Wrote this letter ages ago, maybe you can sort through the rhetorics and find something of value... if nothing else, to understand how the skeptics put forth his arguments...
Objection:
IS there a GOD? If so, what is he? Allah, as Alai comments (my lovely friend now headed for Cambridge this Fall)? Or God as I suppose I should mention, being nominally Roman Catholic? Apollo, Zeus? Ahura Mazda? Indra? Jehovah? Yahweh? Aten? Dagon? Rimmon? Isis and Horus and Osiris and Set? Potnia, Quetzalcoatl, Ra? Atana who would later become Pallas Athene? (Atana was Minoan, incorporated into the greek pantheon when the Mykenai greeks conquered the scattered remnants of the Minoan empire) Ongabonga? The big Vorlon up in the middle of nowhere?
Dave:
Don’t be intimidated, guys, your friend is just listing down the different deities found in his comparative religion textbook. And we do not contest the fact that there are many who claim to be lords and gods. We are not worried that there are many beliefs in the marketplace.
We are confident that Christianity has a more reasonable/reliable basis than the rest. For example, the God of the Bible explains the world and the human condition better.
Indeed, He is the only possible answer. The law of causality, which your friend described as “fundamental” requires a personal-infinite God who created the universe. (Maybe you should ask him to propose some tests of truth that he personally applies to determine whether something is true or false) We are not discussing beliefs here, but the basis of these beliefs.
Objection:
Later, the monotheism principle was emphasized by Zoroaster, who came out of the Persian deserts and preached a faith that is the intellectual predecessor and father of the Christian and Moslem faiths. Zoroastrianism adhered to a monotheistic foundation. It defined the devil, ill defined in ancient jewish chronicles and codices, into the adversary of good (represented by Ahura Mazda) and gave him the title Father of Lies that would later be adopted by the nascent Christian faith
to provide a suitable adversary for Christ and God. It defined Judgment Day
(many of Zoroaster's preachings of a final cataclysm are incorporated wholesale into
Revelations.).
Dave:
If your baloney detectors were switched on, it should be sounding like crazy by now! Question, can you ever have a counterfeit $3-dollar note? It's impossible, because the counterfeit must always resemble the original in some ways. In Malaysia, you can have a $10-dollar counterfeit note because there is a $10 dollar original note.
But you can’t point to the 10-dollar counterfeit note and conclude that the real thing is copied from it. Sadly, your friend simply points to two superficial similarities and concludes that Christianity is therefore derived from Zoroastrianism.
Evidence shows that apocalyptic writings not unlike Revelations can be found long ago in the writings of Daniel. This exposed the mistake that John needs to draw water with leaky buckets from Zoroasterian stream miles away when there's a fountain near at hand within his Jewish context. It is progressive revelation from within.
The concept of the devil with his evil intentions existed even in the oldest book in the Bible. (Job) If we have any interest in checking the sources, we’d easily discover his “lies” found in Job as well as Genesis. Judaeo-Christian tradition has no need to borrow it from Persia. Now, someone can verify this for me but off-hand, I believe that Zoroasterism, at least an early Persian version is technically
“dualism”, rather than monotheistic. Actually, Aharu Mazda is not the Only, Infinite Deity- there are many lesser Ahuras like Mithra. The devil, Ahriman, is also
co-eternal and both are engaged in an eternal battle of good against evil. Evidently, this concept is radically repugnant to the Jewish mind. General
knowledge tells us that Mosaic monotheism precedes Zoroaster by centuries. Can we thus conclude that Zoroaster borrowed from Moses? This theory does not
withstand the evidence.
Objection:
You see? Religions are built one upon each other, borrowing here, showing
a bit of originality there. Borrowing there, stealing wholesale elsewhere...the idealogy behind the conception of Christ is borrowed in part from Egyptian myth, Isis, Osiris and their son, Horus, supposedly conceived on Isis after Osiris was dead by Osiris's spirit...The day of Christ birth was borrowed from the Mithraic
calender...on that Day Mithras generally is said to have had a special bull sacrificed....interesting, since Christ got sacrificed in the end...another connection. The concepts of drinking and eating of the body of christ in the form of the wafer and wine is derived from Dionysus. So, how then, can we claim that there is a God who is the God of Christians and Jews and all that? It's a bit ridiculous to presuppose we can ever know the answer.
Like literature religions are written by men, and they borrow ideas as much as authors do. The crude religious base of the Jews was enhanced by their sojourn in Egypt and in Babylon, where the style of Jewish holy stories changed greatly...
