premise itself) based on earlier myths, then you really need to come up with credible source myths that don't make everyone here roll their eyes. Yesterday you waved your hands and mumbled something about how maybe Horus and Mithras were based on a single earlier myth, but a hypothetical doesn't work as "evidence" and you need to name that earlier myth. Until then, so long as you keep basing your arguments on the silly HM, people will keep calling you Groundhog.

"Everyone here" is not rolling their eyes. There is no way to know that. Making such a claim is an example of trying to discourage and dismiss points of view that threaten one's own -- similar to, but snarkier than other posters' attempts.

It's possible to embrace Christian teaching without believing Christian myth as fact. It seems a shame that instead, some people who identify as Christian depend on rationalization and ad hominem attacks and subtle and not-so-subtle invitations for people presenting other information and points of view to please exit the conversation.

Ad hominems? Have you checked out the abuse at 22:40? And you have no problem with it? Or was that you?

The only problem here is Groundhog's endless attempts to shove the silly and pointless Horus and Mithras stuff down everyones' throats and derailing several threads in the process. Nobody would mind so much if she had reason and logic on her side, but her random, unrelated myths don't cut it in adult conversation. You talk about shutting down conversations -- that's exactly the problem with Groundhog.

ad hominems are never good, irrespective of who is hurling them. If "Groundhog" had shut down the conversation, this thread would not still be going on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Similar? No, that's why everyone is laughing and rolling their eyes. Horus isn't similar - ISIS was no virgin amd it doesn't matter what metal she used to make Osiris' penis, the whole thing is hilarious but not similar. Mithras, whether or not you think the resurrection bit is similar, is too late and many scholars think the transmission actually went the other way, from Christianity to Mithraism.

If you want to keep insisting on that Christianity is a myth (which is a debatable premise itself) based on earlier myths, then you really need to come up with credible source myths that don't make everyone here roll their eyes. Yesterday you waved your hands and mumbled something about how maybe Horus and Mithras were based on a single earlier myth, but a hypothetical doesn't work as "evidence" and you need to name that earlier myth. Until then, so long as you keep basing your arguments on the silly HM, people will keep calling you Groundhog.

"Everyone here" is not rolling their eyes. There is no way to know that. Making such a claim is an example of trying to discourage and dismiss points of view that threaten one's own -- similar to, but snarkier than other posters' attempts.

It's possible to embrace Christian teaching without believing Christian myth as fact. It seems a shame that instead, some people who identify as Christian depend on rationalization and ad hominem attacks and subtle and not-so-subtle invitations for people presenting other information and points of view to please exit the conversation.

Ad hominems? Have you checked out the abuse at 22:40? And you have no problem with it? Or was that you?

The only problem here is Groundhog's endless attempts to shove the silly and pointless Horus and Mithras stuff down everyones' throats and derailing several threads in the process. Nobody would mind so much if she had reason and logic on her side, but her random, unrelated myths don't cut it in adult conversation. You talk about shutting down conversations -- that's exactly the problem with Groundhog.

ad hominems are never good, irrespective of who is hurling them. If "Groundhog" had shut down the conversation, this thread would not still be going on.

Oh no, no, no. Groundhog is still claiming that Horus and Mithras are "evidence" and did so several times on this thread. The nice thing about this thread is that contains Groundhog

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Similar? No, that's why everyone is laughing and rolling their eyes. Horus isn't similar - ISIS was no virgin amd it doesn't matter what metal she used to make Osiris' penis, the whole thing is hilarious but not similar. Mithras, whether or not you think the resurrection bit is similar, is too late and many scholars think the transmission actually went the other way, from Christianity to Mithraism.

If you want to keep insisting on that Christianity is a myth (which is a debatable premise itself) based on earlier myths, then you really need to come up with credible source myths that don't make everyone here roll their eyes. Yesterday you waved your hands and mumbled something about how maybe Horus and Mithras were based on a single earlier myth, but a hypothetical doesn't work as "evidence" and you need to name that earlier myth. Until then, so long as you keep basing your arguments on the silly HM, people will keep calling you Groundhog.

