• Strange Notions Strange Notions Strange Notions

Horus Manure: Debunking the Jesus/Horus Connection

Jesus Horus

Many atheists, neo-pagans, and other disbelievers of Christianity claim the story of Jesus Christ was borrowed from earlier mythologies. In recent years, a claim has been making the rounds that Jesus is based on the Egyptian god, Horus.

Who was Horus?
Horus is one of the oldest recorded deities in the ancient Egyptian religion. Often depicted as a falcon or a man with a falcon head, Horus was believed to be the god of the sun and of war. Initially he appeared as a local god, but over time the ancient Egyptians came to believe the reigning pharaoh was a manifestation of Horus (cf. Encyclopedia Britannica, “Horus”).

What about Jesus?
The skeptical claims being made about Jesus are not always the same. In some versions he was a persuasive teacher whose followers later attempted to deify him by adopting aspects of earlier god-figures, while in others he is merely an amalgamation of myths and never really existed at all. Both versions attempt to provide evidence that the Gospel accounts of the life of Christ are rip-offs.

In the 2008 documentary film Religulous (whose name is a combination of religion andridiculous), erstwhile comedian and political commentator Bill Maher confronts an unprepared Christian with this claim. Here is part of their interaction.
 

Bill Maher: But the Jesus story wasn’t original.
 
Christian man: How so?
 
Maher: Written in 1280 B.C., the Book of the Dead describes a God, Horus. Horus is the son of the god Osiris, born to a virgin mother. He was baptized in a river by Anup the Baptizer who was later beheaded. Like Jesus, Horus was tempted while alone in the desert, healed the sick, the blind, cast out demons, and walked on water. He raised Asar from the dead. “Asar” translates to “Lazarus.” Oh, yeah, he also had twelve disciples. Yes, Horus was crucified first, and after three days, two women announced Horus, the savior of humanity, had been resurrected.

 
Bill MaherMaher is only repeating things that are and believed by many people today. Similar claims are made in movies such as Zeitgeist and Religulous and in pseudo-academic books such as Christ in Egypt: The Jesus-Horus Connection and Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth.

Often Christians are not prepared for this type of encounter, and some are even swayed by this line of argumentation.  Maher’s tirade provides a good summary of the claims, so let’s deconstruct it, one line at a time.

Written in 1280 BC, the Book of the Dead describes a God, Horus.
In fact, there are many “books of the dead.” But there is no single, official Book of the Dead. The books are collections of ancient Egyptian spells that were believed to help the deceased on their journey to the afterlife. The title Book of the Dead comes from an Arabic label referring to the fact that the books were mostly found with mummies (cf. The Oxford Essential Guide to Egyptian Mythology, “Funerary Literature”). Some of these texts contain vignettes depicting the god Horus, but they don’t tell us much about him.

Our information about Horus comes from a variety of archaeological sources. What we do know from the most recent scholarship on the subject is that there were many variations of the story, each of them popularized at different times and places throughout the 5,000-year span of ancient Egyptian history. Egyptologists recognize the possibility that these differences may have been understood as aspects or facets of the same divine persona, but they nevertheless refer to them as distinct Horus-gods (cf. The Oxford Essential Guide to Egyptian Mythology, “Horus”).

Part of the problem with the “Jesus is Horus” claim is that in order to find items that even partially fit the life story of Jesus, advocates of the view must cherry-pick bits of myth from different epochs of Egyptian history. This is possible today because modern archaeology has given us extensive knowledge of Egypt’s religious beliefs and how they changed over time, making it possible to cite one detail from this version of a story and another from that.

But the early Christians, even if they had wanted to base the Gospels on the Horus myths, would have had no way to do so. They might have known what was believed about Horus in the Egypt of their day, but they would have had no access to the endless variations of the stories that laid buried in the sands until archaeologists started digging them up in the 1800s.

Another part of the problem is that the claimed parallels between Jesus and Horus contain half-truths, distortions, and flat-out falsehoods. For example...

Horus is the son of the god Osiris, born to a virgin mother.
The mother of Horus was believed to be the goddess Isis. Her husband, the god Osiris, was killed by his enemy Seth, the god of the desert, and later dismembered. Isis managed to retrieve all of Osiris’s body parts except for his phallus, which was thrown into the Nile and eaten by catfish. (I’m not making this up). Isis used her goddess powers to temporarily resurrect Osiris and fashion a golden phallus. She was then impregnated, and Horus was conceived. However this story may be classified, it is not a virgin birth.

He was baptized in a river by Anup the Baptizer, who was later beheaded.
There is no character named Anup the Baptizer in ancient Egyptian mythology. This is the concoction of a 19th-century English poet and amateur Egyptologist by the name of Gerald Massey (see sidebar 2 below). Massey is the author of several books on the subject of Egyptology; however, professional Egyptologists have largely ignored his work. In fact, his writing is held in such low regard in archaeological circles that it is difficult to find references to him in reputable modern publications.

In the book Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection (Stellar House Publishing, 2009), author D. M. Murdoch, drawing heavily from Gerald Massey, identifies “Anup the Baptizer” as the Egyptian god Anubis. Murdoch then attempts to illustrate parallels between Anubis and John the Baptist.

Some evidence exists in Egyptian tomb paintings and sculptures to support the idea that a ritual washing was done during the coronation of Pharaohs, but it is always depicted as having been done by the gods. This indicates that it may have been understood as a spiritual event that likely never happened in reality (cf. Alan Gardiner, “The Baptism of Pharaoh,” The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, vol. 36). This happened only to kings (if it happened to them at all), and one searches in vain to find depictions of Horus being ritually washed by Anubis.

Like Jesus, Horus was tempted while alone in the desert.
The companion guide to the film Zeitgeist outlines the basis for this claim by explaining, “As does Satan with Jesus, Set (aka Seth) attempts to kill Horus. Set is the ‘god of the desert’ who battles Horus, while Jesus is tempted in the desert by Satan” (p. 23).

Doing battle with the “god of the desert” is not the same as being tempted while alone in the desert; and according to the Gospel accounts, Satan did not attempt to kill Jesus there (cf. Matt. 4, Mark 1:12-13, Luke 4:1-13).

The relationship between Horus and Seth in the ancient Egyptian religion was quite different than the relationship between Jesus and Satan. While Seth and Horus were often at odds with each other, it was believed that their reconciliation was what allowed the pharaohs to rule over a unified country. It was believed that the pharaoh was a “Horus reconciled to Seth, or a gentleman in whom the spirit of disorder had been integrated” (The Oxford Guide to Egyptian Mythology, “Seth”). In stark contrast, there is never any reconciliation between Jesus and Satan in Scripture.

Healed the sick, the blind, cast out demons, and walked on water.
The Metternich Stella, a monument from the 4th century B.C., tells a story in which Horus is poisoned by Seth and brought back to life by the god Thoth at the request of his mother, Isis. The ancient Egyptians used the spell described on this monument to cure people. It was believed that the spirit of Horus would dwell within the sick, and they would be cured the same way he was. This spiritual indwelling is a far cry from the physical healing ministry of Christ. Horus did not travel the countryside laying his hands on sick people and restoring them to health.

He raised Asar from the dead. “Asar” translates to “Lazarus.”
The name Osirus is a Greek transliteration of the Egyptian name Asar. As I mentioned earlier, Osirus is the father of Horus, and, according to the myth, he was killed by Seth and briefly brought back to life by Isis in order to conceive Horus.  It was not Horus who raised “Asar” from the dead. It was his mother.

The name Lazarus is actually derived from the Hebrew word Eleazar meaning “God has helped.” This name was common among the Jews of Jesus’ time. In fact, two figures in the New Testament bear this name (cf. John 11, Luke 16:19-31).

Oh, yeah, he also had twelve disciples.
Again, this claim finds its origin in the work of Gerald Massey (Ancient Egypt: The Light of the Worldbook 12), which points to a mural depicting “the twelve who reap the harvest.” But Horus does not appear in the mural.

In the various Horus myths, there are indications of the four “Sons of Horus,” or six semi-gods, who followed him, and at times there were various numbers of human followers, but they never add up to twelve. Only Massey arrives at this number, and he does so only by referencing the mural with no Horus on it.

Yes, Horus was crucified first.
In many of the books and on the websites that attempt to make this connection, it is often pointed out that there are several ancient depictions of Horus standing with his arms spread in cruciform.  One can only answer this with a heartfelt “So what?” A depiction of a person standing with his arms spread is not unusual, nor is it evidence that the story of a crucified savior predates that of Jesus Christ.

We do have extensive evidence from extra-biblical sources that the Romans around the time of Christ practiced crucifixion as a form of capital punishment. Not only that, but we have in the Bible actual eyewitness accounts of Jesus’ crucifixion. On the other hand, there is no historical evidence at all to suggest that the ancient Egyptians made use of this type of punishment.

And after three days, two women announced Horus, the savior of humanity, had been resurrected.
As I explained before, the story of the child Horus dying and being brought back to life is described on the Metternich Stella, which in no way resembles the sacrificial death of Jesus. Christ did not die as a child, only to be brought back to life because his grieving mother went to the animal-headed god of magic.

The mythology surrounding Horus is closely tied with the pharaohs, because they were believed to be Horus in life and Osirus in death. With the succession of pharaohs over the centuries came new variations on the myth. Sometimes Horus was believed to be the god of the sky, and at other times he was believed to be the god of war, at other times both; but he was never described as a “savior of humanity.”

Combating the never-ending list of parallels
If you do an Internet search on this subject, you will come across lists of supposed parallels between Jesus and Horus that are much longer than Bill Maher’s filmic litany. What they all have in common is that they do not cite their sources.

Should you encounter people who try to challenge you with these claims, ask them to explain where it is they got their information. Many times you will find that they originate with Gerald Massey or one of his contemporaries. Sometimes they have been repeated and expanded on by others. But these claims have little or no connection to the facts.

You should challenge the person making the claim to produce a primary source or a statement from a scholarly secondary source that has a footnote that can be checked. Then make sure the sources being quoted come from scholars with a Ph.D. in a relevant field, such as a person who teaches Egyptology at the university level.

Due to the mass of misinformation on the Internet and in print on this subject, it is important to respond to these claims using credible sources. Fortunately, there are many good books on Egypt and Egyptology in print. But there are also bad ones, so make sure to verify the author’s credentials before purchasing them.

The study of ancient Egypt has come a long way since its beginning in the 1800s, and new discoveries are being made even today that improve upon our understanding of the subject. It’s safe to say they will do nothing to bolster the alleged Jesus-Horus connection.

The Horus mythology developed over a period of 5,000 years, and as a result it can be a complex subject to tackle. But you don’t have to be an Egyptologist to answer all of these claims. You just need to know where to look for the answers—and to be aware of the claims’ flawed sources.
 


 
Appendix 1:
A brief history of modern Egyptology

Rosetta StoneModern Egyptology really begins with the French campaign in Egypt and Syria initiated by Napoleon Bonaparte around 1798. Among other things, the French established a scientific exploration of the region.

In 1799, a soldier named Pierre-Francois Bouchard discovered the Rosetta Stone, which contained a bilingual text that eventually led to the translation of Egyptian hieroglyphs. Prior to this, our knowledge of ancient Egypt’s 5,000-year history was limited to what was known through the writings of pre-Christian Greek historians such as Herodotus and Strabo.

The discovery of the Rosetta Stone led to a renewed interest by the Europeans in all things ancient Egypt, commonly referred to now as “Egyptomania.”  It was not until nearly a century later that Egyptology as an academic discipline began to come into its own. Since that time, we have a much better understanding of ancient Egyptian history and culture.

Appendix 2:
Massey scholarship

Gerald MasseyWhen researching the supposed Egyptian influences on Christianity, inevitably one comes across the name Gerald Massey. Massey was an English poet and amateur Egyptologist who lived from 1828 to 1907. He is the author of three books on the subject: The Book of the BeginningsThe Natural Genesis, and Ancient Egypt: The Light of the World. Because his books represent some of the earliest attempts to draw comparisons between the Christian and Egyptian religions, other writers attempting to draw these comparisons frequently cite them.

One recent example is the book Christ in Egypt; The Horus-Jesus Connection by D.M. Murdoch. In it the author states: “This present analysis of the claims regarding the correspondences between the Egyptian and Christian religions is not dependent on Massey’s work for the most part,” yet she devotes an entire chapter of the book to defending the authenticity of Massey’s scholarship (something she does not feel called to do for anyone else she quotes in her book) and thereafter adopting many of the same comparisons.

Critics of Massey’s work often point out that he had no formal education in the area of Egyptology. While this is a valid criticism, I think it is also important to point out that the study of ancient Egyptian religion has advanced far beyond what was known in the 19th century. Not only is much of Massey’s scholarship built on wild speculation, it is also the product of an academic discipline still in its infancy.
 
 
Originally published in the Nov-Dec 2012 issue of Catholic Answers Magazine. Used with author's permission.
(Image credit: Wikimedia)

Jon Sorensen

Written by

Jon Sorensen is the Director of Marketing for Catholic Answers, the largest lay-run apostolate of Catholic apologetics and evangelization in the United States. He earned his bachelor’s degree in 3D Animation and Visual Communications in 2004 from Platt College, Ontario. Before coming to Catholic Answers, he worked in the automotive industry producing television commercials and corporate video. He has also produced motion graphics for several feature-length films. Follow Jon through his website, JonSorenson.net.

Enjoy this article? Receive future posts free by email:

Note: Our goal is to cultivate serious and respectful dialogue. While it's OK to disagree—even encouraged!—any snarky, offensive, or off-topic comments will be deleted. Before commenting please read the Commenting Rules and Tips. If you're having trouble commenting, read the Commenting Instructions.

  • stanz2reason

    While I agree that to say the Jesus myth was copied directly from other myths is an unfair statement to make, suggesting that there might have been influences along with way based on pre-existing myths common to that part of the world is still a fair point to make.

    • stanz, do similarities necessarily imply one influence the other?

      Also, as G.K. Chesterton, C.S. Lewis, and J.R.R. Tolkien have noted, if the Jesus accounts are true and a divine Storyteller pre-planned Jesus life, death, and Resurrection since the beginning of time, then wouldn't we expect him to foreshadow this climactic event throughout human history, just as we see human directors do throughout any well-designed film?

      • stanz2reason

        Necessarily, no they do not. It is up to the individual to decide if the similarities between the Horus myths (and Dionysus in the greek tradition) and the Jesus myths and a reasonable opportunity for this overlap to occur might be suspicious enough. For instance I'd have a tough time buying overlap amongst the Native American traditions... though I might want to check with the mormons first. For me it's suspicious but unclear, certainly moreso than Maher and others assert.

        I'd think that any story with Chekov's gun wouldn't be much of a story if it weren't fired. We'd have been disappointed if Harry Potter didn't face Voldemort in the climax, nor Ahab faced Moby Dick. None of this speaks to accuracy or removes a reasonable doubt that elements of the story were likely fabricated to fit a specific narrative that might not have been an accurate re-telling of things that actually happened.

        • cestusdei

          The individual decides? How about the objective truth decides? There is no evidence for a Horus and Jesus connection. That's a fact. Atheists need to come up with some new stuff.

          • stanz2reason

            Weakest... criticism... ever. Where's you're objective truth for anything at all related to Christs existence? In fact, insert any supernatural claim (or any claim really) you've ever heard here and tell me where your objective truth is.

            There is no objective truth for matters after they occur. These exists only varying levels of evidence in the form of physical evidence, eye-witness testimony, and in modern times various methods of recording events. Such evidence is used to make a case for a claim, and it is up to the judgement of those listening to determine how supported the claim is by evidence and ultimately how compelled they are to buy the claim.

            Were you to present the christ myth along-side other myths of the time, you might note enough commonalities between the two to raise suspicions. There is a reasonable case to be made in suggesting a bit of overlapping influence one way or the other.

            It's silly to say that it's a fact that there isn't evidence for a connection. You have 2 myths with more than superficial similarities which existed in the same part of the world around the same time. That is what we call 'evidence'. Whether you buy the claim that there's cross-over is a different matter. Personally I feel there is enough evidence to be suspicious, but not enough to say definitively. Of course I've already said this.

            Why would atheists need to come up with new stuff when so much of the old stuff works just fine?

