Western Civilization and Protestants

[yankee_doodle]

Brainwashed? I once consider leaving the Catholic Church. Apparently, I have a choose to decide to leave the Catholic Church or not. If I was anything near brainwashed, I would not have some doubts. My affirmation of my faith is through prayer and reasoning.

You’re describing the classical definition of brainwashing (or maybe more accurately indoctrination)

No historian who studies Christianity will agree with your argument that Christianity is pagan in origin.

there’s an entire field called comparative mythology. Here’s a place for you to start studying:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Christ_in_comparative_mythology

also:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_mythology

If you’re really interested (and you truly have an open mind as you say) then do some studying and come back to me (but make it tomorrow, I’m ready to hit the Outback & then maybe catch a flick).

 

[yankee_doodle]

Nope. I found it in the Essential Catholic Survival Guide written by Catholic Answers Staff. Bad conclusion on your part.

OK … whatever (wasn’t a serious conclusion on my part – just trying to push buttons & see where it goes).

 

[Mannyfit75]

OK … whatever (wasn’t a serious conclusion on my part – just trying to push buttons & see where it goes).

the whole pagan copycat idea commits the genetic fallacy, the error of trying to disprove a belief by tracing it to its source. For example, Kekulé thought up the (correct) ring structure of the benzene molecule after a dream of a snake grasping its tail; chemists don’t need to worry about correct snake biology or dream psychology to analyse benzene! Similarly, the rightness or wrongness of these celebrations is independent of the truth or falsity of their alleged parallels. Jesus’s death and Resurrection are well attested facts of history. The Impossible Faith by J.P. Holding demonstrates 17 reasons why Christianity could not have survived in the ancient world unless it had indisputable evidence of the resurrection of Jesus. So the copycat ideas are red herrings, since even if they had some basis, they could not invalidate real history.

 

[Mannyfit75]

You’re describing the classical definition of brainwashing (or maybe more accurately indoctrination)

I doubt it. I tell you my friend I am not brainwash. I can easily conclude that you are brainwash by the idea that Christianity in general is paganism. Second, in the past, I have not practiced my faith for over 4 yrs and only started practicing my faith 2 yrs ago.

there’s an entire field called comparative mythology. Here’s a place for you to start studying:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Christ_in_comparative_mythology

also:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_mythology

If you’re really interested (and you truly have an open mind as you say) then do some studying and come back to me (but make it tomorrow, I’m ready to hit the Outback & then maybe catch a flick).

Do you expect me to read a bunch of information from Wikipedia. A source site that can change. I hardly think Professsors in any university would recommend someone to use Wiki for their essays about Christian history.

I have find these charges to be false and baseless argument just to discredit Christianity.

 

[Mannyfit75]

The pagan origins of Jesus Christ and Christianity is refuted in this website.

Here is one prime example.

thedevineevidence.com/jesus_similarities.html

According to Egyptian mythology, Horus was originally believed to be the son of Ra and Hathor and the
husband/brother of Isis. Later he was seen as the son of Osiris and Isis once Hathor and Isis were merged into
one being. Horus was considered the sky, sun, and moon god represented by a man with the head of falcon.

VIRGIN BIRTH There are two separate birth accounts in regards to Horus (neither depict a virgin birth):
Version 1: Hathor, the motherly personification of the milky way, is said to have conceived Horus but we are
told her husband, Ra, was an Egyptian sun god. Hathor (a sky goddess) was represented by the cow whose milk
brought forth the milky way. By the will of her husband Ra, she gave birth to Horus:

“I, Hathor of Thebes, mistress of the goddesses, to grant to him a coming forth into the presence [of the god]…
Hathor of Thebes, who was incarnate in the form of a cow and a woman.” Source and Source

Version 2: When we examine Isis as Horus’ mother, we are told Isis was not a virgin, but the widow of Osiris.
Isis practices magic to raise Osiris from the dead so she can bear a son that would avenge his death. Isis then
becomes pregnant from the sperm of her deceased husband. Again, no virgin birth occurs:

“[Isis] made to rise up the helpless members [penis] of him whose heart was at rest, she drew from him his
essence [sperm], and she made therefrom an heir [Horus].” Source and Source

THE FATHER AND SON UNITY Critics suggest the Christian trinity was adapted from the notion of Osiris, Ra,
and Horus being one god in essence. Because Horus was born after the death of Osiris, it came to be believed he
was the resurrection, or reincarnation, of Osiris:

“He avengeth thee in his name of 'Horus, the son who avenged his father.” Source

Throughout the centuries, the Egyptians eventually considered Osiris and Horus as one and the same. However,
this son-as-the-father comparison more closely resembles the metamorphosis of Hathor into Isis than it does the
Christian trinity. We see Horus first as the son of Ra, then being the equivalent of Ra, then Ra finally becoming
just as aspect of Horus. Similar to Hathor and Isis, we simply see a merger of one being into another. In
Egyptian mythology, each god had a distinct beginning by being conceived from other gods. In Christian
theology, God and Jesus always existed as one and the same, neither having a beginning or an end. Jesus’ birth
did not represent His creation- only His advent in human from. Furthermore, the father-son concept was not
created by first-century Christians. Prophecies in the Old Testament referred to the future Messiah as the Son of
God up to 1,000 years before the birth of Christ. I Chronicles 17:13-14

 

[Mannyfit75]

CRUCIFIXION AND RESURRECTION Horus is never said to have been crucified, nevertheless to have died.
The only connection we can make to Horus being resurrected is if we consider the eventual merger of Horus and
Osiris. But such a theory results in an catch 22, apparently noticed by the Egyptians as they later altered their
beliefs to fix the contradictions. In the Egyptian tale, Osiris is either dismembered by Set in battle or sealed in a
chest and drowned in the Nile. Isis then pieces Osiris’ body back together and resurrects Osiris to conceive an
heir that will avenge Osiris’ death (although technically Osiris is never actually resurrected as he is forbidden to
return to the world of the living). Source and Source

“[Set] brought a shapely and decorated chest, which he had caused to be made according to the measurements
of the king’s body… Set proclaimed that he would gift the chest unto him whose body fitted its proportions with
exactness… Then Osiris came forward. He lay down within the chest, and he filled it in every part. But dearly was
his triumph won in that dark hour which was his doom. Ere he could raise his body, the evil followers of Set
sprang suddenly forward and shut down the lid, which they nailed fast and soldered with lead. So the richly
decorated chest became the coffin of the good king Osiris, from whom departed the breath of life.” Source

BORN ON THE 25TH OF DECEMBER Horus’ birth was actually celebrated during the month of Khoiak,
(October/November). Though some critics claim Horus was born during the winter solstice, this shows more of a
relationship to other pagan religions which considered the solstices sacred.

TWELVE DISCIPLES Superficially this similarity seems accurate until we see Horus’ “disciples” were not disciples
at all- they were the twelve signs of the zodiac which became associated with Horus, a sky god. However
Jesus’ disciples were actual men who lived and died, whose writings exist to this day, and whose lives are
recorded by historians. Because Horus’ “disciples” were merely signs of the zodiac, they never taught his
philosophy or spread his teachings. The fact that there are twelve signs of the zodiac (twelve months) as
compared to Jesus’ twelve apostles is an insignificant coincidence.