Dave:
Gosh, the baloney detectors are going way off the scales! Our friend committed a glaring logical fallacy called, “if A comes after B, A must be caused by B”
The fallacy is: Just because something is “before” Christianity, it must therefore be the “cause” of Christianity. It is like claiming that the religious use of incense among Chinese must be borrowed/caused by Moses because he instituted its usage much earlier.
The concepts of atonement sacrifice and communion (through eating of bread and wine) have already existed within the Judaeo-Christian tradition since the inception of the Passover. There, the germinal seed was planted as foreshadows that culminate in the Christian faith in a harmonious scheme of progressive revelation. Our friend strangely ignored these facts in his quest to escape Deo-phobia.
How was the unique concept of Christ’s birth as God Incarnate could be historically linked to the birth of Horus is beyond me. Osiris, a god that died, and Isis conceived Horus, another finite god can’t vaguely resemble the lofty doctrine of Incarnation. Jesus the eternal Logos did not come into existence in the womb of Mary. He is by definition Self-existent. Again, Egyptian deities including the “sun-god” were judged by the plagues of Yahweh in Exodus. These pagan deities are so repugnant to the Jewish minds in Jesus time that they can’t accept it, much less plagiarize it.
Maybe our friend misses the point and confused the common images of Isis cradling Horus in her arms with the Catholic church images of Mary cradling Jesus. Perhaps he also confused pseudo-Dionysius’ writings that tried to smuggle neo-Platonism into Christianity centuries after true Christianity was revealed to mankind. Maybe he is
thinking about the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. The same confusion is seen when he states that the date of Christmas is derived from the Persian Sun-God festival. In any case, he would present a more credible case if he gives evidence not
mere assertions. Then, we don’t have to second-guess his arguments.
But our agnostic friend is attacking a straw man. The date of Christmas, the images of Mary/baby Jesus and transubstantiation were never part of essential Christianity taught by Jesus and his apostles in the New Testament. It may be easily explained as later developments made by the Church after the Canon of Scripture is given. These developments can be interpreted as either:
1) The Church departing from scriptural, true Christianity through syncretism
OR
2) The Church redeeming a pagan festival/practice and transformed it into a glorious celebration of Christian faith instead.
In any case, this argument does nothing to prove that the teachings of Christ and his apostles (which formed New Testament) were derived from Egyptian sources. It is stretching the imagination way beyond breaking point.
Sometimes, the word “borrow” needs to be clarified. When Paul preached Christianity, he may quote and affirm the truth that is contained in pagan poems. But that doesn’t mean he is plagiarizing. To give people the real thing, you need to establish some
common ground with them. A good place to start is to affirm the similarities contained in the counterfeit. Then, you can move on and discuss the differences. To
expose the counterfeit, you don’t need to reject everything it teaches because it may contain elements of truth.
Objection:
(The Christian faith did it very often, as did the Moslems, Jews, everyone) IF there is a god, he is not a He. He is an It. A force that drives the universe onwards, but has no psyche, no human thoughts. It's pure arrogant to assume that we're made in his image. Why not horses? Why not hte Dinosaurs? Because we humans have our vanity. We want to know we're special, the chosen ones. We want to believe that we
can be like God, be beloved of God. It warms the cold empty spaces of our ignorance.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Dave:
From the looks of things, your friend is indulging in pantheism not agnosticism. Before you show him the difference between Christ and the rest of the gods or the reliability of the Bible, let's try to pinpoint his worldview.
Pantheism can never explain why personal beings come into existence. A personal effect must have a Personal Cause. An impersonal IT can never cause personal sentient beings. Look around you… I came from Sunway Pyramid and saw many couples walking in each other’s arms, Christian or non-Christian, it doesn’t matter but one thing they have in common – when they look into each other’s eyes or talk to each other, they know a personal relationship is going on. They do not stop and think: “Is she really personal or is it merely an illusory IT manifesting Itself as my girlfriend?”
Whatever that force is, it's a convenient invention that is irrelevant on our lifestyle or conscious because only a personal being can be rational, moral, holy and hold us accountable for the way we live our lives.... Isn't the force a nice lil' escape hatch from Deophobia? (fear of God) Nothing more, nothing less.
Agnosticism is a glamorous way of saying “I do not know” whether there is God or not. Some agnostics today seem to think, “I don’t know so there must be no God”.
But if you really don’t know, you should find out! (through some tests of truth.) It’s no excuse to retreat back to hard-core atheism.
Finally when I look at an endangered Siberian tiger, I think of how I can preserve this species from extinction. But when the tiger looks at me, it only thinks of lunch! It doesn’t stop and think if it should thank me for my concern and effort. Now, that’s a BIG difference! He calls it “arrogance” but I call it realism.