"Everyone here" is not rolling their eyes. There is no way to know that. Making such a claim is an example of trying to discourage and dismiss points of view that threaten one's own -- similar to, but snarkier than other posters' attempts.

It's possible to embrace Christian teaching without believing Christian myth as fact. It seems a shame that instead, some people who identify as Christian depend on rationalization and ad hominem attacks and subtle and not-so-subtle invitations for people presenting other information and points of view to please exit the conversation.

Ad hominems? Have you checked out the abuse at 22:40? And you have no problem with it? Or was that you?

The only problem here is Groundhog's endless attempts to shove the silly and pointless Horus and Mithras stuff down everyones' throats and derailing several threads in the process. Nobody would mind so much if she had reason and logic on her side, but her random, unrelated myths don't cut it in adult conversation. You talk about shutting down conversations -- that's exactly the problem with Groundhog.

ad hominems are never good, irrespective of who is hurling them. If "Groundhog" had shut down the conversation, this thread would not still be going on.

Oh no, no, no. Groundhog is still claiming that Horus and Mithras are "evidence" and did so several times on this thread. The nice thing about this thread is that contains Groundhog

stopped in mid-sentence because pp realized it proved their role in continuing the thread?

this is not-groundhog, signing off.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]
Similar? No, that's why everyone is laughing and rolling their eyes. Horus isn't similar - ISIS was no virgin amd it doesn't matter what metal she used to make Osiris' penis, the whole thing is hilarious but not similar. Mithras, whether or not you think the resurrection bit is similar, is too late and many scholars think the transmission actually went the other way, from Christianity to Mithraism.

If you want to keep insisting on that Christianity is a myth (which is a debatable premise itself) based on earlier myths, then you really need to come up with credible source myths that don't make everyone here roll their eyes. Yesterday you waved your hands and mumbled something about how maybe Horus and Mithras were based on a single earlier myth, but a hypothetical doesn't work as "evidence" and you need to name that earlier myth. Until then, so long as you keep basing your arguments on the silly HM, people will keep calling you Groundhog.[/quote]

"Everyone here" is not rolling their eyes. There is no way to know that. Making such a claim is an example of trying to discourage and dismiss points of view that threaten one's own -- similar to, but snarkier than other posters' attempts.

It's possible to embrace Christian teaching without believing Christian myth as fact. It seems a shame that instead, some people who identify as Christian depend on rationalization and ad hominem attacks and subtle and not-so-subtle invitations for people presenting other information and points of view to please exit the conversation.[/quote]

Ad hominems? Have you checked out the abuse at 22:40? And you have no problem with it? Or was that you?

The only problem here is Groundhog's endless attempts to shove the silly and pointless Horus and Mithras stuff down everyones' throats and derailing several threads in the process. Nobody would mind so much if she had reason and logic on her side, but her random, unrelated myths don't cut it in adult conversation. You talk about shutting down conversations -- that's exactly the problem with Groundhog.
[/quote]

ad hominems are never good, irrespective of who is hurling them. If "Groundhog" had shut down the conversation, this thread would not still be going on.[/quote]

Oh no, no, no. Groundhog is still claiming that Horus and Mithras are "evidence" and did so several times on this thread. The nice thing about this thread is that contains Groundhog[/quote]

stopped in mid-sentence because pp realized it proved their role in continuing the thread?

this is not-groundhog, signing off.[/quote]

Telepathy fail. That's a compete sentence, complete with a subject and a verb, but apparently I hit the space bar instead of the period. It happens (just like you can't seem to find the caps key).

I'm all for keeping this thread going as a Groundhog Playground so the adults can talk on the other threads.

[Anonymous]

Yes, a playground's the thing for Groundhog.

Groundhog should feel free to post whatever he/she pleases about HM here. I for one am happy to continue the debate. Since this is the HM thread, no fear of derailment, and the other threads can be an HM free zone.