MOUNTAINTOP ENCOUNTER Critics point out the similarity of both Jesus and Horus having an encounter on a
mountaintop with their enemies. Instead of dissecting this piece by piece, I will simply give each version of
events and let the reader observe the (obvious) differences:
Jesus: After Jesus completes His fast in the wilderness, Satan tries to tempt Jesus by offering Him all the
kingdoms of the world if Jesus agrees to worship him, but Jesus refuses. Matthew 4:1-11
Horus: During battle, Horus rips off one of Set’s testicles while Set (sometimes called Seth) gorges out Horus’
eye. Set later tries to prove his dominance by initiating intercourse with Horus. Horus catches Set’s semen in his
hand and throws it into a nearby river. Horus later masturbates and spreads his semen over lettuce which Set
consumes. Both Set and Horus stand before the gods to proclaim their right to rule Egypt. When Set claims
dominance over Horus, his semen is found in the river. When Horus’ dominance is considered, his semen is found
within Set so Horus is granted rule over Egypt:

“O that castrated one! O this man! O he who hurries him who hurries, among you two! These- this first
corporation of the company of the justified… Was born before the eye of Horus was plucked out, before the
testicles of Set were torn away.” Source “It is the day on which Horus fought with Set, who cast filth in the face of
Horus, and when Horus destroyed the powers of Set.” Source “Then [Set] appeared before the divine council and
claimed the throne. But the gods gave judgment that Horus was the rightful king, and he established his power in
the land of Egypt, and became a wise and strong ruler like to his father Osiris.” Source

Skeptic Interjection: Does the similarity between the names Set and Satan hold any significance?
Answer: Set’s variant names include Seth, Sutekh, Setesh, and Seteh. The root Set is usually considered to
translate into dazzler or stable pillar. The different suffixes of his name add the meanings majestic, supreme, and
desert. The name Satan comes from the Semitic root Stn which represents opposition. Before his fall, Satan’s
original name was Lucifer, or angel of light. The term Satan represents a general adversary, hence his accepted
identity. Though both names consist of an S and a T, their meanings have nothing in common. The spellings are
only a result of the original root words which represent their character. Source and Source

SIMILAR TITLES Critics allege Horus held similar titles used to identify Jesus such as Messiah, Savior, Son of
Man, Good Shepherd, Lamb of God, The Way, the Truth, the Light, and Living Word. However I can find no
evidence of any of these names ever being used in reference to Horus. I am especially suspicious of the word
Messiah since it is Hebrew in origin.

IN CONCLUSION We can see the differences between Jesus and Horus far outweigh any superficial correlations

 

[Mannyfit75]

According to Egyptian mythology, Horus was originally believed to be the son of Ra and Hathor and the
husband/brother of Isis. Later he was seen as the son of Osiris and Isis once Hathor and Isis were merged into
one being. Horus was considered the sky, sun, and moon god represented by a man with the head of falcon.

Zoroaster was an Iranian prophet and founder of Zoroastrianism. Though the dating of his life is heatedly
debated, he is believed to be a contemporary of King Hystaspes, making a 6th century B.C. dating most likely.
Evidence is shown throughout the Avesta which mentions personal conversations between the two. One example
is as follows:

“‘I am a pious man, who speaks words of blessing,’ thus said Zarathushtra to the young king Vishtaspa 'O young
king Vishtaspa! *” Vishtasp Yasht, 1

VIRGIN BIRTH There is no mention of a virgin birth in any Zoroastrian text nor do the events of Zoroaster’s
birth seem to have any relation to Jesus. The actual accounts regarding his birth are given below:

Version 1: Zoroaster’s parents (Dukdaub and Pourushasp) were a normal married couple who conceive a son
through natural means. Zoroaster is described as laughing when he is born as well as having a visible, glowing
aura about him:

“[Zoroaster] had come into the posterity…who are Pourushasp, his father, and Dukdaub who is his mother. And
also while he is being born and for the duration of life, he produced a radiance, glow, and brilliance from the
place of his own abode…” Denkard, Bk 5 2:1-2

Version 2: In a later text, an embellishment is added by Zoroastrian followers. We are told Ahura Mazda (the
main deity of Zoroastrianism) implants the soul of Zoroaster into the sacred Haoma plant and through the plant’s
milk Zoroaster is born.