          • cestusdei

            I assume you believe that Alexander the Great existed. Prove it. Did you ever see him? How about the US Civil War? It's all a conspiracy and never happened. All the evidence is manufactured. No one lives that way. All of us trust that there was an Alexander and a Civil War. No one seriously denies that there was a Jesus, regardless of what they believe about him. The whole point of the article is that objectively there is no truth that some early Jewish Christians decided to make up stories about Jesus so that he would be like Horus. That is simply ridiculous. It's like arguing that the Aztecs learned to make pyramids from the Egyptians. The only reason the "old stuff" appeals is because most don't do the homework necessary to debunk it. It is intellectual laziness. However, it doesn't work on the informed Christians.

          • stanz2reason

            You're making little sense and misusing the concept of objectivity. Having not met Alexander the Great I can not objectively say that he existed, which is of course different from saying I believe he existed. Having not witnessed the Civil War I can not objectively say that it happened, which of course is different from saying I believe it happened. In addition, even if I had witnessed such people and events, once the description of those events leaves my mouth, it's hearsay and is no longer objective, even if it's accurate. I could even go further and hold myself up to some impossible Humeian standard of knowledge, but that's counter-productive. What we have is evidence of existence and each make reasonable judgements to the reliability of the evidence. With the case of something like the Civil War, the evidence is overwhelming for it having occurred in the manner it's generally described. With biblical claims, the evidence is less clear, except of course with supernatural claims which can and should be dismissed immediately due to their hocus pocus magical nature.

            That a person or persons existed around the same time who shared some similarities with the character of the mythical jesus of the bible, the evidence seems acceptably strong enough to make that claim. That this mythical character was the son of god in some real way and performed supernatural acts in the real non-ficticious world is an entirely different matter. People of various levels of seriousness deny entirely any and all such supernatural acts occurred and with good reason. I believe that Alexander the Great was a real person in some sense. I don't believe that the real Alexander the Great could fly or had x-ray vision.

            That supernatural elements from other sources might have been incorporated is a reasonable possibility. It's possible due to the geography and the time period. When considering how people tell any stories and the near universal phenomena that elements of previous stories are incorporated, even subconsciously, into new ones it even seems likely. Some of the similarities are suspicious enough to warrant a closer look, though for the third and final time I've yet to see smoking gun evidence to support such claims in a definitive way.

            I'm curious and would be amused to hear which atheist claims have been debunked by informed christians.

          • cestusdei

            So now you can't believe anyone existed unless you personally saw him. Nor can you believe in any historical event. It is all subjective experience for you. A bit like the fundamentalists who claim that God created dinosaur bones to fool atheists and that the world is only 6000 years old. You are just like them. Yet because this "evidence" which the article debunks is congenial to your personal view you are willing to suspend your disbelief. Very convenient.

            How about, "I won't believe this stuff because I have not seen with my eyes the apostles meeting together and discussing ancient Egyptian gods from various dynasties and how to integrate that paganism into their view of Jesus." There is no evidence for that at all, as the article points out. How quickly atheists drop their pretense of objectivity when it suits them.

          • stanz2reason

            So now you can't believe anyone existed unless you personally saw him.

            Again... READ what I wrote. I can not OBJECTIVELY say such things, though this says nothing to what I BELIEVE . I consider the evidence, it's potential reliability, it's consistency with other observations and make a judgement to it's validity.

            Nothing else you had to say is worth responding to.

          • cestusdei

            In other words you can't respond as you are backed into a corner. Fundamentalists are the same including the atheist ones.

          • stanz2reason

            I'm afraid I couldn't have been more clear when I said nothing you said was worth replying to. I'm backed into indifference in explaining myself to someone who clearly hasn't done me the courtesy of reading what I've already said nor have I any interest in giving any more time addressing such poor arguments that they are self-refuting.

          • cestusdei

            In other words you can't respond so you are taking your ball and going home. That happens a lot when I defeat atheists in an argument. Cheers.

          • stanz2reason

            You're correct. We're allergic to poorly made incoherent arguments that are devoid of intellect and puerile in nature. Some people will insist the world is round and feel vindicated when reasonable people shrug their shoulders and refuse to further dignify such doltishness. Congrats, you're one of those sad few.

          • cestusdei

            No, you are not used to finding that logic and reason are not your natural allies. You think all religious people are stupid, which I guess includes Bach, Beethoven, Pasteur, and so many others. When you compose another 9th symphony let me know. Btw, the man who discovered the Big Bang theory was a Catholic priest.

          • marcus

            You clearly dont have a lot of horsepower between the ears. The people you mention did not have our resources. They did the best they could with the limited information and communication they had. Whats your excuse? Look up the word fallacy then get familiar with modus ponens, and modus tollens. Those are generalized math rules designed to be easy for less intelligible to understand and apply in their arguments.

          • PeterPan4

            Wow - so basically as a "critical thinker" you admit that you can be sure of nothing but only have some subjective feeling of what is more likely than something else? Who is to be the judge of that? You?

            If you do some academic research into textual analysis, rather than getting your facts from your circle of atheist friends, you would find the it hard to claim the events in the Bible didn't happen. Of course you could try and interpret them as you wish. Christian tradition is far more influenced by the Greek philosophy than some Egyptian myth. Such claim just weaken your position. No serious academic has come forward to support them.

            A common arrogance amongst "critical thinkers", besides misusing logic, these days is to reconcile the fact that important historical and present day people believe in God, is to claim they had limited information and knowledge. (Basically weren't as smart as us). Of course they would be on your side if they were alive today or just got a little bit of re-education right? Very scientific. Very "modens ponens" wouldn't you say?

            Go back to your critical-thinking 101 guide and try again please.

          • Patrick McCoy

            Thank you so much. That person was using so many logical fallacies and then evoking logic was just breaking my mind, but fortunately you very succinctly shut him down, saving me a lot of time and effort. Kudos.

          • Randy Keime

            is that last line pro or con for your fantasy

          • cestusdei

            You are the one who prefers fantasy to reality.

          • calledit78

            The big bang theory was based of Albert Einstein & De Sitter's work. Einstein did not believe in God but in Agnosticism which means thinking with human reason.

          • cestusdei

            You just don't want to admit that it was a Jesuit who gave us the theory, which at first Einstein denied. So there is one falsehood you give us right there. Why do atheists always think all Christians are fundamentalists? I'm a Catholic. You don't even address what I believe. As for aliens, I guess you have your imaginary friends.

          • calledit78

            Einstein did not deny it, he said that there wasn't enough proof to make a conclusion, so many Christians claim he believed in God and he didn't he believed in human reason. Go look it up. Einstein started the theory of big bang theory and well he is dead now. Go figure a Roman Priest got involved to keep the con going why? The Roman Catholic church is worth $10-15 Billion dollars and they got to protect their fortune at any cost. Why don't they give all that money away to help the world cause with out it they got no influence or power.

          • cestusdei

            Which is denying it.

            In fact it was a priest who discovered the theory. Go look it up.

            I fail to see how a Jesuit physicist's discovery somehow protects the Church's property. I don't see where we made any money from it. Logic is not your forte obviously. Changing topics is a typical atheist tactic. The Church in fact gives a great deal of money away and is the largest NGO charity int he world. Atheists on the other hand do little but create havoc. I suggest you immigrate to North Korea a fine example of atheism in action.

          • Doug Shaver

            Agnosticism which means thinking with human reason.

            Which dictionary did you find that in?

          • Randy Keime

            only record of jesus is bible. many civilizations and census's say alexander existed as for civil war much of my family, when I was young remembered it! Dont let facts and common sense affect your believes. A younger naive me once taught sunday school, I have put in my time

          • cestusdei

            Yawn, the usual talking points. The only record of Alexander the Great come from ancient documents, so there is no evidence he existed. But if someone claimed that you would dismiss them the way I dismiss you. Think for yourself and don't just parrot the usual atheist tripe.

          • calledit78

            The fact is that Jesus was suppose to be an Arab but yet Christianity makes him white to better influence you is just the beginning of the Church's lies.

          • David Nickol

            Jesus was suppose to be an Arab

            What does that mean? Are you saying Jesus was an Arab? What is the evidence for that? It is not clear to me what it would even mean. Are you denying Jesus was a Jew?

          • Doug Shaver

            Jesus was suppose to be an Arab

            Who says so, and why should I believe them?

          • cestusdei

            Jesus was Jewish not Arab. You are the one who is lying.

          • calledit78

            Jewish is just a religion not a race. So no I am not lying.

          • cestusdei

            Jesus was not Arab, so yes you are lying. Jews in Jesus time did constitute a distinct racial group. I know history. You do not. Like most atheists you don't bother to check out the other side.

          • calledit78

            Historians and archeologists have found to many records in multiple sources ranging from Roman to what is India now.

          • calledit78

            Just straight non sense your saying. The power of Indoctrination into Religion. Explain why you believe in religion and that will get us right to the point of your badgering over a make believe person.

          • cestusdei

            Looks like you are so indoctrinated you find any questioning of your faith to be threatening.

          • calledit78

            My faith? Atheist means no faith. Looks like you need a dictionary. I wonder how many times you had to look at my post to spell a form of indoctrination and probably had to look it up to know what it meant. Good luck to you and your make believe friend. lol

          • cestusdei

            You can't prove there is no God, so you believe it on faith alone. Good luck to you and your make believe aliens.

          • Doug Shaver

            Atheist means no faith. Looks like you need a dictionary.

            I've checked several dictionaries. None of them agrees with you.

          • calledit78

            There is actually hard evidence that that Alexander the Great existed and of the Civil war. Besides the Bible there is no Roman records of Jesus. Guess what they know where the first Roman Emperor's tomb is and that was 2000 years ago. But when it comes to Jesus nothing besides the Bible. You would think that the Bible which was written thousands of years ago, would allow Christianity to be able to say hey this is Jesus's tomb or cave were he was raised from the dead. But in the Bible which gives the most vague description to the actually place is because it was made up by Gospel writers. The reason so many believe in religion is basically they can't accept the truth of death. They want to believe in some magical place called heaven were you will see your loved ones again. That is why they say life is to short to waste and make every second last cause that is the truth.

          • Doug Shaver

            You would think that the Bible which was written thousands of years ago, would allow Christianity to be able to say hey this is Jesus's tomb or cave were he was raised from the dead.

            Why would I think that?

          • calledit78

            That is it really? don't waste my time old guy.

          • Doug Shaver

            That is it really?

            Yes, really, I was challenging you to produce some evidence for you assertion. Apparently, you can't.

            don't waste my time old guy.

            You come here making a bunch of assertions for which you are unwilling to offer any proof, indiscriminately insult everyone who disagrees with you, and it's your time that being wasted?

          • calledit78

            In the bible it only gives vague descriptions of that place you know why cause it didn't exist. Look at all the places that religious people flock to every year but the most important place where he was laid on a slab no one knows where it is? C'mon man. If we know where King Tut is and he has less value to you religious followers than why not Jesus. If the Bible gets passed on for thousands of years, the same for his resting place. Are you that brainwashed from religion which has done more separating of people than bringing them together. Fairy tales all have a message and so does the Bible which is to control you.

          • Doug Shaver

            Are you that brainwashed from religion which has done more separating of people than bringing them together.

            You tell me. I used to be religious. I no longer am. Do brainwashed people abandon the people who brainwashed them?

          • cestusdei

            So religious people are brainwashed? This is an insult. I am flagging it.

          • Doug Shaver

            I am flagging it.

            Be my guest.

          • cestusdei

            So you don't deny it's an insult.

          • Doug Shaver

            You can, and you will, interpret anything I say as confirming what your dogma tells you about atheism.

          • cestusdei

            You sound "brainwashed" by atheist dogma.

          • Doug Shaver

            In the bible it only gives vague descriptions of that place you know why cause it didn't exist.

            You've already said that. Repetition is not evidence.

          • cestusdei

            What evidence? I can claim it is all made up. Just like your side does. Which is the point. In fact Tactitus and Pliny write of Christ, so there are Roman records. I guess in your magical world you don't need to look up facts.

            This post was 4 YEARS ago. And here you are in a tizzy over it. Atheists are so thin skinned.

          • calledit78

            There is proof of Alexander the Great and here is some posts of archaeologists findings since you are so lazy. http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2137&context=clcweb From Purdue University

          • cestusdei

            I see no proof. It's all a hoax. There is no first hand evidence. I am just applying your logic here.

            What civil war? Did you see it first hand? If you don't see something first hand it doesn't exist, that's what you claim.

          • PeterPan4

            According to this argument the only thing you can be sure of is "cogito ergo sum" and is itself based on an unprovable. according to your rules, assumption. I am sure you have heard this raised before. Can you observe your assumption that objective truth is only available via direct observation?

            According to your own rules, you cannot claim someone else's system to be inferior because there is no observable proof. Just your own, individual feeling, and maybe your group of friends.

            But lets grant you your wish and assume it true; beside the physical sciences, there is no much else that you can assert is true and that others should hold too. If this is so, how can you arrogantly claim your position to be more true? You have no facts, no direct observations for your statements. Just a feeling.

            Luckily for the rest of us, we don't hold to your ideology and so have no such problems and truths can be proved by the use of unobservable reason.

          • stanz2reason

            Two things...

            First, thanks for replying to a comment written 2 years ago.

            Second, please re-read my comments in the context of the conversation. Then re-read your own. If that's too much to ask, I'll save you the trouble. Nothing of what you said made a lick of sense and didn't really at all address what was being discussed.

            I've no interest in continuing this conversation and frankly thought this site long ago faded into some obscure corner of the web. I'm indifferent to the fact that it's still around. Good luck in Neverland.

          • Ian Harrod

            You see, atheist are the ones who have discovered the truth in spite of religion for centuries. If it was left up to yall, we would still think the earth was the center of the universe. We would still be only praying to cure disease. Atheists are merely still searching for truth. We are not coming from your point of view where all things Christian are true until proven otherwise. How very egocentric of you all as a group. To think that the whole point of existence was for us? How can you not see that as a sort of group narcissism? Oh because narcicsist don't see it in themselves. Its the same with your philosophy. It would be all good if you weren't the most murderous hypocritical group the planet has ever known.

          • Lazarus

            And what would that "truth" be that you have discovered?

          • cestusdei

            Actually it was a priest who discovered heliocentrism. Louis Pasteur was a devout Catholic. Stalin was a fine example of atheism in action. No one is more narcissistic then atheists as you do think it is all about you and there is no one else. 100 million dead due to atheism in just the last century. Oceans of blood on your hands.

            Oh and this article was 2 years ago.

          • DogDays

            100 million dead in the last century due to athiesm? sources?

          • cestusdei

            Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot...oceans of blood and it was done by atheists. If you can blame Christians for what they do then we can blame atheists for what they do. Deal with it.

          • DogDays

            I don't blame Christians or atheists, at this point I think its human behaviour. I think its also human behaviour to argue over redumentals. I don't judge Christianity as a belief or construct but I blame those you can take a belief based on peace and make it into a system of hate. I don't think religion is the problem, but I do believe Christians are the reflection of how people view Christianity, maybe this needs some work. Despite any existential proof to support a messiah I think its more important to make it admiral. The problem is you get bad people from all works of life despite the belief their hold. I just wish we could all live with understanding of our differencesdifferences without casting judgement but I fear this of another utopia that cannot exist besides in the dreams that I dream. It seems also to be a problem with culture, race, and money that allows humans to lose their integrity. But I respect you for at least standing up for what you believe in. But remember to do it with love.

          • cestusdei

            You say you don't blame, but then tell us we make it a system of hate. Christians believe in original sin and we are not immune from committing sin. Atheists delight in a double standard where they blame us for being sinners, but deny they have ever done anything wrong ever. They have nothing over us when it comes to morality. And that is the truth. It is loving to tell the truth even when it is a hard truth. Atheists need to stop this hypocritical double standard and own up to their own failings.

          • DogDays

            You right I did say I dont blame Christians, and I don't, because I don't think a world without Christians would make (in my opinion) our dystopia any more satisfactory or peaceful. In fact I think the christian belief and Christ himself which Christians follow is the perfect example of how people should be, I say this in the sense of moralitymorality and character. I also say this regardless of an argument of the fiction or fact of the messiahs existenceexistence historically. Without certain figures through out history, I don't believe their has ever been an example of a perfect being everyone can aspire to besides Christ and Buddha etc.., but I do believe many fictional tales provide as sense of something we may achieve. Athiests have excused their morality by trying to make perfection(in a sense of good figures like Jesus etc..) An origin of fiction. They have also done this by discrediting religion through humour, to lazy to mention examples but you sure know what I mean living in the period of time as we do. This might be considered judging, but I do believe Christianity is needed. I find it sad that some intellectual minds see it as a source of propaganda, I'd rather believe in something better however fictional it might be. I do believe this is where morality and character in the preposition of morality becomes absolute, despite the source in fiction or fact is irrelevantirrelevant for myself. Sorry I meant humans have a habit of making any system or belief they part of an agenda of hate for those who believe differently but like said this is despite belief. We see all sorts of people cause harm to others as a result of difference in colour or creed etc.. Apologies for the bad grammar in advance( probably should have included this as a heading lol)

          • cestusdei

            I think original sin explains this, it effects all humans. Christ is indeed "better" then the fiction the atheists peddle.

