Camio

Hail to all,

This is my first post on this legendary board.

Here is my question : in the HJ/MJ debate, the alleged influences of pagan cults on christianity origins popped up from time to time (Rest assured, I don't intend to revive some bitten-to-death comparisons).

The Cons generally replied that the analogy is irrelevant, unfounded, whatever. My concern is that most of the time, I am not able to grasp the gist of the rebuttal, which appears more to my layman eyes as subjective impression than nothing else.

So, are there "objective" criteria (maybe used by experts in the field) upon which everyone could agree to define what a "relevant analogy" is supposed to be ?

Thanks,

C.

mens_sana

The ancient rhetoricians considered argument by analogy to be cogent. I don't consider any argument by analogy to be more than illustrative.