TEMPTED IN THE WILDERNESS Zoroaster is also said to have been tempted by an evil spirit to renounce his
faith with the promise of receiving power over the nations. However, this story is found in the Vendidad, the
Zoroastrian text which lists the laws regarding demons, penned sometime between 250 - 650 A.D. (centuries
after the life of Jesus):

“Again to him said the Maker of the evil world, Angra Mainyu: ‘Do not destroy my creatures, O holy
Zarathushtra… Renounce the good Religion of the worshippers of Mazda, and thou shalt gain such a boon as…the
ruler of the nations.’” Vendidad Fargad 19:6

SEED OF A WOMAN The Christian Old Testament refers to the savior of mankind being born of a woman. Critics
claim this concept was stolen from Zoroaster whose name means seed of the woman. Apparently no one
investigated this claim because the name is an ancient Iranian compound of zareta (old, feeble) and ustra
(camel). His original Persian name Zarathushtra (Zoroaster is the Greek/English translation) literally translates as
owner of old feeble camels. Source and Source Zoroaster was also allegedly called The Word Made Flesh and
The Living Word but no such references exist.

MINISTRY BEGAN AT 30 Like Jesus, Zoroaster was believed to begin his teachings at the age of 30. Though
Zoroaster technically came out of seclusion at the age of 30 to begin his teachings, he was shunned and ignored
for 12 years until his religion was accepted by King Vishtaspa. Jesus, on the other hand, attracted followers
instantly. Zoroaster was believed to be killed around the age of 77 while Jesus was killed at the age of 33.
Furthermore this fact about Zoroaster is not mentioned until later texts dated around 225 A.D. (almost 200 years
after Christianity had already been in circulation).

EUCHARIST Though critics claim the concept of a bread-wine communion originated with Zoroaster, no such
celebration exists. Though priests accepted sacrifices of meat, flowers, milk, bread, fruit, and sacred water,
there was no symbolic communion performed by Zoroastrian followers other than drinking the juice from the
sacred Haoma plant (but this did not hold the body-blood significance of the Christian Eucharist). Source

RELIGIOUS TEACHINGS Critics point out the similarities between the basic belief structure of Zoroastrianism
and Christianity. Superficially, there are many correlations between the two until they are further examined:

Both teach a spiritual battle between good and evil. True, but this is true for almost all religions. The chief
god of Zoroastrianism is Ahura Mazda while the chief God of the Judeo-Christian belief is Yahweh. The
arch enemy of Zoroastrianism is Angra Mainyu whereas in Christianity he is known as Satan.
Zoroastrianism also teaches the dualism of both figures whereas Christianity teaches the subordination of
Satan to God.

Salvation. Zoroastrianism teaches all men will be judged according to their works at the final judgment.
Christianity teaches men are judged according to their acceptance of Christ.

Judgment. Zoroastrianism teaches all men are eventually saved. Christianity teaches the fate of the sinful
is eternal.

Monotheism. Zoroaster originally taught the concept of one god but Zoroastrian priests, in order to make
the religion more enticing, later added several other deities.

Resurrection of all men. Zoroastrian teaches the eventual resurrection of all humans at the end of the
age. Christianity also teaches this, but this for the judgment of souls and the reign of the righteous in the
millennial kingdom.

HE WAS SLAIN FOR MANKIND’S SINS It is believed Zoroaster was killed at the age of 77 after being
slaughtered on one of his temple altars by Turanian invaders (although this is debated). Regardless, his death
was never believed to atone for sin or to hold any other spiritual purpose.

IN CONCLUSION Most Zoroastrian texts were written centuries after the Christian texts. The accounts of
Zoroaster’s life that existed before the time of Jesus (the Gathas) consist mainly of vague poetic writings which
say very little about his life. The incredible acts later associated with him were added by Zoroastrian priests
wishing to make the religion more appealing.*

 

[Mannyfit75]

From the website. The author makes an important note and see how the idea of “similar to this there…” is fallacies.

He writes:

**Though other authors go to great lengths investigating the claims listed in this discussion, my mission
was to provide a brief synopsis that would help the reader distinguish between fact and fiction. Once
the reader gets to the actual sources they will wonder how such claims even originated. If any of the
critics cared to look into the facts for themselves before contributing to the propaganda, they would
have been able to dismiss such claims immediately.