          • Doug Shaver

            If you can blame Christians for what they do then we can blame atheists for what they do.

            And vice versa. I'll make you a deal. I'll stop blaming Christianity for the Inquisition and witch hunts if you'll stop blaming atheism for the atrocities of Communist dictatorships.

          • cestusdei

            How about we blame people for what they actually do individually?

          • Doug Shaver

            Every individual has to held accountable for their own behavior, assuming they're not cognitively impaired by mental illness or some such. But that doesn't mean we can't learn something useful by inquiring into their motivations and the ideological sources, if any, of those motivations.

          • cestusdei

            Then I say the same about atheists. Over 100 million murdered by them. We are back to square one.

          • Doug Shaver

            I said, "If anyone claims to have done something because it was God's will . . . ." Find me an atheist who killed someone and says he did it because there is no god, and then we can discuss the implications.

          • cestusdei

            Ah the usual dodge. So let me repeat. 100 MILLION murder by ATHEISTS.

          • Doug Shaver

            Ah the usual dodge.

            No dodging about it. I said that religion could be relevant in cases where people admit to being religiously motivated. When you find me an atheist who admits being motivated by his disbelief in God, then we can talk some more.

          • cestusdei

            100,000,000 plus people murdered by atheists. I realize you prefer not to deal with it, but it is a fact. More then in all religious wars combined. It's on you. No need to talk anymore if you aren't willing to accept the blame for the actions of those of your faith.

          • Doug Shaver

            100 MILLION murder by ATHEISTS.

            Putting your argument in capital letters doesn't make it any more valid.

          • cestusdei

            It is valid. It is true.

          • Doug Shaver

            It is true.

            You say so. Is that supposed all it takes to convince me, or to convince anybody reading this discussion?

            I'll tell you what can get a lot of people killed in a hurry. It's when someone who is considered credible by one group of people points to an outsider group and tells the insiders, "Those people are evil and should not be allowed to live." If the insiders need no more evidence than his word, then the killings start.

          • cestusdei

            Neither of us is going to be convinced. You are the exact type who considers religious people evil. It is only one step from that to killing us. The killings did start, over 100 million of them, and it was atheists doing the killing. I will keep reiterating that fact.

          • Sample1

            Doug persuaded me though. A part-time lurker.

            Mike

          • cestusdei

            Persuaded you? He has offered nothing.

          • Doug Shaver

            Neither of us is going to be convinced.

            I have shown whoever reads this thread why you have not convinced me. That matters more to me than whether I convince you.

          • cestusdei

            LOL right. So you lose and persuade no one who didn't already agree with you. 100 million dead and it's on you.

          • Doug Shaver

            So you win because you say so. Enjoy the glory.

          • cestusdei

            That's what you were saying. I find winning easy since atheists make it so easy. Enjoy your life because you might find the next life not so much fun.

          • Ignatius Reilly

            Log back on to strange notions after a week absence and the first thing I see is a theist threatening hell. Classic.

          • cestusdei

            Yeah, it's like seeing an atheist talk about violence by Christians a few centuries ago and ignoring the 100 million they killed this century. Classic.

          • Ignatius Reilly

            So to what extent do you think the holocaust was made possible by centuries of Christian discrimination?
            Have you ever heard of the Protestant Reich Church? History is much greyer than you imagine and only a unserious person can go on about 100 million killed and unbelievers burning.

          • cestusdei

            You could go back and read some of the previous posts rather then play this typical atheist game. But...I do know it was made possible by devout atheists. 100 MILLION dead and they were MURDERED by ATHEISTS. That is a FACT. Nothing grey about it. It is very serious and it is still going on. I realize this threatens your faith, but you need to deal with it. I am going to keep repeating it. 100,000,000 plus murdered by you atheists in just the last century. More then in all religious conflicts in all of history. Check out that log in your eye.

          • Ignatius Reilly

            What do you mean by made possible by devout atheists? Perhaps it would be simplest if we started with Nazi Germany and you explain how those deaths were made possible by devout atheists. In Nazi Germany the vast majority of Germans were in fact Christians.

            I believe in Providence and I believe Providence to be just. Therefore I believe
            that Providence always rewards the strong, the industrious, and the upright.-Adolf Hitler

            Are you even going to comment on the fact that the holocaust was only made possible by hundreds of years of Christian antisemitism?

            Atheism isn't a faith. Repeating 100 million dead over and over again isn't an argument.

          • cestusdei

            In fact the Nazi's were not noted for their church attendance or deep prayer lives. I hate to tell you, but Hitler lied. I realize that you believe in him and trust every word that came from his lips, but he lied. In fact in private he stated he despised Christianity in much the same terms that you do. You have much in common with him. Likewise with Mao and Stalin who loved murdering people by the million. Atheism is a faith. You can't prove it scientifically. 100 million dead is both an argument and a fact. I will repeat it and throw it in your face.

            You do realize you are just repeating the usual atheist talking points. I have been thru this hundreds of times. I do wish you guys would come up with some new material. The old canards are very dull. You must be drunk on all that blood.

          • Ignatius Reilly

            In fact the Nazi's were not noted for their church attendance or deep prayer lives.

            Evidence? Nazi Germany was a Christian country. The hundreds of years of Christian anti-semitism made the Jews an easy scapegoat, which you have yet to acknowledge.

            I hate to tell you, but Hitler lied. I realize that you believe in him
            and trust every word that came from his lips, but he lied. In fact in
            private he stated he despised Christianity in much the same terms that
            you do.

            So you say. The fact of the matter is there are tons of Hitler quotes in which he talks about Christianity and uses it to promote his government. So, at the very least he is using Christianity as a tool to further his own agenda, which is pretty damning. One couldn't say the same about the great atheist thinkers like Paine and Orwell. It would be much easier if you pointed us to a verified Hitler quote in which he said he despised Christianity, rather than making ambiguous claims.

            You have much in common with him. Likewise with Mao and Stalin who loved murdering people by the million.

            It has been noted that you have compared me to Nazis and Stalinists. That says more about you than it says about me. However, let us stick with Nazi Germany for the present. Lets account for those 20 million non-military deaths first and then we can move on to the others.

            Atheism is a faith. You can't prove it scientifically.

            So everything non-scientific is a faith? I'm an agnostic atheist that does not believe any religion is true. I have reasons. To borrow from Sample, I'm faith free.

            100 million dead is both an argument and a fact. I will repeat it and throw it in your face.

            This supposed it fact is what we are discussing. If you want to assume your conclusion then that is your prerogative, but it is indicative of bad reasoning.

            You do realize you are just repeating the usual atheist talking points

            And you have no answer for them.

            You must be drunk on all that blood.

            Is this a blood libel?

          • cestusdei

            As I said, they did not go to church. In fact they were told to resign from the church. Hitler hated the church. So they have much in common with you.

            You insist that Hitler was honest. You have such faith in your leader. Rather touching given what happened to him. Which was...he got married in a secular ceremony, did not receive last rites, and killed himself. Not exactly a Catholic way to go out. But a very atheist way of doing it. He said once, "The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing
            of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity." You would agree.

            100 million people were murdered by ATHEISTS in just the last century. More then that actually, I am being conservative. You have no answer for that other then changing the subject and defending Hitler. You are the one playing the blood libel game. I just turn it back on you. Do try to come up with something new. Show some independent thought.

          • Ignatius Reilly

            Hitler hated the church. So they have much in common with you.

            What he hated about the Church was that it competed with him and the Nazi party for power. He wanted to use Christianity to cement his power. I'm not interested in power over other people or telling other people what to do. The atheists I know think the same way. We have nothing in common with Hitler. Now organized religion does seek to control and tell people what to do.

            You insist that Hitler was honest.

            Incorrect.

            Which was...he got married in a secular ceremony, did not receive last
            rites, and killed himself. Not exactly a Catholic way to go out.

            I don't think I claimed that Hitler was Catholic. Not that a CAtholic cant do "uncatholic things." What I did claim is that the Christian attitude towards Jews is directly responsible for the holocaust - a point you have completely ignored.

            But a very atheist way of doing it.

            Or by your reasoning: fish and humans both swim therefore humans are fish.

            He said once, "The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing
            of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity." You would agree.

            I wouldn't agree that the ancient world was pure, light(?), and serene. I don't think the world necessarily becomes better because we remove Christianity. I don't even hate Christianity. I think there are evil parts of it and I think it is amusing, but I don't hate it.

            100 million people were murdered by ATHEISTS in just the last century.

            Believing Christians pulled the trigger.

            You are the one playing the blood libel game.

            The Blood Libel is Christian propaganda that claimed that Jews murdered Christians for their blood to use in Jewish rituals.

          • cestusdei

            So now you admit he hated it and did not believe it. In fact atheists are all about controlling others and killing them if they refuse to comply. They have done that over 100 million times in the last century.

            You indeed insisted he was honest. Now you find that a bit embarrassing.

            So you now admit he was not a Catholic or even a Christian. So it had no bearing on what he chose to do to the Jews. It was motivated by his racial views not any religious ones. He was influenced by atheists who hated Christianity. That is the point you ignore.

            That is your reasoning. You conflate Nazi's and Christians.

            So you now admit the did despise Christianity. We are much better because of Christianity. Would you rather live here or in atheist North Korea? Of course you hate Christianity and Christians, that's why you are posting all of this.

            Believing atheists pulled over 100 million triggers.

            The new blood libel is atheists trying to blame all violence on Christians. You do it despite 100 million murders on your own conscience.

          • Ignatius Reilly

            It is obvious that you do not desire rational conversation. Since I do, I wont be continuing this conversation. I'll leave you with the last word. I already know what those words will be.

          • Lazarus

            There is quite a bit of the quivering lip on SN these last few hours, isn't there? Why don't you rather not accuse cd of not desiring rational conversation and deal with the essence of his charge? Where is he wrong?

          • Ignatius Reilly

            I have written three posts to cd trying to have a rational conversation and dealing with his charge. I asked that we stick with one particular regime at a time (in this case Nazi Germany) and deal with those 20 million deaths and then we can consider the others. CD wants to repeat 100 million over and over again, when he cant even get 20 million.

            I asked CD repeatedly, if Christian anti-Semitism played a role in the holocaust and he ignored the question in favor of comparing me to Hitler.

            Now, it has been a brutal week of work. I want my conversation to be pleasant. I want the people I converse with to think that my moral compass is not the same as Hitler's. I want my conversation to actually be a conversation and not listening to the same rant over and over again. I also want a beer or 12.

            I'm only at this site again, because I was having a pleasant conversation with Jim about contingency arguments. I'm not going to stay at this site to be called a Nazi.

          • Lazarus

            But it's ok for you to call the author of the OP "dense" as you've done Over There. How does that work?

          • Ignatius Reilly

            Joe is a public figure writing posts for public consumption. The general tone of his posts and his vacuous articles demand direct criticism. If Joe stepped up his game, I wouldn't describe him in harsh terms at the other place. Now I also think CD is pretty dense as well.
            However, the point you are missing is that I tried to have a rational conversation with CD. I don't think CD is capable of such conversations so I moved on.

          • Lazarus

            You actually seem quite comfortable with that hypocrisy. Let's leave that there then.

          • David Nickol

            There are some people it's not worth engaging with. There are some arguments it's not worth having. It seems to me that when someone accuses you have having "100 million murders on your conscience," it's an argument not worth having with a person not worth engaging with.

          • Ignatius Reilly

            I'm really surprised you are defending CD's behavior

          • Lazarus

            CD's "behavior" can be judged by others who could be bothered. I do not believe that he called you personally a Nazi. He was referring to atheists, to the historical examples he mentioned. I think his point was a simple one.

            Other than that, I tried to do two things. Firstly, to try to get you to engage with the essence of his criticism, and secondly I pointed out the blatant hypocrisy of acting all offended by, as far as your perception goes, being insulted while, as is clear from my examples, you and certain people on another site that you frequent have absolutely no qualms in insulting people on a regular basis.

            You do not acknowledge this. You do not see the hypocrisy. I am as surprised as you are, just for a different reason.

          • Ignatius Reilly

            I do not believe that he called you personally a Nazi. He was referring to atheists, to the historical examples he mentioned.

            CD:

            You have much in common with him [Hitler]. Likewise with Mao and Stalin who loved murdering people by the million.

            CD:

            You must be drunk on all that blood.

            CD:

            Hitler hated the church. So they [Nazis] have much in common with you.

            CD:

            You insist that Hitler was honest. You have such faith in your leader.

            If Hitler is my leader that makes me a Nazi....

            CD:

            He said once, "The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing
            of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity." You would agree.

            Now he insinuates that I agree with random Hitler quotes.

            CD:

            Would you rather live here or in atheist North Korea? Of course you hate Christianity and Christians, that's why you are posting all of this.

            Further libel.

            CD:

            Believing atheists pulled over 100 million triggers.

            Complete BS. CD is a straight up liar.

            The new blood libel is atheists trying to blame all violence on Christians. You do it despite 100 million murders on your own conscience.

            Accuses me of being partially responsible for 100 million deaths.

            Please, Laz, let us not pretend like CD wasn't overly insulting, and let us not pretend that he has actual arguments.

            I think his point was a simple one.

            And what is that? I'm afraid his point was lost in his all-caps ranting and his name calling.

            secondly I pointed out the blatant hypocrisy of acting all offended by, as far as your perception goes, being insulted while, as is clear from my examples, you and certain people on another site that you frequent have absolutely no qualms in insulting people on a regular basis.

            I am not even remotely offended by CD. I have a very low opinion of him. I'm not going to talk to him anymore, just as I wouldn't argue with a child or a crazy person. I'm not offended.

            This is about my personal choice. I don't want to have tedious conversations. CD is tedious.

            When and why I have qualms about insulting people is another matter. There are those that I wont insult because I respect them. There are others I wont insult because I pity them. Then there are times I wont insult because I don't want us all to be "blind and toothless." Personally, I think most of the apologetics that I run into his parrots repeating things they don't actually understand. I'm not sure how to say that without being insulting. Usually I just ignore the things I think are dumb and focus on other things.

            You do not acknowledge this. You do not see the hypocrisy. I am as surprised as you are, just for a different reason.

            I'm a hypocrite, because I insult people or am around those who do insult people, while at the same time not wanting to have a conversation with someone who has nothing intelligent to say. One is not like the other.

            Although, if you want to enlighten me as to what CDs point actually is (well, beyond gratuitous insults) I'd be grateful.

          • Sample1

            What an asshole.

            Mike

          • Michael Murray

            I suspect if we gathered up the set of all people who killed someone in the last century and sorted by commonalities the highest wouldn't be a shared atheism but shared possession of a penis.

          • cestusdei

            Gee why didn't he flag this comment I wonder? It's apparently okay to bash Christians.

          • Lazarus

            CD rants and rages on this topic in a manner that could certainly do with some restraint and editing. I am not necessarily defending him. As I said, his rant seems to me to be more against generic atheists than against you personally. As far as I can tell he does not know you, so those allegations leveled against you would be nonsensical.

            His simple point, however gracelessly put, is that the hoary old atheist attack against Christians for all the murders and deaths we have committed over the ages is blatant hypocrisy. I know that the debate has been waged on SN, but non-believers have caused a staggering number of deaths, especially in the 20th century.

          • Sample1

            Milquetoast genitalia. First words that came to mind. I don't know you.

            Mike, generic atheist.

          • Ignatius Reilly

            Humanism or non-belief didn't cause those deaths. Ideology did. Certainly in the case of Hitler, he may have not been a Christian, but he was also not an atheist.

            I'm not particularly well read on the USSR, China, or Cambodia, so it is difficult for me to make judgements on the reasons for those deaths. I have read some on Nazi Germany and WW2, and I do not think you can blame the holocaust on atheism.