Objection:
IS there a GOD? If so, what is he? Allah, as Alai comments (my lovely friend now headed for Cambridge this Fall)? Or God as I suppose I should mention, being nominally Roman Catholic? Apollo, Zeus? Ahura Mazda? Indra? Jehovah? Yahweh? Aten? Dagon? Rimmon? Isis and Horus and Osiris and Set? Potnia, Quetzalcoatl, Ra? Atana who would later become Pallas Athene? (Atana was Minoan, incorporated into the greek pantheon when the Mykenai greeks conquered the scattered remnants of the Minoan empire) Ongabonga? The big Vorlon up in the middle of nowhere?
Dave:
Don’t be intimidated, guys, your friend is just listing down the different deities found in his comparative religion textbook. And we do not contest the fact that there are many who claim to be lords and gods. We are not worried that there are many beliefs in the marketplace.
We are confident that Christianity has a more reasonable/reliable basis than the rest. For example, the God of the Bible explains the world and the human condition better.
Indeed, He is the only possible answer. The law of causality, which your friend described as “fundamental” requires a personal-infinite God who created the universe. (Maybe you should ask him to propose some tests of truth that he personally applies to determine whether something is true or false) We are not discussing beliefs here, but the basis of these beliefs.
Objection:
Later, the monotheism principle was emphasized by Zoroaster, who came out of the Persian deserts and preached a faith that is the intellectual predecessor and father of the Christian and Moslem faiths. Zoroastrianism adhered to a monotheistic foundation. It defined the devil, ill defined in ancient jewish chronicles and codices, into the adversary of good (represented by Ahura Mazda) and gave him the title Father of Lies that would later be adopted by the nascent Christian faith
to provide a suitable adversary for Christ and God. It defined Judgment Day
(many of Zoroaster's preachings of a final cataclysm are incorporated wholesale into
Revelations.).
Dave:
If your baloney detectors were switched on, it should be sounding like crazy by now! Question, can you ever have a counterfeit $3-dollar note? It's impossible, because the counterfeit must always resemble the original in some ways. In Malaysia, you can have a $10-dollar counterfeit note because there is a $10 dollar original note.
But you can’t point to the 10-dollar counterfeit note and conclude that the real thing is copied from it. Sadly, your friend simply points to two superficial similarities and concludes that Christianity is therefore derived from Zoroastrianism.
Evidence shows that apocalyptic writings not unlike Revelations can be found long ago in the writings of Daniel. This exposed the mistake that John needs to draw water with leaky buckets from Zoroasterian stream miles away when there's a fountain near at hand within his Jewish context. It is progressive revelation from within.
The concept of the devil with his evil intentions existed even in the oldest book in the Bible. (Job) If we have any interest in checking the sources, we’d easily discover his “lies” found in Job as well as Genesis. Judaeo-Christian tradition has no need to borrow it from Persia. Now, someone can verify this for me but off-hand, I believe that Zoroasterism, at least an early Persian version is technically
“dualism”, rather than monotheistic. Actually, Aharu Mazda is not the Only, Infinite Deity- there are many lesser Ahuras like Mithra. The devil, Ahriman, is also
co-eternal and both are engaged in an eternal battle of good against evil. Evidently, this concept is radically repugnant to the Jewish mind. General
knowledge tells us that Mosaic monotheism precedes Zoroaster by centuries. Can we thus conclude that Zoroaster borrowed from Moses? This theory does not
withstand the evidence.
Objection:
You see? Religions are built one upon each other, borrowing here, showing
a bit of originality there. Borrowing there, stealing wholesale elsewhere...the idealogy behind the conception of Christ is borrowed in part from Egyptian myth, Isis, Osiris and their son, Horus, supposedly conceived on Isis after Osiris was dead by Osiris's spirit...The day of Christ birth was borrowed from the Mithraic
calender...on that Day Mithras generally is said to have had a special bull sacrificed....interesting, since Christ got sacrificed in the end...another connection. The concepts of drinking and eating of the body of christ in the form of the wafer and wine is derived from Dionysus. So, how then, can we claim that there is a God who is the God of Christians and Jews and all that? It's a bit ridiculous to presuppose we can ever know the answer.
Like literature religions are written by men, and they borrow ideas as much as authors do. The crude religious base of the Jews was enhanced by their sojourn in Egypt and in Babylon, where the style of Jewish holy stories changed greatly...