Certain coincidences between Jesus and other figures can only be expected due to sheer probability.
As a modern example, let’s look at some of the coincidences between Kennedy and Lincoln as taken
from here:

Lincoln was elected to congress in 1846. Kennedy was elected to congress 1946 (Whereas Kennedy had
instant success in legislative and executive politics, Lincoln suffered many defeats).

Lincoln was elected president in 1860. Kennedy was elected president in 1960. (Considering presidential
elections were held every four years, this only brings the odds to 1 in 20).

The names Lincoln and Kennedy both contain seven letters (Until we consider their first names which
destroys this parallel).

Both were presidents during times of major changes in civil rights (So were their successors and several
other presidents).

Both presidents were killed by an assassin’s bullet on a Friday (This holds only a one is seven chance).

Both assassins were known by three names consisting of 15 letters (Each man was not always referred to
by three names. This mainly surfaced after they gained notoriety following the assassinations).

Both assassins were killed before their trials (Booth was killed when captured. Oswald was killed days
after his arrest).

Both men were succeeded by men with the surname of Johnson (Considering the popularity of the
surname Johnson among white males, it would be no more of a coincidence by comparing two Muslim men
who share the name Mohammed.)

These coincidences may seem startling at first but really aren’t that impressive once dissected. But in 2000
years, will future civilizations look back on the “ancient Americans” and accuse Kennedy of being a figment of our
imaginations? Will it seem we were so intrigued with Abraham Lincoln that we invented a character to mirror a
great American hero? The intelligent mind who is willing to do the research and look for the truth behind such
propaganda can easily find it.**

Imagine 1,000 yrs from now claimed the JFK wasn’t a real person and that his death was copy cat of Lincoln’s Assassination. That is how the pagan origin fallacies fall apart. You can use the argument “Similar to this therefore this is…” but really. This theory is based on poor scholarship.

 

[yankee_doodle]

I doubt it. I tell you my friend I am not brainwash. I can easily conclude that you are brainwash by the idea that Christianity in general is paganism. Second, in the past, I have not practiced my faith for over 4 yrs and only started practicing my faith 2 yrs ago.

funny, I don’t generally define Christianity as paganism.

Do you expect me to read a bunch of information from Wikipedia. A source site that can change. I hardly think Professsors in any university would recommend someone to use Wiki for their essays about Christian history.

I have find these charges to be false and baseless argument just to discredit Christianity.

I agree Wiki isn’t worth much. It’s a good starting place though (and its footnotes is where you can find a treasure trove of information). Anyway, I don’t expect you to seriously consider any credible objection to your mythological beliefs, because I do believe you’re brainwashed.

Take the example you used (your authors analogy between Kennedy and Lincoln). That’s just an absurd analogy. Previous pagan myths were along the lines of god-men who had to die for the salvation of their community (and so their community could eat). Various virgin birth motifs, and numerous other remarkable parallels. This isn’t like a broad comparison between American Presidents, or inverting the years they served as President.

The other examples you use, of Horus and Zoroaster, aren’t even relied on in typical comparative mythology (concerning Jesus). There are some similarities, but less than often imagined. Like I said, the sources I cited offer a wealth of information on the subject, so do with it what you will.

 

[Mannyfit75]

funny, I don’t generally define Christianity as paganism.

I agree Wiki isn’t worth much. It’s a good starting place though (and its footnotes is where you can find a treasure trove of information). Anyway, I don’t expect you to seriously consider any credible objection to your mythological beliefs, because I do believe you’re brainwashed.

Take the example you used (your authors analogy between Kennedy and Lincoln). That’s just an absurd analogy. Previous pagan myths were along the lines of god-men who had to die for the salvation of their community (and so their community could eat). Various virgin birth motifs, and numerous other remarkable parallels. This isn’t like a broad comparison between American Presidents, or inverting the years they served as President.