            I'm not sure exactly how to categorize the relationship between violence and dogmatic ideologies. Fundamentalists of any stripe that want to impose their way of life on others scare me. I think those are the sort of movements that can cause death on a massive scale. Historically, religion has been a vehicle for fundamentalism, but so have other non-religious ideologies.

            I can obviously find moments in history when religion has lead people down some very dark paths. I can also point to modern instance of religion leading people to what I would consider wrong moral conclusions. But I wouldn't want to extrapolate these obsevations to all religion.

          • Lazarus

            Would you not (should you not) concede that a life built on nihilism, an absolute lack of love, no acceptance of accountability (pre- or post mortem) could cause these wars and death?

            We know that it can. We know that a fervent religious belief can cause those harms.

            As a standard disclaimer let me add that I am not saying that you, or all, or most atheists do feel or live that way.
            I am however saying that we should all concede the patently obvious, and that is that both believers and non-believers can, and did, causally connect their views to wars and murders on a massive scale. To argue the contrary in the face of history is silly.

          • Ignatius Reilly

            I don't think there is anything here that I would disagree with. I would add though that I don't think atheism per se is what caused the wars, but it was definitely part of larger worldviews that were responsible for violence. A particular brand of communism caused the chaos - not atheism.

            Edit: I dont think it is really fair to compare atheism with religion. One is a belief on one thing. Religion is more of a worldview ( or at least can be).

          • Lazarus

            Both are worldviews though ;)

          • Ignatius Reilly

            I wouldn't describe myself as an atheists first and foremost though. I would say I have the worldview of an unbeliever with a mixture of stoicism, utilitarianism, liberalism, hedonism, and many other things (maybe even some Christianity). A worldview encompasses so much more than one's beliefs on deities. More importantly it includes things like how we make moral judgments and how we come to knowledge.
            It is much more interesting and messy than a lack of belief in deities.

          • Lazarus

            Great description.

          • cestusdei

            Amen.

          • cestusdei

            Yes, they are: 100 million people murdered by atheists in just the last century. You have no rational response to that fact.

          • Doug Shaver

            In fact atheists are all about controlling others and killing them if they refuse to comply.

            Are we also all about lying through our teeth? I have not in my lifetime met a single atheist who admits to wanting to kill believers just for believing.

          • cestusdei

            I haven't met a fellow Catholic who wants to kill people, but atheists screech all the time about those violent Christians. But in the last century over 100 million people have been murdered by you atheists. Start dealing with that fact.

          • Doug Shaver

            atheists screech all the time about those violent Christians.

            I don't. Some atheists do, but as an indicator of how many atheists want to kill believers just for believing, the datum is worthless.

          • cestusdei

            Much like the atheist bleating about those violent Christians and blaming all wars on religion. 100 MILLION murdered by YOU atheists. That indicates to me how many atheists want to kill us.

          • Doug Shaver

            That indicates to me how many atheists want to kill us.

            So I gather. That tells me how much attention anyone should pay you whenever you say that any X is an indicator of some Y.

          • cestusdei

            You are paying attention. But so are we. We don't have to make false accusations. We can point to the truth. 100 million murdered by YOU atheists. Yet you don't take responsibility or apologize or promise to stop. I think that's because you actually agree with it.

          • Doug Shaver

            Yet you don't take responsibility

            No, I don't, because I am not responsible for any murders that I did not commit.

            or apologize or promise to stop.

            I will not apologize for anything I didn't do, and it would be illogical of me to promise to stop something that I never started.

            I think that's because you actually agree with it.

            What you think is not logical.

          • cestusdei

            See you dodge your responsibility for all those murders. 100 million people murdered by YOU atheists and you are not sorry about it. You don't promise to stop it. I am correct, you agree with it.

          • Sample1

            Brandon Vogt, owner of this site, would really like you to cut it out. He can't be pleased with your posts but does allow them.

            Mike, loving atheist

          • cestusdei

            He hasn't mentioned it. Are you his official spokesman? I am sure you would like me to be silent and let you trash the Church unfairly. That is no loving. Killing 100 million people is not loving.

            Let's be clear. You guys began, as you often do, with the "Catholicism is so evil and violent..." I simply use YOUR own reasoning against you. You don't like it? Then don't do it to us. It's that simple.

          • Sample1

            I'm sorry.

            Mike

          • cestusdei

            Okay.

          • Doug Shaver

            See you dodge your responsibility for all those murders.

            You say so.

          • cestusdei

            I say the truth. 100 million and its on you.

          • Doug Shaver

            I say the truth

            You say that, too. You're not giving me any reason, other than your say-so, to believe anything you're saying.

          • cestusdei

            It is easily verified. Add up all the people murdered by you atheists in the last century. It's over 100 million. Atheism is a violent religion.

            I'm must doing to you what you do to us. If you don't like it then stop doing it to us. But you won't.

          • Doug Shaver

            Atheism is a violent religion.

            It is not a religion of any kind.

          • cestusdei

            It has dogmas like any religion. It also punishes heretics with death, over 100 million times in the last century. We gave that up centuries ago, when will you?

          • Ignatius Reilly
          • cestusdei

            I don't have to go far back. Just the last century to list 100 MILLION murders committed by devout atheists. Let me repeat, 100 MILLION. Atheists are extremely violent and intolerant based on that fact. I can keep repeating that truth. When will you finally deal with it?

          • Ignatius Reilly

            Can you read? That happened in '76. After your alleged atheists atrocities.

          • cestusdei

            Those atheist murders continue. Look at North Korea the perfect atheist state. No religion allowed. It's paradise for you.

          • Ignatius Reilly

            Make it 6.

          • cestusdei

            Ah so you can't answer.

          • Sample1

            North Korea is the most religious nation on Earth.

            Mike

          • cestusdei

            No, it is atheist and acts accordingly.

          • Ignatius Reilly
          • cestusdei

            100 MILLION murders and it is still going on by YOU atheists.

          • Ignatius Reilly

            3 beers says cestusdei is a computer program

          • Sample1

            I've never counted to 100 million so I find his claim ludicrous. Plus it's the wrong color.

            Mike

          • cestusdei

            Truth hurts doesn't it.

          • Ignatius Reilly

            Naw, I barely care enough about this conversation to reply.

          • cestusdei

            Yet you do.

          • Ignatius Reilly

            Look I sent you a link that showed one of your claims was false. Namely, that Christians haven't committed any atrocities in the last century. You then go off on some other tangent that I don't care about.

          • cestusdei

            I can send you a link to the black book of communism that lists millions of deaths. Yet you want to talk about something else.

          • Ignatius Reilly

            No, have shown me that you aren't interested in dialogue on that subject, so I'm not talking to you about it anymore.

          • cestusdei

            I went back and flagged some of the insults you leveled at me when talking to others. That isn't dialogue. Accusing us of being Nazi's isn't dialogue. Until you can get over that kind of thing there can't be any dialogue.

          • Ignatius Reilly

            I didn't accuse anyone of being a Nazi, but you did. You also accused myself and Doug of being complicit in genocide. I dont care enough to flag your comments, but hope moderation sees how you have been behaving and bans you.

          • cestusdei

            It began with the usual "Christianity is violent" routine. Your behavior leaves much to be desired. You directly insult me. One of you called me an ahole. You want me banned. You want those who disagree with you to be silenced. So much for freedom of speech and thought.

          • Ignatius Reilly

            I never once claimed that Christianity is violent. Get your facts straight.

          • cestusdei

            I went back and saw your comments and insults about me. You have no problem being deceptive. This whole thing BEGAN when your side made the usual claims of Christians being so violent blah blah. I just gave you a dose of your own medicine. If you don't like it then don't do it to us.

          • Ignatius Reilly

            Link to my comment where I said that, because I didn't.

            You aren't capable of giving me a dose of my own medicine.

          • cestusdei

            I already flagged it.

            I just did.

          • Ignatius Reilly

            Whatever. I'm going to block you.

          • Valence

            Poor guy is horribly confused. Called me a hypocrite for something someone else did. I've experienced all kinds of strange insults/behavior in these comm boxes but that one was new.

          • Ignatius Reilly

            Yes he is. I don't want to deal with his rantings anymore. Out of sight out of mind.

          • cestusdei

            Ah "whatever" the teenagers cop out. Go right ahead. You started this and I guess I win it.

          • David Nickol

            I hesitate to get into this, but when you say the murders were committed by atheists, are you counting (for example) all Nazi murders as committed by atheists? Hitler may have been an atheist, but I would wager the vast majority of people who carried out Hitler's orders were Lutherans and Catholics. There were Lutheran and Catholic chaplains, for example, in Hitler's armies. Why would atheist armies have Christian chaplains?

          • Ignatius Reilly

            I would stay away. :-)
            It seems like this site is basically unmoderated.

          • cestusdei

            Nazism was atheist. But even if you leave them out Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim Jong il etc. more then make the point. I have yet to see any atheist actually deal with this issue. Instead you just go back a thousand years and try to find something on the Christians. It's a game and you are not serious.

          • Lazarus

            "Heretics" from what? The "atheist religion"?

          • cestusdei

            Yes, they kill them. 100 million or more in the last century.

          • Lazarus

            So people from the "atheist religion" kill "heretics" from that religion.

            Name one instance.

          • cestusdei

            I named 100 million instances.

          • Sample1

            Why are prisons chock full of Christians but statistically, yes per capita, atheists make up the smallest percentage of prisoners?

            Are you in prison?

            Mike, atheists help you live better

          • cestusdei

            Why are 100 million people dead because of atheists? Are you a killer? Atheists don't make our lives better. The poor go to churches for help not the local atheist group.

          • Doug Shaver

            It has dogmas like any religion

            So say its adversaries. It's like Protestants telling everyone that Catholics worship Mary.

          • cestusdei

            Or like atheists saying that Christianity is violent and causes violent.

          • Doug Shaver

            It's like Protestants telling everyone that Catholics worship Mary.

            Or like atheists saying that Christianity is violent and causes violence.

            Right. They're both false.

          • cestusdei

            So are you read to stop saying it?

          • Doug Shaver

            So are you read to stop saying it?

            Stop saying what? That Christianity is violent? I have not been saying it.

            Are you assuming that we atheists all think alike?

          • cestusdei

            You atheists assume all religions are alike. This whole argument has been about precisely your assertion that Christianity is violent. Now you are backing down? That's fine by me.

            So we are agreed that Christianity is not inherently violent and has done immense good in the world. Thanks for your positive view of our faith and the nice compliment. Perhaps you could get your fellow atheists to do the same.

          • Doug Shaver

            You atheists assume all religions are alike.

            No, not all of us assume that. A whole big bunch of us are quite aware that religions are not all alike.

            So we are agreed that Christianity is not inherently violent and has done immense good in the world.

            I have not said anything about how much good it has done.

          • cestusdei

            I have yet to meet them.

            So now you are going back to your original bigotry. I guess atheists don't care about objective truth. We have 100 million instances of it.

          • Doug Shaver

            I have yet to meet them.

            You have just met one, unless you're calling me a liar.

          • cestusdei

            Look back over your own posts.

            If you deny that atheists murdered 100 million people in the last century you are calling me a liar.

          • Doug Shaver

            If you deny that atheists murdered 100 million people in the last century

            I don't deny that, but you're changing the subject.

            I said that many atheists agree that religions are not all alike, and you replied that you have never met one, and I said you have met one now. Do you, or do you not, agree that you have met at least one atheist who will say that religions are not all alike?

          • cestusdei

            No, that IS the subject. It is you who are trying to change it. I can understand. That ocean of blood you swim in is inconvenient. I guess you didn't mean it earlier when you were backing away from your condemnation of Christianity. I didn't think you did. I have yet to see any atheist apologize and promise to end their homicide against religious people.

          • Doug Shaver

            You said earlier: "So now you are going back to your original bigotry." You've got some gall.

          • cestusdei

            You have some gall to be critical of us after 100 million people were murdered by atheists.

          • David Nickol

            I have flagged this comment as inappropriate. You are engaged in a mindless rant against all atheists. There are ways to discuss the connection between religion and violence or atheism and violence, but your approach is counterproductive. My understanding of the purpose of SN is to encourage dialogue. You are just repeating the same thing over and over again. I have always felt that one of the most important responsibilities of those who would engage in Christian apologetics is to conduct themselves in such a way that non-Christians can at least like them even if they don't agree with them. Instead, I think the reaction to your comments among many is, "If that's what Christians are like, I don't want to be one."

          • cestusdei

            Did you flag the comment and rant that Christianity is violent. Isn't that counterproductive? Is this whole conversation an attempt to flag me and silence anyone who disagrees with you? Did you flag the others for repeating themselves mindlessly? If that is what atheists are like I don't want to be one. Your comment shows a double standard. I am flagging it.

          • David Nickol

            Did you flag the comment and rant that Christianity is violent.

            You are not even making sense any more. Where have I suggested, let alone ranted, that Christianity is violent? A good starting point for a discussion like this would be Karen Armstrong's Fields of Blood: Religion and the History of Violence.

            I think most of what has been taken to be religiously motivated or "atheistically" motivated violence has been motivated by ideologies and other factors that, at bottom, had little to do with religion.

            If that is what atheists are like I don't want to be one.

            I am not an atheist.

          • cestusdei

            I do not accept her as being objective. So I cannot take her as a starting point. This whole thing began with an atheist making the usual false claim that Christianity is inherently violent. Then another tried the old "Nazi's were Christian" routine. Another called me an ahole. None of those comments were flagged by you. You're right, that doesn't make sense...unless you practice a double standard.

            Why am I on about this? Because it happens all.the.time. Over and over again the same thing. It gets really old. Especially when it began about a comment that was several years old in an article that is about Jesus/Horus. Yet atheists insist on trotting it out again. Ask THEM if they are willing to accept that violence, such as the inquisition, had little to do with religion but was motivated by other issues/ideologies. If they are willing to admit that then we might get somewhere.

          • David Nickol

            I am blocking you and consequently will see none of your future comments.

          • cestusdei

            That's fine by me. It wasn't like you were in good faith anyway.

          • Valence

            You're a big cry-baby, at least you make it clear here. I've been debating politics lately, so it's not like it's even possible for someone on the internet to offend me, lol! You should try it some time...go to Breitbart.com and say something "liberal". It's a blast :)

          • cestusdei

            And you don't cry over 100 million murders?

            Actually I only started to flag comments when one of YOU started being a crybaby. It is typical of liberals to bash and then try to silence everyone else. You are a hypocrite.

          • Valence

            Lol! You're quite amusing, and I'm not a *liberal* in many respects.

          • cestusdei

            Thus far you are. You refuse to tell the liberals their logic is illogical.

          • Valence

            Whatever, have fun!

          • cestusdei

            The truth is fun.

          • Valence

            Wait are calling me a hypocrite for something someone else did? You really are deeply confused aren't you, poor thing.

          • cestusdei

            No, you are confused. Let me help you.
            1. The atheists trotted out the "Christians are violent" canard.
            2. I used their own logic to skewer atheism.
            3. They objected and refused to see the irony.
            4. You come along and notice it.
            5. You don't seem to realize that was the point all along.

            I hope that helps.

          • Valence

            So..How am I a hypocrite? You know what that word means right?
            I don't have a position on the God debate. It would be like a mosquito having a position on whether lonworks or bacnet is the better protocol. The true nature of things seems beyond our comprehension and I'm cool with that. Buddhism and mindfulness are pretty useful and Buddha actually had a similar position on the God question. I'm not claiming to be a good Buddhist though...I'm too much of an ass for that.

          • cestusdei

            You still seem confused and are now changing the subject. Why are you even commenting? Are you trying to convert me to Buddhism now?

          • Valence

            Lol, you seem to be assuming I'm a militant atheist and I was setting the record straight. For me, comment is just a trivial past time while I wait on things to load or stabilize at work. Largely it's a function of SIWOTI, nothing grandiose. What on Earth gives you the idea I would want to convert you to anything? Besides, the only evangelistic religions are Christianity and Islam.

          • cestusdei

            I am assuming that you are here to cause trouble. I am right about that. I am guessing you are a teen with little else to do.

          • Ignatius Reilly

            I like Karen Armstrong. This is a great article. A little long, but shorter than a book. I think it might be from the book or at least similar to the arguments in the book.

            https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/25/-sp-karen-armstrong-religious-violence-myth-secular

          • Valence

            Countless millions have been killed by people who believe the sun is at the center of the solar system. Do we hold everyone who believes the sun is at the center of the solar system responsible for their death? Of course not, the entire concept is completely idiotic.
            Your argument:
            Premise 1: If someone believes something, he/she is responsible for whatever someone else who believes the same thing does.
            Premise 2: Atheists killed people

            Conclusion: All atheist are responsible for everyone killed by atheists.