Dave:
Gosh, the baloney detectors are going way off the scales! Our friend committed a glaring logical fallacy called, “if A comes after B, A must be caused by B”
The fallacy is: Just because something is “before” Christianity, it must therefore be the “cause” of Christianity. It is like claiming that the religious use of incense among Chinese must be borrowed/caused by Moses because he instituted its usage much earlier.
The concepts of atonement sacrifice and communion (through eating of bread and wine) have already existed within the Judaeo-Christian tradition since the inception of the Passover. There, the germinal seed was planted as foreshadows that culminate in the Christian faith in a harmonious scheme of progressive revelation. Our friend strangely ignored these facts in his quest to escape Deo-phobia.
How was the unique concept of Christ’s birth as God Incarnate could be historically linked to the birth of Horus is beyond me. Osiris, a god that died, and Isis conceived Horus, another finite god can’t vaguely resemble the lofty doctrine of Incarnation. Jesus the eternal Logos did not come into existence in the womb of Mary. He is by definition Self-existent. Again, Egyptian deities including the “sun-god” were judged by the plagues of Yahweh in Exodus. These pagan deities are so repugnant to the Jewish minds in Jesus time that they can’t accept it, much less plagiarize it.
Maybe our friend misses the point and confused the common images of Isis cradling Horus in her arms with the Catholic church images of Mary cradling Jesus. Perhaps he also confused pseudo-Dionysius’ writings that tried to smuggle neo-Platonism into Christianity centuries after true Christianity was revealed to mankind. Maybe he is
thinking about the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. The same confusion is seen when he states that the date of Christmas is derived from the Persian Sun-God festival. In any case, he would present a more credible case if he gives evidence not
mere assertions. Then, we don’t have to second-guess his arguments.
But our agnostic friend is attacking a straw man. The date of Christmas, the images of Mary/baby Jesus and transubstantiation were never part of essential Christianity taught by Jesus and his apostles in the New Testament. It may be easily explained as later developments made by the Church after the Canon of Scripture is given. These developments can be interpreted as either:
1) The Church departing from scriptural, true Christianity through syncretism
OR
2) The Church redeeming a pagan festival/practice and transformed it into a glorious celebration of Christian faith instead.
In any case, this argument does nothing to prove that the teachings of Christ and his apostles (which formed New Testament) were derived from Egyptian sources. It is stretching the imagination way beyond breaking point.
Sometimes, the word “borrow” needs to be clarified. When Paul preached Christianity, he may quote and affirm the truth that is contained in pagan poems. But that doesn’t mean he is plagiarizing. To give people the real thing, you need to establish some
common ground with them. A good place to start is to affirm the similarities contained in the counterfeit. Then, you can move on and discuss the differences. To
expose the counterfeit, you don’t need to reject everything it teaches because it may contain elements of truth.
Objection:
(The Christian faith did it very often, as did the Moslems, Jews, everyone) IF there is a god, he is not a He. He is an It. A force that drives the universe onwards, but has no psyche, no human thoughts. It's pure arrogant to assume that we're made in his image. Why not horses? Why not hte Dinosaurs? Because we humans have our vanity. We want to know we're special, the chosen ones. We want to believe that we
can be like God, be beloved of God. It warms the cold empty spaces of our ignorance.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Dave:
From the looks of things, your friend is indulging in pantheism not agnosticism. Before you show him the difference between Christ and the rest of the gods or the reliability of the Bible, let's try to pinpoint his worldview.
Pantheism can never explain why personal beings come into existence. A personal effect must have a Personal Cause. An impersonal IT can never cause personal sentient beings. Look around you… I came from Sunway Pyramid and saw many couples walking in each other’s arms, Christian or non-Christian, it doesn’t matter but one thing they have in common – when they look into each other’s eyes or talk to each other, they know a personal relationship is going on. They do not stop and think: “Is she really personal or is it merely an illusory IT manifesting Itself as my girlfriend?”
Whatever that force is, it's a convenient invention that is irrelevant on our lifestyle or conscious because only a personal being can be rational, moral, holy and hold us accountable for the way we live our lives.... Isn't the force a nice lil' escape hatch from Deophobia? (fear of God) Nothing more, nothing less.
Agnosticism is a glamorous way of saying “I do not know” whether there is God or not. Some agnostics today seem to think, “I don’t know so there must be no God”.
But if you really don’t know, you should find out! (through some tests of truth.) It’s no excuse to retreat back to hard-core atheism.
Finally when I look at an endangered Siberian tiger, I think of how I can preserve this species from extinction. But when the tiger looks at me, it only thinks of lunch! It doesn’t stop and think if it should thank me for my concern and effort. Now, that’s a BIG difference! He calls it “arrogance” but I call it realism.
Comments