The other examples you use, of Horus and Zoroaster, aren’t even relied on in typical comparative mythology (concerning Jesus). There are some similarities, but less than often imagined. Like I said, the sources I cited offer a wealth of information on the subject, so do with it what you will.

All I can say that source that you show me lacks any scholarship. Like I pointed in the previous thread, you cannot use the fallacies argument, “This is similar to this, therefore it must come from.” The ECF did not arrived at that conclusions. They affirmed that Jesus Christ lived, suffered, died, and rose from the dead.

Tha analogy about President Lincoln and JFK is a prime example why your “this is similar to this, therefore it must come from” is a fallacies argument. You made the same assertions that Christianity borrowed its ideas from paganism; which itself is a false statement. Now you see how absurd it is that someone would even claimed JFK did not exist on the bases that it originated with Lincoln.

Like I said before there is no proof that Christianity have its roots in Paganism. It’s rooted in Judaism period. And likewise, Judaism is not even rooted in paganism either and the claimed that Judaism borrowed its beliefs from the Egyptian is also a fallacies argument.

 

[Carlan]

Modern Western Civilization is due because of the Catholic Church. The Hospitals and Universities have their foundations in the Catholic Church… Read the Book that I recommend. Indeed there were democracies prior to Christianity.

We both know that in European history, that the Roman Empire was eventually taken over by Christianity. After the fall of Roman Empire, the Church had the big task of containing the pagans, and in time, they converted all of them to Christianity. Much of the development of the Western Civilization is due to the Catholic Church…

Thanks Manny, it is an excellent book, Shows just how much the Church actually gave to building Western civilization. Enlightening. Carlan

The recomended book is: How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization.
Thomas E. Woods, jr., Ph,D.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Thanks Manny, it is an excellent book, Shows just how much the Church actually gave to building Western civilization. Enlightening. Carlan

The recomended book is: How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization.
Thomas E. Woods, jr., Ph,D.

A much more ACCURATE and thoughtful, intelligent title would have been “How the Catholic Church HELPED Build Western Civilization.” That way we could give the folks who actually built the foundation and most of the pillars the credit like the Ancient Greeks, the Romans, Alexander, the people of antiquity, etc. The Roman Catholic Church inherited much to work with. The title of Woods’ book makes it sound like they did it exclusively. Poppy cock.

 

[Carlan]

A much more ACCURATE and thoughtful, intelligent title would have been “How the Catholic Church HELPED Build Western Civilization.” That way we could give the folks who actually built the foundation and most of the pillars the credit like the Ancient Greeks, the Romans, Alexander, the people of antiquity, etc. The Roman Catholic Church inherited much to work with. The title of Woods’ book makes it sound like they did it exclusively. Poppy cock.

Well Gurneyhalleck, I am just the ordinary little old lady out here trying to continue in her efforts to improve her mind and with the help of Professor Thomas Woods I have done that good enough thank you. At this age in my life I am not interested in trying to keep up with the so called intellectuals.
I still recommend highly Professor Wood’s book in spite of your opinion of the title. G’night and God bless you, and I ask forgiveness for being somewhat cranky with you Carlan

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Well Gurneyhalleck, I am just the ordinary little old lady out here trying to continue in her efforts to improve her mind and with the help of Professor Thomas Woods I have done that good enough thank you. At this age in my life I am not interested in trying to keep up with the so called intellectuals.
I still recommend highly Professor Wood’s book in spite of your opinion of the title. G’night and God bless you, and I ask forgiveness for being somewhat cranky with you Carlan

Hi Carlan

You don’t sound ordinary and I’m sure you’re not an old lady. You’re only as young as you feel As a sixth grade teacher, my 34 years of age somedays feels like 84 LOL…so age is just a number lol