            Some atheist make a similar argument and it's just as silly.

          • cestusdei

            Actually that is the ATHEIST argument. I just turn it around and apply it to them. So in fact you just refuted what the atheists say lol. That was my point all along. Try to keep up will you.

          • Valence

            I said it was silly when atheists do it. What is the point of turning a dumb argument against someone who isn't using it? You just make yourself look foolish, but don't stop on my account. Part of liberty is being free to make all the foolish arguments you want ;)

          • cestusdei

            The point was for THEM to see that their argument was dumb. You are making yourself look foolish. Why aren't you telling them to get the point? Why are you talking to me? Tell THEM.

          • Valence

            I'll bite. Link a comment making this argument.

          • cestusdei

            Look back at the argument to when it started. I am not going to do your work for you.

          • Valence

            No one was making this argument but you. I don't doubt you think someone else was, considering your obvious cognitive deficits. You probably can't​ help it, of course, people don't decide to be born dimwitted. Sometimes people do it to themselves via drugs and alcohol or reckless incident that causes brain damage, but that's fairly rare. I realize what I just said is insulting, but it seems to be true and explains the situation here. Feel free to insult me back if it makes you feel better, I honestly don't mind :) The ego is just an annoying evolutionary construct that is necessary in small doses but most people tend to let it get out of control and drive their behavior.

          • cestusdei

            I think it is true that you are here only to insult. You aren't even very good at it. This is what you liberals refer to as "dialogue." It is easier then actually trying to debate. I blame the educational system that you have created. I realize I asked you to look back to the genesis of the argument. That was wrong of me. It required you to actually do some thinking and realize that you didn't know what you were talking about when you chimed in. I can't expect honesty from you.

          • Valence

            Lol, there you go, insult my insults. I guess that makes it a meta insult ;) It seems you are here to insult atheists so I'm not sure why you are complaining. It's common for people with cognitive deficits to delude themselves about it at any rate.
            Just FYI no one in their right mind should take an anonymous internet conversation seriously, tis the nature of the medium. Thanks for your odd comments, and good luck with your atheist insulting :)

          • Sample1

            You owe Ignatius an apology.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HG0yH6Jtp0

            Mike

          • cestusdei

            No, I don't. I simply told him the truth.

          • Ignatius Reilly

            He actually doubled down and explicitly said I have much in common with Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.

          • cestusdei

            This is where it started. Quickly followed by the usual atheist attack on Christianity for being violent. I didn't start this. Doug did.

          • Leo Jansen

            Communism is Atheism!

          • calledit78

            Religious numbers are falling fast why, science and the indoctrination into religion process is failing, why young people got better things to do than believe in make believe friends. The funny thing is that adults think it is funny or weird to have a make believe friend but then they believe in a God. Now that is what you call irony.

      • Andrew G.

        That kind of argument fails the conservation-of-evidence test, unless you're seriously telling us that your belief would be reduced by the lack of any such foreshadowing.

        • I'm not sure my belief in Jesus as God would be reduced without foreshadowing among the great pagan myths, since my faith does not depend on them, but the fact they occur makes sense and, if nothing else, does not contradict Christianity.

          By the way, the best book on how pagan-myths foreshadowed Christianity is G.K. Chesterton's The Everlasting Man.

          • Longshanks

            But literally everything which is ever proven or eventually known will "not contradict Christianity" since it'll get ret-conned in.

            "Oh, there's an incredibly rich soil of human beliefs, of which many bear striking resemblances to what we believe and have similar amounts of credible evidence, long predating the germination of the one-true-belief that we have? Yeah, those were just foreshadowings. Like god was giving us a preview of the next episode while the credits roll on this one."

            "Oh, new scientific evidence contradicts things we forced you to believe before? Yeah, sure, we were protecting the spiritual lives of the faithful before your evidence was conclusive, but now we're totally in. We'll issue an apology in a couple hundred years."

          • Longshanks, this is not true and I don't think you really believe it. There are plenty of ways to disprove (or "contradict") Christianity. The simplest of which is to provide a natural explanation for the Resurrection which fits the available evidence and is more plausible than the supernatural alternative. If you can prove the Resurrection is a made-up claim, you've defeated Christianity. Catholicism is built on that foundation.

          • Of course, at this stage of the game, based on the available evidence, it is as impossible to prove the Resurrection is a "made-up claim" as it is impossible to prove it was an actual historical event. (I know many are convinced it is a proven fact, but of course it isn't.) And of course there are a number of interpretations of the Resurrection—e.g., Jesus lives on through the faith of his followers—which even a non-Christian or an atheist could acknowledge as true.

            I think that is reinforced by the idea of "nonoverlapping magisteria." If religion and science do not overlap, they cannot contradict each other. And history is part of the "magisteria" of science. It doesn't overlap the magisteria of religion, and therefore it cannot prove religion false.

            By the way, I doubt that most people who don't believe in the Resurrection consider it a "made-up claim."That's like the old "Lunatic, Liar, or Lord" trilemma. It could be, for example (just one of many possibilities), that the idea of the Resurrection really did begin as the idea that Jesus somehow lived on through the faith of his followers, and that concept "evolved" over time into a belief in a real, historical, physical resurrection.

            One thing does seem obvious to me, though, and that is that the "Jesus/Horus connection" is so much bunk that it doesn't need debunking. No one needed to borrow from Egyptian religion to write the story of Jesus. It is a very Jewish story based on Jewish ideas and events of the first century.

          • David I am almost entirely with you, and would add this: I have always found that the "magisteria" do overlap at some point. For example, the question of why people believe religious things is an issue of human psychology and neuroscience.

            No one needed to borrow from Egyptian religion to write the story of Jesus.

            I also agree with this, insofar as it refers to the story of the life and public ministry of Jesus. However, when you get to deification and subsequent theology, it is very much a break from Jewish ideas and shows clear signs of influence from the pagan Greek speaking community that supplied converts to keep Christianity going in the latter first century.

          • Randy Gritter

            The non-overlapping magisteria is not a Catholic idea. Truth about faith and morals does overlap with scientific truth. Not as much as people suppose but there is definitely some overlap and the church does not say there is not.

            The faith is very Jewish. The early church fathers dug into the Old Testament and the apostolic tradition for truth. Both sources were 100% Jewish. They did get their philosophical framework and language from the Greeks.

          • Doug Shaver

            There are plenty of ways to disprove (or "contradict") Christianity. The simplest of which is to provide a natural explanation for the Resurrection which fits the available evidence and is more plausible than the supernatural alternative.

            I wish I'd seen this four years ago. I'd have asked: What about a natural explanation for Christians believing in the resurrection which fits the available evidence and is more plausible than the resurrection's actual occurrence?

      • AshleyWB

        Absolutely not, because it makes no sense to arbitrarily assign human characteristics to a transcendent being that exists beyond our understanding. Of course this is a problem with many statements about gods. For example, religious believers of any faith have no reason to believe their god is being honest with them. If a universe-creating omnipotence wants to mislead you, it's going to do so and there is nothing you can do to detect that.

        • Randy Gritter

          Is He completely beyond our understanding? The argument is that ancient religions did understand God to some degree. They got some things wrong but they got many things right. They had the notion of gods who would lie and gods who were trustworthy. God revealed Himself in a special way through Abraham, Moses, and eventually Jesus still we all have some sense of Him even today.

          • Rationalist1

            Imagine in another 3000 years how are concept of God will have changed. I think we're even seeing the hint of it in changing societal trends now.

          • AshleyWB

            No matter what your religion, you have no way of judging the author of your faith's supposed revelations. Your god is not a person; it cannot be judged as one. A claim that it is trustworthy or that it is deceptive can never be substantiated, because you "know" only those aspects of its nature which it has chosen to reveal.

          • John Graney

            I think St. Thomas has a decent proof for why the Creator must be perfect. I'm not extremely familiar with it.

            In any case, we all know that the Devil is super-trustworthy.

          • I think St. Thomas has a decent proof for why the Creator must be perfect.

            I can picture what "the prefect" is in abstract thought, but what do you think that means in the real world?

      • Liz Litts

        I'll go with those three anytime--The 'Jesus myth" is a myth for those who deny the truth.

      • M. Solange O’Brien

        No. Why would we expect god to foreshadow this event?

      • a_no_n

        It's far more likely that a bunch of unimaginative monks just borrowed stories from the Pagans and cobbled them together into a working religion.

  • Andre Boillot

    "Isis managed to retrieve all of Osiris’s body parts except for his phallus, which was thrown into the Nile and eaten by catfish. (I’m not making this up)."

    Ok, you'll have to admit that, in a piece that is going about debunking the parallels between the two stories - both filled with otherwise fantastic miracles - it's quite funny that the author would presume total disbelief from his audience on this one point. As if this were the one part that strained credibility :)

    • Rationalist1

      Many Catholic Churches, up to even this century, claim to have a relic of the Holy Prepuce.

      • Longshanks

        Oh jeez, if we want to go down the relic isle, we'll be here all day guys.

    • josh

      Guess he should have girded up his loins.

    • Brandon Maynard

      Yeah, Christians are pretty unintelligent, no matter how good their grammar is.

  • primenumbers

    Great article. The links between the character of Jesus and Horus are tenuous. However the most interesting part is here: "(I’m not making this up)" where the deeply held religious convictions of the ancient Egyptians are mocked, yet as religious beliefs the ancient Egyptians used the same epistemology of faith that modern day Christians use to come to their religious beliefs. This is yet more evidence that faith is a very poor epistemology.

    • primenumbers, your insinuation that modern Christians ground their faith on an "epistemology of faith" is untrue, as this very website attests. Even a few weeks in, we have 40+ articles, and none argue for God or any particular Christian doctrine through faith alone.

      • primenumbers

        I'm talking about faith as the means to which you come by your religious knowledge. And it doesn't have to be through "faith alone", but faith filling in the gap between minimal or equivocal evidence and a firm belief.

        We can agree that the religious beliefs of the ancient Egyptians are laughable though. What is so different about the beliefs of Mormons or Scientologists? With Christianity we don't have good enough evidence to believe, and the gap between that evidence and belief is filled by faith, and it's that filling the epistemological gap with faith that I'm talking about.

        • primenumbers, again your comment is full of curious assumptions about Christian epistemology. First, there are significant epistemological differences between Christians, Mormons, Egyptians, and Scientologists. For one, the latter two do not rely on historically falsifiable claims. The existence of Horus at a particular time and place is not claimed as it is with Jesus.

          Second, you argue "the gap between...evidence and belief [is] filled by faith."

          I somewhat agree. It's true that logic, reason, and empirical evidence can only take the Christian so far. Those things alone cannot reveal the fullness of Christian belief. However, they can take him a long. They can prove God exists; can affirm his eternal, omnipotent, and creative nature; can support the historical veracity of the Resurrection; and more. But beliefs like the Trinity and the divinity of the Church can only be discerned through Divine Revelation.

          That said, I take issue with the way you're using terms. You insinuate that on one side we have "evidence" and on the other side "belief." But the two are not of the same kind. Belief comes through analysis of the evidence--it's not the opposite pole of evidence.

          • primenumbers

            The Mormons do rely on historically falsifiable claims, and we can both agree that they are indeed false claims. What is different with Christianity is that those claims are nearly 2000yrs ago rather than 200 and we don't have good enough evidence to believe either are actually true. With Mormonism we do have good evidence to believe they are false, but with Christianity we don't actually have enough evidence to completely falsify, but we do have some good evidence pointing in that direction like the large-scale miraculous claims that are not evidenced in the contemporary historical record. I can well accept an answer for the historicity of Jesus that "we just don't know", whereas I can go even further with Mormonism (vastly helped by it being recent history).

            I'm not suggesting belief is opposite to evidence. We start with evidence and if there's enough evidence we can form a justified belief. If there's not enough evidence (or a balance of evidences leading neither one way or the other) we can say "I don't know", and if there's strong disconfirming evidence we can say "no, I don't believe". I do think it is faith that takes you from "I don't know" to "belief" when there's not enough evidence to justify that belief.

            "They can prove God exists; can affirm his eternal, omnipotent, and creative nature; can support the historical veracity of the Resurrection; and more" - no, here you're using faith to go to beliefs way beyond what the evidence can actually show. We really don't have enough historical evidence to show Jesus, or that there was a resurrection.

            "But beliefs like the Trinity and the divinity of the Church can only be discerned through Divine Revelation" - agreed that these are most entirely faith based.

          • primenumbers, your whole first paragraph is responding to something I never said. Reread my comment. I claimed the "latter two" (i.e. Egyptians and Scientologists) made historically unverifiable claims, not the Mormons. My aim was to show one difference that countered the idea that we can lump all four belief systems into the same epistemological group.

            However, though I didn't comment on it, the differences beteween Christianity and Mormonism are vast, though admittedly most of it concerns the veracity of Divine Revelation.

            Finally, you claim "We really don't have enough historical evidence to show Jesus, or that there was a resurrection."

            Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you, but if you're claiming that there is no historical evidence that Jesus existed, you're be on the extreme fringe of historical scholarship. Even most atheist and agnostic historians verify Jesus' existence, including Dr. Bert Ehrman.

            Regarding historical evidence for the Resurrection, let's table that topic for now because we'll be having a series of posts on that issue coming up here. I'll look forward to your comments on those posts!

          • primenumbers

            Brandon indeed you did mention that the Egyptians and Scientologists don't make historical claims, which is why I went to discuss the Mormons and Christians that do make historical claims. But historical claims is just one area where faith is used to find religious beliefs. You mention the concept of the Trinity for example, which is not a historically falsifiable belief and we've agreed it's faith based. All religions will use a mix of things, ranging from historical events to rather more pure faith based beliefs. In all the cases, the "faith" part, the part that takes you from what evidence for that belief there is (which could be ranging from "someone told me" to "I witnessed a miracle") to a full belief.

            "but if you're claiming that there is no historical evidence that Jesus existed, you're be on the extreme fringe of historical scholarship" - that's not what I'm claiming. I'm saying that there's not enough evidence to show such a character as Jesus existed. I'm not aware of enough evidence to show he didn't exist either. We really just don't have enough evidence either way to come to a firm conclusion. As for historical scholarship, they do tend to go with Jesus being (one of many) messianic Jewish preachers of the period, but they don't put the religious claims of Jesus in as part of history. The Jesus as myth discussions are rather fascinating, but it's also frustrating seeing the early history of Christianity almost entirely through the filter of early and later Christianity. I'd dearly like to read the lost works of the early critics of Christianity, but all we have left are the fragments preserved in the Christian responses to them, for instance.

            "Regarding historical evidence for the Resurrection" - good idea. It's a topic worthy of it's own thread.

            As for your mention earlier "It's true that logic, reason, and empirical evidence can... ...show God exists; affirm his eternal, omnipotent, and creative nature" - I also put that in the faith based category. I know you have a thread going on logical proofs for God, but it's rather unwieldy to have 20 proofs. I suggest you pick which you suggest is the strongest of them and present that for discussion. I think you'll get a better discussion going that way.

          • Thanks for the feedback regarding the last point. The goal of the "20 Proofs" article was not to provide an exhaustive defense of each of those proofs, but to show skeptics (and curious Catholics) that strong philosophical and scientific arguments exist for God's existence.

            We're planning to devote much more space and thought to each of the arguments in time, especially the cosmological arguments.

          • primenumbers

            Brandon, arguing for your side for the minute: a vast number of proofs don't bolster each other (psychologically speaking). What people do is look for the low-hanging-fruit, and attack the weakest proof and dismiss the rest accordingly. If you want to make a strong logical case for God, pick your best and don't include things like Pascal's Wager (for example).

          • Rationalist1

            Plus in a religion whose founder claims that truths that were hidden from the wise and available to all should have to resort to philosophical proofs accessible only to the educated seems contradictory. To me a demonstration of a simple pure faith that "could move mountains" and that when asked for a fish, doesn't give a serpent would suffice.

          • Rationalist1, if you read the verse in context which you quote, it's clear Jesus was referring not to the merely "wise" but to the intellectually proud.

            Regarding "moving mountains," this was a rhetorical device. Catholics don't read all of Jesus' words literalistically like many Fundamentalists.

          • Rationalist1

            The verses immediately prior to Matthew 11:25 refer to towns where Jesus' miracles were performed and they did not repent. That's not intellectually proud, that's being obstinate.

