Solitary Man

Real city.

What, you couldn't refrain from poisoning the well before you even launched your argument? Pathetic.

1. You cannot assume that "such poems are usually fiction" - this is your assumption and has never been demonstrated.

2. No one is assuming there is a real Troy. There has been much work on whether the site is Troy, and the records line up with archaeology. It's a simple case of identification.

He may have, but it's up to you to prove that he did.

More assumptions and terrible spelling. Meditaranian? Have you done no work in the area?

This is your assumption. You have provided no evidence for it at all.

Do you even know what you're talking about? Or how to spell?

The Homeric hymns were composed well before the Persian empire. Hundreds of years before. Kudos to your excellent scholarship.

badger3k

It is demonstrated, by showing the similarities that the whole mythical genre has in common. That some people don't accept that is the issue. What I was bringing up is that some people, when presented with the broad genre of dying-rising-savior-gods, look to the details that differ and say that there is no relationship at all.

I do like the scare quotes, though - that is pretty laughable.

Christianity does borrow many ideas and mythemes from the religious/philosophical groups that were around at the development. That's not a new or revolutionary idea, especially since such comparisons were made by the early Christians themselves. The only point of agreement would be if you say that Christianity is not a copy-cat religion because it is not exactly the same as other religions. It isn't, but does borrow many ideas from others. All religions have done so. What's the problem?

Post 999.

andrewcriddle

The intresting question about Troy is whether or not it is mentioned in Hittite records See for example http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/tro...-evidence.html (As Solitary Man said the Persians are much later.)

Andrew Criddle

Solitary Man

I have hair. You have hair. Did I copy you? The ancient Chinese have bowls. The Native Americans had bowls. Coincidence? Or did the Chinese give it to them?

Parallels happen. Coincidences happen. Sometimes people borrow memes from other people. That also happens. Sometimes no relationship is there at all, and any connection is imagined.

You presented the genre of dying and rising savior gods. Who all fits that category? They have to die, rise, and save. Who fits the bill? We have Osiris championed by the anonymous archaeologist. Really? Did this archaeologist study Egyptian myths? Does he know anything about Egyptian theology? Does he know that Osiris never rose nor saves? He's the judge of the dead - he's not the savior of them. He never rose from the dead, his body was reassembled by his wife, Isis. There is no conquering of death, which is the point of the dying and rising motif. Ix-nay on the od-gay. It's not about the gods, it's about the triumph over winter, over death. It's not something you borrow, either. We mythologize real people into that category all the time. People all the time do things in order to get their name remembered. Before you claim that there's some sort of relationship, you have to fully analyze how you even know the stories, the earliest parts of the stories, evidences in those stories of earlier phases of belief, in both cultures, and then look for trajectories or broad themes of things.

Do you know who you're arguing with? Perhaps you're a bit confused. It might help to realize the positions of the people arguing before you go on any further.

badger3k

I had more for my 1,000th post, but after rereading that last bit, I see that I am so overwhelmed, overawed, and just flat out outwitted, that I must resign in sorrowful confusion - perhaps the fact that you disagree with what I say suggested that you did disagree with it, but obviously I am wrong.

I am sure so august a personage as yourself will continue to enlighten such an unworthy creature as myself. :notworthy:

Other than sounding like a mob boss, why should I care who I am arguing with? It is the arguments that matter, and so far you haven't proven anything, just given your own assertion that Christianity arose with no borrowing from the surrounding culture, religions, and philosophies. If that is not what you are saying, perhaps you need to clear that up.

Solitary Man

Don't quit your day job. Being a comedian is a lot harder than you think.

Because you are beating a strawman. And you've successfully torn out all that straw and ripped the overalls off. Mob boss? Get real, Joe Blow, I'm telling you to get familiar with the people you argue with so you don't end up arguing with fallacious logic.

Oh, and Cotton Candy Christian Apologetics are hiring, I hear. Perhaps you could bring your excellent strawman bashing to their force. I hear the pay is good, but at least you don't have to care about what the other person is saying.

Oh, so now you want me to clear that up. You were just fine and dandy arguing with me when you thought that's what I was saying. Can you find one post where I said that "Christianity arose with no borrowing from the surrounding culture, religions, and philosophies". Please, just one post.

PS - Congrats on your 100th post. Too bad you wasted it arguing like a creationist. Strawman? Let's beat it some more!

gurugeorge

What would you mean by "proof"? If there are a bunch of ideas with a "family resemblance" what else does that mean but that those ideas were part of the intellectual and spiritual atmosphere of the time?

You are so fixed on keeping the standard high for proving deliberate borrowing (which I think is quite right, and I think there was only a little borrowing, and that quite late on) that you seem to be missing the far more interesting point that Christianity was part of a milieu of related ideas.

It seems to me that the "Parallelomania" argument simply has no purchase against what one might call the "comparative religion" angle.

I think you have to be careful about taking too much heed of arguments derived from Christian exceptionalism. Bear in mind that Christians throughout the centuries have always been concerned to give Christianity a USP, to try and prove that it's unique. Well, of course every religion is unique - yet at the same time many religions share features. It depends on the depth and grain of your analysis and the degree to which it takes into account universal characteristics of human being derived from shared physiological traits, shared psychological traits, shared genetic traits.

The "family nose" (not shared by every religion of that time, but shared by enough to make it a feature of the family) of many religions of the day was that they promised that by entering into some kind of personal relationship with the cult deity, you'd have some guarantee of some kind for your afterlife.

Then there are "chins" and "eyebrows" that are even less shared by all members of the family but still noticeable features of the family - things like communal meals, baptisms, etc.

It's here, in the realm of the development of ideas that the real meat of the matter is to be found, not in any nonsense about deliberate borrowing.

Solitary Man

It could be something that you're not assuming? It could be coincidence. You need to demonstrate that there's a family resemblance at all, then you need to show how they were part of the intellectual and spiritual atmosphere at the time. You haven't done that. You just assume your conclusion.

I'm not missing that - I'm sick of the pseudo-research done to show that.

When we have people coming in here claiming that Christianity copied from Osiris-Horus, then we have much more than merely "comparative religion".

Great! So why do people time and time again keep coming here and arguing for copycatism? And why isn't any in depth study being conducted on the meaning and significance of these supposed parallels? Why am I only seeing lists of garbage if you're actually concerned about comparative religions?

Doug Shaver

Gone with the Wind is fiction. What does that imply about the city of Atlanta?

Sheshbazzar

Both sides look at the "evidence" , One side concludes that the glass is half full, the other side, adversarially, argues that the glass is half empty.

The only real question remaining, is for how long the argument will be continued.
The only apparent solution being, is for the claims of the "believers" and the "supporters" in the validity of those fantastic old claims to be finally vindicated by their god actually coming down from heaven in the sight of ALL mankind, and personally pointing out whose understanding and position is the "right" one.

Some are still holding their breath in the expectation of soon and sudden fulfilling of their hopes.
The skeptical of the world have long since went back to breathing easily, certain that such religious arguments, although they may drag on and on interminably, will never be resolved by an arrival of any god that is in any form or in any fashion similar to the one presented within the christian fairy tales.