I don’t doubt the Woods book is a good one and I am gratified you find it intellectually stimulating. That’s great. I am just speaking along with the jist of this thread. My Catholic posters try and approach things from a vantage point that Catholicism almost single-handedly gave us all we have and I think it’s a bunch of hooey. Without Catholicism we wouldn’t have so many things but they were not the builders of Western Civilization as much as they framed the trusses and the roof on and paint and insulation on a building that the Greeks, Romans, and others had already put together. The Protestants did a great deal of addtions, not detriments, to our Civilization as well in the West. That’s a point to which many of us in here disagree. I like to read a wide body of literature, not just Catholic ones. I am reading Diarmid McCulloch’s book “Thomas Cranmer: A Life” and his other book, “The Reformation” right now and find them both awesome. I’m also reading some political books as well.

Enjoy the book from Woods and have a great evening.

 

[yankee_doodle]

All I can say that source that you show me lacks any scholarship. Like I pointed in the previous thread, you cannot use the fallacies argument, “This is similar to this, therefore it must come from.” The ECF did not arrived at that conclusions. They affirmed that Jesus Christ lived, suffered, died, and rose from the dead.

Tha analogy about President Lincoln and JFK is a prime example why your “this is similar to this, therefore it must come from” is a fallacies argument. You made the same assertions that Christianity borrowed its ideas from paganism; which itself is a false statement. Now you see how absurd it is that someone would even claimed JFK did not exist on the bases that it originated with Lincoln.

Like I said before there is no proof that Christianity have its roots in Paganism. It’s rooted in Judaism period. And likewise, Judaism is not even rooted in paganism either and the claimed that Judaism borrowed its beliefs from the Egyptian is also a fallacies argument.

I guess there’s a reason why a billion people gobble this stuff up huh? Religious indoctrination can be mesmerizing I guess.

Anyway, the early church fathers encountered these same objections; and their rebuttal says it all. Why would the greatest apologists in Christian history say something like these earlier mythologies were some sort of demonic imitation if the case I’m making wasn’t persuasive?

The whole premise of your logic is nonsensical and ignores the implications of the writings of your own church fathers.

Justin Martyr didn’t try something like your “fallacies” argument for a reason (and not because he was too stupid to come up with them, indeed Martyr was highly intelligent, I’ve read his letter & they were great pieces of work). He realized those earlier mythological stories were virtually identical to the Jesus narrative (therefore your sort of argument wasn’t reasonably available to him). So he invented a wild theory (even more absurd than your argument, but hey … it worked right). The point is we can gather a lot by Martyr’s choice of rebuttal. If there were only loose similarities (as I guess you imply) that would have been a far easier and much more plausible approach for Martyr (as opposed to the devil back in time theory).

Now that we’re more remote in time and familiarity with Hellenic mythology isn’t as intimate as it was during Martyr’s time, I guess you guys think you can invent new rebuttals to this same objection. Of course the problem is Justin Martyr and St. Irenaeus wrote down their rebuttals; and you guys kept the record (hey, thanks).

OK … moving on. You copied and pasted these arguments (probably from some apologetics web site, maybe this one) but by reading your words I don’t think you understand this issue, or formal logic very well (and some of your sentences aren’t exactly very intelligible). My advice, keep studying. I remember being an undergraduate and graduate student – I thought I knew it all too

 

[yankee_doodle]

A much more ACCURATE and thoughtful, intelligent title would have been “How the Catholic Church HELPED Build Western Civilization.” That way we could give the folks who actually built the foundation and most of the pillars the credit like the Ancient Greeks, the Romans, Alexander, the people of antiquity, etc. The Roman Catholic Church inherited much to work with. The title of Woods’ book makes it sound like they did it exclusively. Poppy cock.

I think it’s biggest contribution was its monasteries during the dark ages (I guess dark ages isn’t exactly in vogue anymore … but anyways). I think if those monasteries didn’t preserve knowledge, the fall of Rome would have had a more lasting devastating impact on Europe.