          • Rationalist, first I hope you realize the irony of an atheist trying to explain to a Catholic how Catholics should interpret the Bible. I don't say that as an argument, but as an observation.

            Second, if you read earlier in both Matthew 11 and Luke 10 you'll see Jesus referring to these townspeople as "wolves" and people who have ears but don't hear. The imagery is meant to suggest that even though miracles are performed in front of them, they choose not to believe due to pride and obstinance.

            It's not, however, as you were suggesting. That God "hid" himself from a large group of people and only revealed himself through special knowledge to the educated. This is a heresy the Church rejected in the first century known as Gnosticism.

          • Rationalist1

            And Brandon, just because I am an atheist, doesn't mean I don't know anything about Catholicism. As you will find, most atheists come from a religious background and tend to a great deal about the religion they left behind. And I also don't say that as an argument, but as an observation.

          • I never said you "don't know anything about Catholicism." Now you're just putting words into my mouth. I only observed the strangeness of an atheist trying to tell a Catholic how Catholics should understand the Bible.

          • Rationalist1

            You said it was ironic. In a sense it is, but not unexpected. I've corrected a Catholic once on this board and many others on points of Catholic teaching. I don't believe it but I do know it.

          • Rationalist1

            We'll it's just as well that "moving mountains" was a rhetorical advice as there in no evidence that prayer has enacted one physical change in this world. Although as my Christian Science friend says, it's the spiritual healing that's more important.

          • Anon knee mouse

            Christian apologetics do not have to resort to philosophical proofs to be effective. It is only necessary to help the "educated" unlearn what they think they know by asking tough questions and engaging in dialogue. In my experience I find that the "uneducated" often have an easier time with faith.

          • "What people do is look for the low-hanging-fruit, and attack the weakest proof and dismiss the rest accordingly."

            Which of course is intellectually dishonest and contrary to our aim here at Strange Notions which is the pursuit of what's true. I simply can't help that reaction. For the sake of argument, assume 19 of Dr. Kreeft' 20 "ways" were false. Would the intellectually honest person then assume the twentieth is necessarily false?

          • primenumbers

            Brandon, that's why I mentioned the psychology of it. Indeed it's wrong to assume that the rest of the arguments are false because you've found a problem with one of them. But that's not how people think, and if you're presenting a case, it's best not to allow people to even go that route - present your best case only.

            Now, on the other hand I was tech editing a book and I found the 1st chapter full of errors. It wasn't wrong of me to assume that similar errors would be made through the rest of the book and hence ask for a double-fee from the publishers up-front as I knew it would take an awful lot longer than normal to do a proper job the tech edit. (of course, for this to be analogous to your 20 arguments, they'd all have to come from the pen of the same person)

          • Michael Murray

            Which of course is intellectually dishonest and contrary to our aim here at Strange Notions which is the pursuit of what's true.

            Perhaps attacking on the basis of the weakest link is dishonest but there is also the question of optimizing the expenditure of time. There is an enormous amount of information available and an enormous number of claims going on the internet about all kinds of topic. Anyone who wants to stay sane has to do some filtering up front. If you've looked at a few arguments of this kind and found them wanting then it's quite sensible to reject the rest.

          • primenumbers

            Oh, and I just realize there's a rather BS pun in the title of this article "Horus Manure" which rather demeaning to the ancient Egyptian religious beliefs. It also fits into my argument above that what appears to be a laughable religious belief to a Catholic is still a belief that used faith. It doesn't make sense to get bogged down in the nuances of what people believe - what is vastly more interesting and important is why they believe them.

          • It has nothing to do with mocking the Egyptian religious beliefs and has everything to do with the Parallelomania with which people talk about this topic.

          • primenumbers

            So calling a god of the Egyptians horse manure - BS - is not mocking?

          • That's not what the joke is aimed at. It's a pun aimed, not at Horus or his followers, but at the people who think Horus = Jesus.

            Whether or not the pun was effective/ in good taste is not something I'll defend or attack. Simply saying that I'm sure if Sorenson knew any Horus devotees who were offended he would apologize for the misunderstanding.

            And please. All religions make fun of others, and atheists make fun of all religions. This is a silly point to get on a high horse about.

          • primenumbers

            Oh yes, I do make fun of religious beliefs - all of them without bias. I just see it as somewhat hypocritical when a religious person criticizes the whacky beliefs of another while holding equally whacky beliefs themselves.

          • But to say that two exclusionist religions can't make fun of each other? I don't know how you get to interpose yourself in the middle of that. If Horus had any followers, I'm sure they'd make priest-pedo jokes.

            Seriously: "You all have silly beliefs, so it's offensive when you make fun of each other." That's condescending, paternalistic, and so out of place. Again, you're being simultaneously faux-offended and superior. It's unbecoming.

          • primenumbers

            Of course, they can and do make fun of each other. This doesn't stop me perceiving it as hypocritical though.

            ""You all have silly beliefs, so it's offensive when you make fun of each other."" - but that's not what I said. I'm not taking offence, I'm perceiving hypocrisy.

            I'm not getting "faux-offended and superior." - and if you catch me expressing whacky beliefs, call me on it - I expect nothing less.

            My whole argument here is not about what you believe, but why you believe it. I think that the religious beliefs of the ancient Egyptians (beliefs the author of the article finds humorous) had a strong component of faith, as do religious beliefs today, and that although we can see clearly how faith is an unreliable epistemology in the case of Egyptians (or Muslims, or Mormons or Scientologists etc.) we find it hard to see in the case of our own beliefs (and yes, I include myself there too) because of the basic cognitive biases that are common to us all.

          • And like I said, I'm not going to die on a hill defending the pun. But it's a pun. Aimed at the Jesus/Horus connection and not at Horus. Did it really have to be brought in at all to a discussion?

          • primenumbers

            As I mentioned, the laughable nature of other people's beliefs is part of the argument I'm making on how faith is unreliable epistemology.

          • It's a very weak part. Something is funny when it contradicts our expectations (there are other elements of humor, I suppose, but this seems to be the relevant one here). But just because it contradicts our expectations doesn't mean it's false.

            The fact that God became man, died for all men to redeem them, and rose from the dead is absurd, perhaps even laughable to the non-Christian. But that in no way addresses its veracity.

            The fact that Osiris' penis was eaten by a catfish if absurd, even laughable to the non-Ancient Egyptian. But that fact has no bearing on its veracity.

            I hope the other parts of your argument are better.

          • primenumbers

            No, religious beliefs are not false because they're funny. That is not my argument at all. Religious beliefs, like those of the ancient Egyptians are, I think we can agree, false. There was no such Horus, and the stories about Horus are untrue - yet they were the deeply held beliefs of the ancient Egyptians. They held them through means of faith. My argument is that if if we can clear see that faith leads to false beliefs, and has lead to false beliefs throughout history, why can't we see that faith is also unreliable when it comes to our own beliefs? It's not the nature of the beliefs that matters at all - be they serious or laughable, but the means by which people come to those beliefs - faith - that I'm arguing about, and I'm saying quite distinctly that faith is a very unreliable epistemology.

          • Rationalist1

            It also leads to false beliefs now. There are some extremely intelligent, sincere, educated, prayerful people now who believe, what all of us would agree, are totally false faiths. Julia Sweeney left her Catholic faith when she realized that how could she discount Mormonism as a made up religion yet not her Catholic religion.

          • primenumbers

            Absolutely. There's a vast number of false beliefs held today - from anti-vaxxers and young earth creationists, to UFO believers. Although the range of beliefs is vast and varied, they all stem from the same set of cognitive biases, of which faith is a manifestation.

          • Longshanks

            For my part, I don't mind letting the pun slide.

            Tweaking religious sensibilities of any kind never seems like all that bad of an idea to me.

          • Now, objectively, how cute is your baby, really?

          • primenumbers

            I can only tell you how subjectively cute he is, which is very. I'm sure you could come up with an objective cuteness metric based on ratios of head size to body size, and eye size to head size though.

          • I can only tell you how subjectively cute he is, which is very.

            I take that as a tautology brought to us by Natural Selection (else our species would not have survived and we would not be having this conversation), and direct evidence for Darwin. However it is also why it is no surprise to me that religions will ridicule each other all the while feeling it is unfair, when on the receiving side of such.

          • To be clear, the "manure" pun was in reference to the Horus/Jesus connection, as the subtitle makes clear, not to Horus himself.

          • Rationalist1

            Just us "notorius atheists" who practice "scientism" who are sensitive to main calling. Christians have been assured by their founder that being berated for his sake is akin to a badge of honour so perhaps they are less sensitive to it. Either way, I won't do it.

          • primenumbers

            R1, remember we're "strident militant atheists".

          • Rationalist1

            That's true. But i get "grumpy" when I hear that.

          • Rationalist, you are aware that when we mentioned "notorious atheist" in the Antony Flew post, we were quoting from the subtitle of his own book, right?

            And "scientism" isn't meant to be perjorative. It's just a word chosen to describe a particular ideology which overemphasizes science, just as "americanism" or "capitalism."

          • Rationalist1

            If it's okay to call an atheist notorious, is it okay for me to call the Pope Emeritus, a notorious Catholic. Just because he used it doesn't mean you should.

            And scientism, a constructed word that isn't in the dictionary, only a faithist would save it wasn't pejorative.

          • Jon Sorensen

            No, I was not mocking the Egyptians.

          • Jon Sorensen

            Exactly. I am actually fascinated by the ancient Egyptians.

          • Rationalist1

            Agreed. People lived, died and organized their lives around their belief in Horus. Just because like so many religions it's defunct it's no reason to disparage them.

          • primenumbers

            As humans, they were as susceptible to the very same cognitive biases that we are, and hence had the the same issues with using faith as an epistemology as we would. It's not their fault they believed thing which we now find humorous, just very human. I don't see the same excuse applying today though where we have a very good understanding of cognitive biases and how they will lead to us forming untrue beliefs.

          • Michael Murray

            cosmological arguments.

            Hopefully you will find a cosmologist somewhere to contribute to this. I'm not that keen on philosophers doing physics.

          • Brandon: Please do be sure to get in touch with me if you need cosmologists to address the question of how much of cosmology consists in philosophy :-)

          • marcus

            If you go back historically, and possible into the future, you will find that the statement:

            "...claiming that there is no historical evidence that Jesus existed, you're be on the extreme fringe of historical scholarship."

            Is not true. The great majority of humanity does not have one opinion or another about Jesus' existence because the character is not part of their faith. Most humans on this planet will say that they heard he is real but they dont know and even more will say they don't care because he is not important to them. The world is actually not all Christian nor do they speak English.

      • Guest

        How about "Modern Christians derive much of their theology from an epistemology of divine revelation?" Would that be inaccurate?
        Never mind, you answered this below. I'll remove this comment due to redundancy.

        ~Jesse Webster

    • I find value here in a process that is like two polishing stones rubbing against each other. The claims that just can't be supported from evidence are quickly ground down. I don't want skeptics falling for ad hoc dismissals that are as lacking in evidence as what is being dismissed. Hopefully what is left over are arguments that can stand general scrutiny.

      Stories about procreation between divine beings and humans (almost always female humans) are common in mythologies, so there is no surprise there. There is even one in Genesis 6:1-4. Different branches of early Christianity had different ideas about how to handle the concept of deification re Jesus, so it is not unreasonable to expect that the pagan traditions of the Greek speaking community providing the context, would be influential. However, a direct copying from Horus is not supportable, and I don't see as likely.

      As for Egyptians being mocked, well ... ah ... no I think I better not go there.

  • Meta-N

    Jon - The phenomena you discussing is known as Parallelomania. A trap that some atheists fall into.

    Additional Info on Horus vs. Jesus; Richard Carrier did an excellent write up on this topic, complete with many links. Here you go http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/294

    This is a must read item. Lots of supporting details.

    Enjoy!

    • Meta-N, great comment. Thanks! I'm glad you're aware that you can baptize people in emergency situations, even if you're an atheist. You only have to will to do what the Church does in baptism.

      However, I'm not so sure about the beer claim. Beer is certainly not valid in ordinary circumstances, and I don't think it's acceptable in emergency situations either. Did you hear this on the radio or read it somewhere?

      • Rationalist1

        Pope Gregory IX in the 13th century banned beer baptism.

        • Rationalist, I'm familiar with that. Which is why I'm skeptical beer could be used in emergency baptisms.

          • Rationalist1

            I was once told one could use sand.

          • It is difficult for me to imagine that if beer is the only available liquid, and an emergency baptism is warranted, God would not allow baptism by beer to "take." I think perhaps what is behind the confusion as to what is water and what is not is some very old notions about what makes a substance what it is. Beer is a mixture of a small amount of alcohol, a small number of flavoring agents, and 90+ percent water. It seems perfectly reasonable to me to look at beer as flavored water for the purposes of baptism.

            I suspect that many discussions of what may and may not be used for baptism use an outmoded concept of what makes a substance what it is. Muddy water is considered water by Aquinas, but fruit juice is not considered water. But of course everyone today now knows that fruit juice is mostly water. I suspect Aquinas didn't know that. Suppose I take two quarts of water and add a packet of Kool-Aid. Have I actually transformed water into Kool-Aid any more than putting mud into water transforms water into something other than water? I certainly don't think so.

            Aquinas basically seems to be saying that if you wouldn't call it water, it's not water. So you would call muddy water "water," but you would call orange juice "fruit juice." But of course who you are and what your circumstances are determine what you would call things. If I am in the desert and dehydrated, and a medical team comes along and says I've got to have water soon or I will die, they aren't going to say, "He's a goner. All we have is orange juice, and he needs water." Under those circumstances, orange juice is just as much water as muddy water is water. The only thing that turns water into not-water is something that causes the two atoms of hydrogen and the one of oxygen to be altered into some other combination of atoms.

      • I thought you could use any liquid that was primarily water?

        • Randy Gritter

          So Bud Lite would be OK?

          • Michael Murray

            Wikipedia says "Urine is principally water."

            I do recall from my early days at school being taught we could baptise people from puddles and the like. Pity that part of Australia was drought prone.

          • Wikipedia says "Urine is principally water."

            Michael, why pester them about the details?

          • Michael Murray

            Someone mentioned Bud Lite so I guess urine sprang to mine.

          • Someone mentioned Bud Lite so I guess urine sprang to mine.

            Your what? Oh dear.

          • Michael Murray

            Oops. Unfortunate typo.

          • ;-)

      • Meta-N

        Brandon - I think the show is called Catholic Answers Live. It's on AM radio 1060 in the Boston area. Yes, the very knowledgeable host went into great details (lots of prior work on these issues where discussed) on which liquids can be used in an emergency situation. Beer is not the first choice (emergency use only), preferably light beer if I remember correctly. I also seem to recall a bit of humor with the beer option. A serious issue none the less. Other liquids like wine are definitely not OK.

        Did you read the Richard Carrier blog article? Lots of additional material to support Jon's post.

        Thank you!

    • Victor

      Hey Meta-N, when I clicked on http://freethoughtblogs.com/ca... all me, myself and i found was http://freethoughtblogs.com/?s=ca...&search_404=1 so where did "I" go wrong NOW?

      I hear YA! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUllo9XM_oo

      Go Figure! :)

      http://www.splendoroftruth.com/curtjester/2013/05/pulp-catholicism/comment-page-1/#comment-71025

      Peace

  • Octavo

    This is my favorite article on this site.
    Thank you!
    ~Jesse Webster

  • Victor

    Jon! "I'M" sorry that "I" can't spent too much time on this so called "Horus" but let me assure and just tell you that parallel speaking, we gods know this character as simply "H" and long story short, "IT" is all about the final "Harvest god race" and you either win "or" you simply remain an ordinary (us) commonly known as "Horus".

    We gods can't spend any more "TIME" on but this but if YA want to know more just check with my secretary who is running around with this guy claiming to be a Jester but don't be fooled by his godly engineering genius ways. http://www.splendoroftruth.com/curtjester/2013/05/pulp-catholicism/
    Got to go NOW! :)
    Peace

  • Victor

    Great post!

    I only wish that the hackers would allow me to read all of the comments NOW!
    Go Figure! :)
    Peace

    • Victor

      I hear YA sinner vic!

      That's "IT" Victor!