Of course there’s good arguments both ways. Certainly the virtual theocracy imposed probably was an obstructive force to economic progress. Yet, I think on balance we can say the CC made some contributions to western civilization (although I also think it’s exaggerated by some Catholics, but that’s natural I guess).

 

[Carlan]

If you do continue, cut out the anti-U.S. garbage or it’ll fall on deaf ears to be sure on this end

Mr Gurneyhalleck, that extremely rude reaction to Josie’s post was really not called for, If you read it again you will see that. Carlan

 

[yankee_doodle]

Modern Western Civilization is due because of the Catholic Church. The Hospitals and Universities have their foundations in the Catholic Church… Read the Book that I recommend. Indeed there were democracies prior to Christianity.

actually universities go back to non-western antiquity (China, India, and Persia). The University of Constantinople was the earliest western university to have many of the traits we associate with universities today (and it was secular). As a point of reference, the University of Bologna was founded over five centuries later.

Hospitals go back to the ancient Egyptians.

We both know that in European history, that the Roman Empire was eventually taken over by Christianity.

well, German barbarians first, then yes the church.

After the fall of Roman Empire, the Church had the big task of containing the pagans, and in time, they converted all of them to Christianity.

or burned them alive

Much of the development of the Western Civilization is due to the Catholic Church…

some, but in the grand scheme of things more western development was in spite of the Catholic Church rather than because of it.

 

[Carlan]

Hi Carlan

You don’t sound ordinary and I’m sure you’re not an old lady. You’re only as young as you feel As a sixth grade teacher, my 34 years of age somedays feels like 84 LOL…so age is just a number lol

I don’t doubt the Woods book is a good one and I am gratified you find it intellectually stimulating. That’s great. I am just speaking along with the jist of this thread. My Catholic posters try and approach things from a vantage point that Catholicism almost single-handedly gave us all we have and I think it’s a bunch of hooey. Without Catholicism we wouldn’t have so many things but they were not the builders of Western Civilization as much as they framed the trusses and the roof on and paint and insulation on a building that the Greeks, Romans, and others had already put together. The Protestants did a great deal of addtions, not detriments, to our Civilization as well in the West. That’s a point to which many of us in here disagree. I like to read a wide body of literature, not just Catholic ones. I am reading Diarmid McCulloch’s book “Thomas Cranmer: A Life” and his other book, “The Reformation” right now and find them both awesome. I’m also reading some political books as well.

Enjoy the book from Woods and have a great evening.

Mr Gurnyhallick, I want to know how you come to know that I am 84years old? Carlan

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Mr Gurneyhalleck, that extremely rude reaction to Josie’s post was really not called for, If you read it again you will see that. Carlan

So much for the nice old lady routine LOL…Rude reaction? You have a pretty thin skin! Wowzers! I did read it again and I stand by what I said. I have no time for posts that attempt to demonize the U.S. and pick it apart. This country has done a myriad of wonderful things for the world despite its scars and blemishes. If you read the post to which I was replying, you’ll see that slavery and all sorts of social ills were brought up, the KKK, etc. that makes this country look like a bunch of ignorant, backwards hillbillies. I don’t like that and any American shouldn’t like it either. You notice sins of omission in the post to which I was replying, right? Catholics know all about sins of omission. Here’s an example: ABOLITIONISTS. The poster, Josie, whom I like a lot actually, talked about slavery and how the U.S. was one of the only countries that tolerated this garbage, and yet she completely left OUT abolitionists. The North was full of abolitionists dedicated to stopping slavery. And what’s more—they were largely PROTESTANT, many were Anglicans. So tell the complete story. It’s like these folks who try to trash Thomas Jefferson for being a deist or for having intimate relations with slaves. Give me a break. Or they try to claim Lincoln was homosexual, you name it. I just tire of it. So I have nothing here to which I should apologize? Sorry my post rang your chimes but shoot, we get into it a lot heavier in here than that? Come on now! lol

Also, Gurneyhalleck is just a screen name, nickname, comes from the sci-fi movie, “Dune.” No Mister in front necessary…