      Gall, "I" mean,,,, no, no .... Don't says "IT"...... Was just going to say Gull darn "IT".......
      Go Figure NOW! :)
      Peace

  • Chris Steel

    Yeshua (Jesus) was foreshadowed throught the scriptures begining in Genesis 3 (the sacrificial lamb)- In Isaiah 53-7 God gives exact description of the Messiah that he is sending (due to the fall of man) and then John 1-11 tell us EXACTLY why they missed him - NOW here's how this ties into the article - Hasatan the devil was kicked out of heaven and he took a third of the angels with him! They came to earth and bred with women - read Genesis 6 and Job - and this is why God had to send the flood - God was resetting the Gene Pool through Noahs genetic line -Satan knows what Gods plan is for us, so what he did was present himself to humans back then (preflood, but still to this very day) as GOD!! Satan is a counterfit, he copied Gods plan for our salvation and had the acient people worshipping him (and still to this very day)! He knew that God was sending his son (to void out the Genectic connection) so he is the reason why there are multiple stories that mimic the true story of Yeshua's coming and that is why Judah missed the messiah - Satan walks this earth and has for milenia, the Isis Osiris story is meant to throw you off, BUT if people would just read the scriptures its not that hard to see - Please read, and remember, Hastan has been around eons - he's had ample time to get his story to confuse the truth and thats all he wants to do is confuse and its easy for him because people do not read, they only follow. Confusion turns people away from searching out the truth altogether. Now if this was all myths, ask yourself, why do the heads of our nations worship these dieties? How many of you know that ROME ran with the name Jesus only because they were already worshipping Zeus - it was for control - control of the people thru religion - they use the Catholic church which is why you always see those sun discs over their heads - and those big hats they wear, those are hats from acient babylon - the priests of Baal - they are sun worshippers - why? Because Satan tricked them into worshipping him - also the sun was a symbol of the dogstar Sirius - which also ties into Satan - its all in the scriptures, you just have to read and ask God to reveal some things to you! May you be blessed and please dont take my word, read for yourself!

  • I have posted this link to a lecture by historian, Richard Carrier, as part of another comment on another thread, but realized that it also belongs here because he also shoots down many of the bad claims to parallel mythology, as does Jon Sorensen, in the OP above.

  • Thumper’s Mom

    If people just blindly accept what Bill Mahr professes to be true, why should we be surprised that others have pulled off the same thing. Some people delight in thinking that they've cornered people

  • ksed11

    The NT writers were Jews (and Paul was a Jew and a Pharisee). And no Jew/Pharisee living between the Maccabean revolt and the destruction of the Temple in 70CE would have employed a pagan god for much of anything. The Jewish antipathy towards paganism was fierce.

    In addition, it’s important to focus on CRITICAL similarities, not incidental ones. Incidental and vague similarities can be seen between almost anyone. One can use incidental similarities to “prove” that JFK was actually based on Lincoln. The critical, central Christian message about Jesus was focused on his Lordship over all creation, his voluntary sacrificial death, and his physical resurrection. Incidental elements include such things as the number of disciples, his date of birth, etc.

    So most of the comparisons cited by Christ myth theorists are merely incidental.

  • newenglandsun

    Check out the alincolnism page on facebook.

  • sinner

    So, what if it is true? What if Jesus is a reincarnation of Horus? The only reason that people would have an issue with this is if they also; blindly believe what an institution tells them. It would only shatter the walls of the religious institutions and their brainwashing of the masses. People cannot think for themselves anymore. Now that the catholic church has come forward in the last year or so and totally changed its stance on ufo's and aliens.... they expect people to believe that they didn't know this all along and now they are making up some sort of "explanation" that even if aliens existed, they would still be "god's creation?"
    Jesus seemed to be a man that fought against the corrupt, legalistic rabbis and moneychangers. How can the church then justify it's rules and laws... money grubbing ways? Jesus is way beyond any institution or sect of Christianity.

  • marcus

    I find it endlessly amusing that one can criticize another for being nonobjective because their view cant be verified and then turn around and do the same thing in the opposite direction. This article is a failure.

    "Maher is only repeating things that are and believed by many people today."

    ...if that doesnt make you die from laughter then I dont know what will. Where do you suppose your own beliefs came from? Or are you going to direct me to direct evidence that Jesus actually lived? Do you have one shred of real evidence aside from belief.

    You do exactly what you claim Maher did because you also provide no supporting evidence aside from things you consider "logical." I will tell you now, that your knowledge is incomplete and thus inaccurate. You cannot defend a opinion with an opinion. This is the 21st century, not ancient Egypt. In the world today, we know that people lie, people forget, people are biased, and people were not better at any point in history. The only difference between today and back then, is today, we are more aware of what is happening due to better record keeping and communication. Thus, if you really want to extrapolate, then how about using real proven methods. What happens to a story when it is relayed verbally across 4 of 5 people? Answer, the story changes and the details become different. What happens over a few million people over thousands of years? Hmm. What happens if one of the story tellers has extreme bias towards one story or another? Hmm. What if one side had the power to destroy evidence? Rewrite their own history? You get the point.

    Good luck explaining to god that you are a good person when you yourself insult god by not using the greatest gift he gave you and no it is not the "soul." What separates us from animals is our ability to override our programming. We have a powerful brain. What you call a "soul" is just the byproduct of you character which is determined by your brain which dictates your action. In the case of modern humans, how can you claim to be moral and ethical if you dont use your greatest asset to find truth rather than simply "believe in your heart." Given the knowledge we have today compared to the past, you have no excuse but laziness. What will you tell god? "Hey dude, I dig you man! I believed in youuuu! Now where is my reward?" God asks, did you use your greatest gift to the best of your ability to do good things? How will you answer? "Well you see god, its really hard work to use my brain so instead, I just followed my heart. So thanks for the brain, but I really didnt need it." I wonder what any god might say to someone like this that lived in the 21st century. You still think he would want you anywhere near his paradise? Might as well let insects and trees into heaven. At least they used what they had to its full potential.

    You are the flip-side of the Maher coin! You are the same. And I guarantee you and any other religious person living today, that none of you will see a day in any sort of heaven given the time you live in today. You have no excuses. Learn our knowledge, and apply it.

  • Christopher todd

    Of course the Zealots will lie to cover their fake made up Jesus, There are MANY virgin birth stories that predate the klu klux Khristian story. Sorry? But You inbred folk are supposed to find what story is oldest? Then work your way up and know those that followed are a spin off. Sorry? But you people are arguing one fantasy over another. Its real easy to see that Christian fantasy inbred folklore has a lot of things from other peoples religion. *points to the age of the trinity* Track that back into time.. Just keep recycling lies acting like the "Atheists" Are the stupid ones while you people have imaginary friends. Get some logic and stop trying to dumb each other down to "Facts" Facts are UNDENIABLE! So if someone has the same stories as your god? Undeniable that its not ORIGINAL! "Don't argue with stupid people. They will drag you to their level and beat you with experience."

  • Christopher todd

    How about this one Zealots.. There has to be data to suggest something b4 data is needed to debunk something. If science worked with imaginary data? We would be stuck like the Christians in the dark ages. Using their numbers and lies to drown the truth. What is there for your god? Nothing.. Other world lifeforms have more data to suggest than your imaginary friends. Trillions upon trillions of worlds beyond ours? But no you nuts think that is crazy.. Google "Pentagon put Christ** top of extremist list" < Zealot Conspiracy nuts = Blames the govt for dumbing people down. Demands other believe in things without proof. *Facepalm* You people just need to shut up about Atheists. You out number them but consider them a threat? Gonna start a new Christian KKK, Nazi Army, or Aryan group for atheists? Lmao.. Terrorists..

  • Fitzroy Wills Royalty

    Define virgin birth in the actual context it was written in. Does not mean she did not have sex it meant she was a young woman.

    • David Nickol

      Does not mean she did not have sex it meant she was a young woman.

      No. While it is correct that one of the "prophecies" (Isaiah 7:14) in the original Hebrew uses the word almah meaning "young woman" (who could be either a virgin or not), and the Septuagint (the Greek translation of Hebrew Scripture used by Greek-speaking Jews, including the authors of the Gospels) used the word parthenos, which specifically means "virgin," the Gospels are quite specific that Mary was a virgin. For example, Luke 1:34-35:

      34 But Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?”*
      35 And the angel said to her in reply, “The holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.

      And Matthew 1:18:

      18 Now this is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about. When his mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph,* but before they lived together, she was found with child through the holy Spirit.

      I don't think it can be argued that Matthew or Luke believed Mary to be a virgin because of the "mistake" in the translation of the "prophecy" in Isaiah 7:14 in the Septuagint. The Old Testament "prophecies" were not a compiled list of passages used by people who were waiting for the Messiah and using these passages as signs. There is no Messiah predicted in the Old Testament. (The word Messiah cannot be found in the Old Testament.) The "prophecies" consist of verses seen in retrospect to have had something to do with who Jesus was. Prophets were not people who predicted the future, and prophecies were not predictions.

      Here is Isaiah 7:14

      Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign;* the young woman, pregnant and about to bear a son, shall name him Emmanuel.

      The person being given a sign is Ahaz, who ruled from 735 to 715 B.C. The events are in the 8th century B.C. and are not a prediction of something to happen in the1st century A.D.

      But, nevertheless, the Gospels of Matthew and Luke specifically say Mary was a virgin and Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit.

      • Fitzroy Wills Royalty

        Now i question the credibility of Luke and Matthew. (those aren't the only 2 books im questioning either). The name of those gospels have pure Greek origins. The stories were influenced from Egyptian Horus. Thats why Ethiopian Orthodox Christians don't deal with the New Testament.

        Immanuel was not suppose to be Jesus. Imen/Amen (just pointing that out.) But people do link Jesus with him which in that case prophecies did not get fulfilled. For example the land of milk and honey.

      • Fitzroy Wills Royalty

        I replied already but i dont see it.
        I question the credibility of Luke and Matthew. (those aren't the only ones). They are Egyptian influenced and the names have Greek origins. I know you know Jews don't deal with Jesus and Ethiopian Orthodox Christians don't either. Roman Catholics however do believe in the immaculate conception and coincidentally have a lot of traditions which have pagan origins.

        • David Nickol

          I question the credibility of Luke and Matthew.

          Why in the world would you question the credibility of two men writing—70 years after the alleged event—that a virgin conceived and gave birth?

          • Fitzroy Wills Royalty

            It already been proven thats Luke, Matthew, Mark and
            John were entirely created by the Greeks
            Thats why i questioned it.
            A story published atleast 70 yrs after the event! come on they were passing it down by oral tradition.

          • Fitzroy Wills Royalty

            They wrote the events 70 years after the event. If thats correct why wouldnt i question it they weren't eye witnesses. Matthew is a synopsis of another that got recorded from an oral tradition. Many stories passed by oral traditions are exaggerated and filled with myths.

            Questions: is Jesus the Head corner stone?

          • David Nickol

            I was being ironic. While I certainly believe Jesus was a real person, believing such things as the virginal conception of Jesus is a matter of religious faith, not of determining if the documentary evidence is sufficient. How can we possibly know about the conception of someone that took place over 2000 years ago? How could even those who knew Jesus personally know for sure who his father was, let alone if he had been conceived miraculously.

            To put it bluntly, there is no good reason, from a purely historical viewpoint, to believe Jesus did not have a human father. That doesn't mean there is no good religious reason.

            Questions: is Jesus the Head corner stone?

            Two thousand years after his death, over two billion people—31.5% of the world's population—consider themselves followers of Jesus, and that number is growing. Nobody else (except perhaps Muhammad at 1.6 billion, or 23.2%) even comes close.

          • Fitzroy Wills Royalty

            A virginal conecption in the human species is impossible. That's fairytale mumbo jumbo you can see the greeks (if not them who ever was in control of publishing the doctrines) stole the concept from the story of horus and isis.

          • Fitzroy Wills Royalty

            in fact you see the earlier symbolism in the Sumerian story of Tammuz.

          • Fitzroy Wills Royalty

            Two thousand years after his death, over two billion people—31.5% of the world's population—consider themselves followers of Jesus, and that number is growing. Nobody else (except perhaps Muhammad at 1.6 billion, or 23.2%) even comes close.

            i wonder how much people believed in saunta claus or that carrots made you see better.

          • M. Solange O’Brien

            Argumentum ad populum? Not particularly original. And if sheer numbers are considered, almost 3/4 of the world's population doesn't buy into Jesus.

          • David Nickol

            And if sheer numbers are considered, almost 3/4 of the world's population doesn't buy into Jesus.

            The question I was answering was, "Is Jesus the Head corner stone?" Do you know what it means? I don't! I am not quite sure what an argumentum ad populum argument that Jesus was the "head corner stone" would be like.

            As for your numbers, if 31.5% of the world population believes in Jesus, then the most you can say is 68.5% does not. I think calling 68.5% "almost 3/4" is trying to make it sound like more than it is. And of course, if I was making an argumentum ad populum argument by citing how many people believe in Jesus, your response is also an argumentum ad populum, isn't it? What kind of arguing is it when you counter one alleged fallacy with your own?

            I would also point out that Jesus has a place in Islam, so whatever it means to say Jesus was the "head corner stone," if people who believe in Jesus in some way count, then you have to add together Christians and Muslims, getting 54.7% of the world population.

            But I would like to hear your argument that Jesus is not the head corner stone. On what do you base it? :)

          • M. Solange O’Brien

            The question I was answering was, "Is Jesus the Head corner stone?" Do you know what it means? I don't! I am not quite sure what an argumentum ad populum argument that Jesus was the "head corner stone" would be like.

            My point about argumentum ad populum was not directed at the Head corner stone comment. I've no idea what that means, either. Most theology uses highly specialized vocabularies that fail to find meaningful referents in the real world.

            As for your numbers, if 31.5% of the world population believes in Jesus, then the most you can say is 68.5% does not. I think calling 68.5% "almost 3/4" is trying to make it sound like more than it is.

            Of course. I should probably have said 2/3.

            And of course, if I was making an argumentum ad populum argument by citing how many people believe in Jesus, your response is also an argumentum ad populum, isn't it? What kind of arguing is it when you counter one alleged fallacy with your own?

            I'm not sure I understand your point. The reason argumentum is a fallacy is simply the logic you just offered. I was pointing out it was a fallacy, not that 2/3 unbelievers make Jesus a fable.

            I would also point out that Jesus has a place in Islam, so whatever it means to say Jesus was the "head corner stone," if people who believe in Jesus in some way count, then you have to add together Christians and Muslims, getting 54.7% of the world population.

            Not unless the Muslims believe that Jesus was the head corner stone. We still don't know what that means.

            But I would like to hear your argument that Jesus is not the head corner stone. On what do you base it? :)

            On the point that the phrase seems to be semantically meaningless. :-)

          • Fitzroy Wills Royalty

            Thank you i didn't know when people did that it actually had a name. I'm part of the 3/4 of the world.

      • Fitzroy Wills Royalty

        Isiah 7:14

        Therefore the Lord himself will give you[a] a sign: The virgin[b] will conceive and give birth to a son, and[c] will call him Immanuel.[d]

        The original version of this text they use the word almah and this is young lady. you can use lexicon to translate the verse for you.

        http://biblehub.com/lexicon/isaiah/7-14.htm

        • David Nickol

          My point was that the Gospels (Matthew and Luke) both say Mary was a virgin. Mary herself says she is a virgin. I understand what the Hebrew of Isaiah 7:14 does not use a word that presumes virginity, but the Greek translation does. You are free to assume the Gospels were written to make the Greek translation of Isaiah 7:14 "come true."

          By the way, saying a virgin will conceive and bear a son (as it does in the Greek translation of Isaiah) does not necessarily mean something miraculous will occur. A young woman who is a virgin could conceive (by having sex) and give birth. Even the Greek translation doesn't require a "virginal conception."

          • Fitzroy Wills Royalty

            Its not just the virgin birth that don't match up between Isiah and the gospels of Luke and Matthew. Jesus did not fulfill the prophecies. I can't stop anyone's belief, but thought this was the right place to point out certain information.

  • Eric

    Well done. Great job throwing light on a very popular modern myth of a myth.

  • Veronica Nowakowski

    You do a very good job of debunking this Zeitgeist bullshit, but, at the same time, as a follower of the Egyptian religion, I find it quite offensive how you depict Egyptian religion itself. The Egyptian priests did not believe in creatures which were half human, with animal heads - that's metaphorical, they're forces of nature. If you write something like this again, please try not to describe Djehuty as "the animal-headed god of magic."

  • Ralph Ellis

    Ralph Ellis

    Ralph released his first book in this genre in 1998; but his seminal work, King Jesus, was published in 2008. In this book, Ralph proposes that the gospel story is semi-mythical: it was based upon real events, but subsequently embellished and fictionalised by the gospel authors and editors. The proposed foundation for this semi-mythical gospel story is the history of King Izates of Adiabene, who Josephus Flavius claims was the leader the Jewish Revolt. Apparently, Josephus also calls this monarch, King Izas.

    This was followed in 2012 by a sequel, Jesus, King of Edessa. This work follows the same reasoning, but attempts to further explore and refine the historical evidence for Josephus' otherwise semi-mythical monarch, King Izas. The result is a claim that Adiabene is actually a reference to Edessa in Mesopotamia; and therefore King Izas must be King Manu VI of Edessa. So the Edessan king was called King Izas Manu, while Jesus was called King Jesus (Em) Manu-el.

    In addition, Ralph claims that the traditional crown** of the Edessan monarchs is a plaited crown of thorns, and therefore similar to the gospel description.

    Ralph

    ** Image of an Edessan king, wearing his plaited Crown of Thorns.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/38/Coin_of_King_Abgar_X_Phraates_of_Edessa.jpg

  • Q*

    Story Similarities aside what is more plausible
    1) A GOD that created trillions of galaxies, time and space wants humans to sing songs and pray in a magic house. In this magic house are magic candles that help your magical prayers reach this all knowing god .. ( they are led lights now )

    2) it was all made up to explain things at the time and to control people

  • Jamie Kabzinski

    This is the first skeptical article written by a religious person, the quality of which of which im am impressed. I disagree somewhat with the overall premise, but demanding that only historically verifiable peer reviewed publications by professional experts be referenced and probable fact is a sober and extremely important lesson that I wish more people understood.

    • Doug Shaver

      I don't dispute the importance of using peer-reviewed publications, but I cannot accept the bald credentialism of excluding all other sources of information.

  • ThompJ

    and yet there is archeological proof of Horus as a stone god but no archeological proof of Jesus...

  • Timothy Brock

    I just have to say you are full of crap. I have the head of Ishtar aka William Wallace and the Head of the Anunnaki Horus. I am the Timothy out of the bible and you are going to tell me your debunking the Horus and Jesus connection. You are full of crap buddy. I have Enoch you idiot and the bible profecy labels me by name and book of the bible. Timothy the one that resurrects Christ.

  • Diana Hitchens

    I find it ironic that you have a long list of requirements as to what makes a credible source.... and the Bible meets none of those requirements.

  • David Kempton

    In other words, you still believe the Jesus fairy tale, despite their eing no evidence that he ever existed. Well, that's your choice. Just please do NOT try to pass legislation that expects ME to act like I ALSO believe this. Then you are welcome to believe as you wish...

  • princeminski

    I'm highly skeptical about things supernatural, but this article is right on the beam. Atheists do themselves no favors by using silly, cherry-picked summaries of mythology to "debunk" somebody else's beliefs, a purposeless endeavor in itself.

  • Ian Harrod

    There is no more evidence that Jesus existed than Horus. Way different from actual recorded history, like the Civil War argument. We have as much actual historical information on Jesus as we do King Arthur.

  • Joe Malburg III

    If you want to believe something you will.

  • Randy Keime

    didnt moses lead the jews out of egypt? I wonder how they could of possibly had any idea about egyptian religions. The main problem with this story is they omit the Egyptians stole most of their religion from the Sumerians If you read and study all the stories with open mind its just the ruling class using God to control the masses. these people barely understood fire and thought that volcanoes and earth quakes were acts of god.

  • luckless pedestrian

    More mumbo-jumbo from the Jesus junkies.

  • RaymondSoltysek

    Oral traditions work like Chinese whispers. The similarities between
    the Bible and pre-existing religious texts and traditions cannot be dismissed. There is nothing original about Christianity; it's just
    another rag bag of age-old fairy tales.

    • Lazarus

      Let's have a friendly wager. I give you a book to read, that will show you authoritatively how and where Christianity is indeed original, and how wrong these alleged similarities are, and you in return give me any book to read.

      After that we come back and see if you are still that confident about that old rag bag. Deal?

      • RaymondSoltysek

        If the book was written by a Christian, it will be de facto tainted. It is indisputable that other religions have had virgin births, miracles, floods, plagues and risen dead. Nothing new whatsoever.

  • bsroon

    Well i appreciate the refutations and explanations of them there were times where i had to laugh.
    The reference to drawing upon the vast Egyptian history and cherry picking different era's addendums sounds EXACTLY like the post-Christ "christians" doing the same thing with Jewish history, and interpreting various verses in allegorical fashions which could be interpreted on many levels, and in many ways.
    Then to refer to eyewitness accounts of Jesus written in the Bible ( there are multiple stories regarding the crucifixion and resurrection, not to mention the entire Jesus story, which don't necessarily align without rubber borders) as facts in opposition to the accounts of the Horus stories seems the pot calling the kettle black...

    Just saying. And none of this comparison is relevant to the other parallel myths - Mithras, Krishna, etc.

  • notmike64

    Christ didn't even exist

  • There is no god – it was a cult, control, gravy train ride based on sun god scam and nothing more.
    There’s a reason ‘god helps those that help themselves': It’s the only way a non-existent god ‘can work’, and then of course – ‘It’s god’s will.’
    The ‘elite’ are and have always been sun god murderous scum in a jesus wrapper – congrats, you’re a 33rd degree mason now.
    Holy Horus: The Jesus Origin Exposed; The Real Truth About Religion and Its Origins, and Annuit Coeptis Novus Ordo Seclorum https://edwardmd.wordpress.com/2013/09/18/the-real-truth-about-religion-and-its-origins/

  • William Davenport

    If you have to go that far to substantiate your own personal beliefs, then have at it. If a god was involved it would be a lot clearer to the average individual.

  • God

    Hohoho, after Horus was conceived, Osiris, was never quite the same, and he was relegated to kingship in the land of the dead. Conception from a dead man? A virgin birth? close enough to show you're just trying to sway people's minds and that's Jesus Manure..I could write you a whole book about this and make you cry.

  • Michael Fornarina

    Quote from Jay Sorensen - "The title Book of the Dead comes from an Arabic label referring to the fact that the books were mostly found with mummies (cf. The Oxford Essential Guide to Egyptian Mythology,"

    The book in question you mentioned is usually prefaced by the word 'EGYPTIAN 'Book of the dead --- presuming you do mean to discuss the stories and rituals from ancient Kemet (what you folks now call 'Egypt' ) a text which is actually commonly referred to as "The book of coming forth by Day "- and sir with all do respect.. using Arabic as a definition of Black AFRICAN mythology (The Book of Coming forth by Day and Horus the Christ) and the ensuing legends ;would be highly inaccurate in my opinion as Arabic is a latter day language whose Parent System is 'Egyptian' hieroglyphs, afterall we are discussing an issue from 1200 B.C. and then attempting to use a language that didn't emerge until the very earliest 301-to 400 A.D. as a definitive source would be highly un-useful and I must say un-Academic as well -- Your definition of the contents of The book of coming forth by day is (imo) far, far far from accurate -- i suggest anyone reading this article should research it for themselves..

  • Michael Fornarina

    Quote from Jay Sorensen - "The name Lazarus is actually derived from the Hebrew word Eleazar meaning “God has helped.”

    riiiight... -- This is just more flim flam and more stuff stolen from ancient Kemet -- anybody who studies these issues knows that Hebrew's Parent language is also the Egyptian hieroglyphs (which predates Hebrew by ALOT) -- this is just some turned around Egyptian Canaanite words/concepts in a sort of Anagram -- Osiris 'African name is ASAR (Azar),-- (this is common knowledge and easy to discover- and EL is the Cannanite God EL-ELYON which means 'God most High' so this is where we get this fake anagram for Osiris/Azar - Asar-El (El - e - azar) That means Osiris/Asar-El in reverse.. and yes one of the names for the Hebrew god is also EL -- but a bit of research and you will discover that our EL-ite Leadership worships the God EL as the Planet SATURN (S-T-N) which is why the Hebrew Sabbath is on Saturn's day. (Saturday) -- Some of the more Hidden meanings behind the word /name EL -- are Element and Electricity -- the name for the God of this world also known as - ElL - is also the name of the God of the two Electrical poles (Red/Positive and Blue/Negative) and God over this charged with friction world of Electrical-Duality.
    The Magnetism is represent as White so there you have it .. Red-White and Blue.Electricity and Magnetism.

    More rip-offs of the name Asar (Azar) are Lazurus which is really El-Azar-us -and in african the name Neter Wasir (another spelling of Azar) means God Almighty - Neter in 'Kemite means basically character Universe Environment -- and Azar means Sky-Father-God -- which later Azar came to be referred to as 'God Almighty' -- The Roman leader Caius Marius later wanted to be referred to as God Almighty so he changed his name to Julius C -Asar. --- (Which you Romans now spell as Ceasar) in English.,, or in America they have little African Gods called a Drug Czar -- An
    Education -Czar -- which a slick way of saying C-AZAR

  • Michael Fornarina

    Sources - EL SATURN The God of the Old Testament
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6rc8o9n-Rc

  • Michael Fornarina

    *Egypt Gods - Osiris-Asar
    http://www.touregypt.net/osiris.htm

    *I see that wikipedia has now deleted the spellings of Osiris African name ASAR/AZAR in the age of Aquarius Aquarius mottos is - ("I know') people are figuring this thing out.and they want to know real truth and not just believe ( Pisces is the age of 'I Believe; or blind faith =Jesus the Fisherman - note Jesus symbol on the backs og the modern pedestrian cars - The fish represents the age of Pisces) and some forces want to keep the real knowledge hidden so they can rule the powerless. Remember knowledge is power -- (which is why I reckon that knowledge of those two common spellings of the name Asar (Azar) were recently deleted from Wikipedia.

  • Michael Fornarina

    Pagan Symbolism in ALL major religions
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gWdHFmJJFA

  • Michael Fornarina

    Osiris and Christianity -The Christian Adoption of Egyptian Iconography, Symbolism, and Myth
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JL_-U5kcXB0

  • Michael Fornarina

    The word - 'PAGAN' has also been demonized - from online Etymology dictionary
    Pagan
    'late 14c., from Late Latin paganus "pagan," in classical Latin "villager, rustic; civilian, non-combatant" noun use of adjective meaning "of the country, of a village," from pagus "country people; province, rural district,

    The word Pagan also referred to anyone living outside the Cathedral City and the jurisdiction of the Catholic Bishop -- but that definition also seems to be vanishing from the Internet -- hmm..

  • Michael Fornarina

    A correction I typed the name 'Jay' Sorensen when I meant JON Sorensen.

  • Andrew Bodlak

    Thank you, this was very useful! I will be sharing this profusely.

  • Peter Martyn

    Massey and his followers were not mentioned in my introductory course on the New Testament where we had a textbook from Perrin and Duling (and its a good textbook) and this unheard of dispute is not settled yet. Thank you for your cogent article on it.

  • I see it like this...... I trust in the claims of the bible of christianity because what we can clearly see is so about the universe and all that exist in it. Living and non-living. That said, looking at scripture, it is clear that God allows certain things to accumulate or certain situations to be so confusing or lost for the sole purpose of people seeing an eventual sign that says,"Quiet. All that you are talking about, erase those names, because I done it. I'm the one in control." or "Hey, not that many soldiers is needed. Only a few, so you know I'm the one who determines the outcome of battles." The egyptians established (I'm sure over a long period of time) a very powerful nation, but it was a greatly oppressive nation for it's people. God allowed them to be moved in such a way that they'd put together a scattered story about deities so that His name would be known by way of dethroning these supposedly great gods. He chose the oppressed people of Egypt, the Israelites and came in and basically said to pharoah and all above them, "Get up out of those chairs. They are mine--ALL OF THEM! YOU. Get up! My son is supposed to sit there. And instead, this is how they will be arranged and kept. All of these statues shall be destroyed." Even in revalations, he allows such to happen for a period of time. Allowing "the beast" to perform great wonders even in the sky so that after a time, and afterwards, whoever didn't receive the mark.

  • Mikahel

    the lies are often visible in plain site, likewise the lies on zeitgeist, they for example, are referring about the same date of Jesus birth (25th) when it is well known by anyone who studied a little that this date do not come from any first christian or jews of that time, but it comes from the Roman's cesar of that time, or a bit later time, who has fused some of the pagans's religion references with the christians believes/knowledge, so Jesus and the very first Christians never used that date, but those was adopted later, for that reason may appear similar to other pagans religion.

  • 1blueadept2

    You are trying to make the claim that comparing the two is wrong for certain reasons, and that people are cherry picking, and then you make this statement,"Not only that, but we have in the Bible actual eyewitness accounts of Jesus’ crucifixion" This statement is not correct, and if you are the scholar you claim to be, you know that none of the Gospels were written by actual apostles and probably were not written before the year 70AD. How can you claim legitimacy if you make such statements?

  • Steve Corner

    Funny, nothing written above actually proves that a "Jesus Christ" historically existed. He's actually based on Flavius Titus, in allegorical form. Deal with it.

  • Robert Miller

    ok first thing that caught my attention was his comment - the book of the dead was not one book

    this is true

    But the Bible was not one book either

    I find this a complete attempt to use partial truth to justify beliefs

    For one the "Christians" destroyed any artifacts from Egypt that went against their views

    Let's look at the first commandment "have no other Gods before me" - is this, not an admission that there are other "Gods"

    second, the Jews had just left Egypt and 8 of the 10 commandments come from the Egyptian 42 commandments - The first commandment being an added commandment so the Jews choose which "God" they would serve as the highest "God"

    http://www.aerobiologicalengineering.com/wxk116/Maat/

    I believe in a creator and a higher power - I lost all faith any religion is of the creator

  • Jay Harris

    I UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS HARD TO ACCEPT THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF YOUR TEACHINGS ARE LIES IS A HARSH REALITY AND THAT YOU WILL GO THROUGH STAGES OF DENIAL, CONFONTATION AND SO ON BUT NEVER THE LESS, TRUTH IS TRUTH. HERE AS WRITEN IN THE BIBLE 60 PEOPLE ENTERED EGYPT AND 600,000 LEFT WITH THE KNOWLEDGE THAT MOSES STOLE FROM THE EGYPTIANS AND TOOK TO CANAAN AND THEN EUROPE. YES I SYMPATHISE WITH YOU BEING LIED TO FOR 2000 YEARS BUT ACKOWLEDGE THIS ANYONE OR THING LEAVING EGYPT IS OF AFRICAN DESCENT AND UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THIS HARSH TRUTH, YOU WILL NEVER KNOW OR ACCEPT THE TRUTH. DEBUNK THAT FACT. ALL OF YOUR THOUGHTS AND TEACHINGS ORIGINATED IN EGYPT THE CONTINENT OF AFRICA, YOUR DESCENDANTS ARE THE AKAN PEOPLE OF AFRICA. YES YOU MAY BELIEVE WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD AS A CHILD STILL BELIEVES IN THE EASTER BUNNY, OR THE TOOTH FAIRY BUT THIS IS AN ADULT CONVERSATION

  • greg glavinovich

    sorenson.... either = you dont know what you are talking about or you dont know how to think

    GG

  • greg glavinovich

    using passwords and logging into your system is a pain in the neck and stupid waste of time and should be eliminated/.
    High tech is irritating. The 1960s were better.

    stupid american society

  • Gene Gilmore

    Or me debunk this debunk...ROMANS and GREEKS as well as other prominent historical European countries INVADED AND COLONISED AFRICA, NAMED ALL THE COUNTRIES AFTER THEMSELVES JUST IN WE FORGOT, AND THAT IS HOW THE FUCK THEY GOT THE STORY OF RELIGION

  • calledit78

    Simple copycat story that was taken to another level. Shame of the Bible and Gospel writers to think that future human beings wouldn't figure it out. Back in Jesus times humans were very naive and could be easily fooled. Don't be so naive! Ask yourself about one magic word called: INDOCTRINATION!!! If you never heard the story/name or story about God, Jesus, etc and grew up on an island by yourself, end of story. The point of the Bibl eis to control you and try to influence you on life situations. But guess what you don't need that to be a good person. The whole idea of a soul or right from wrong feelings you have inside are from evolution. Humans are herd beings and they need to rely on one another in order to have a greater chance of survival. Those feelings are from time and experiences that happened over thousands of years to program your brain to have a better chance at survival not some magic that a so called God gave you.

  • Guice Bump

    I knew it...Jesus is the true true.