View Single Post
Old February 6th, 2006, 12:02 PM   #7
randilover
SAC'D
 
randilover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Outside Philadelphia
Posts: 1,183
randilover is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Why I am Agnostic... paper from 1896

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
Very interesting essay. While I haven't independantly verified his claims, if they are true, I'd love to hear a Christian response to the similarities between Jesus and the multitude of other god stories. Other similarities, that if true, seem damning are that the cross was previously a symbol of life and immortality, and the paganist eucharist.
I don’t know how many of them are true. But C.S. Lewis had a great write up on this. The basic idea is just because ideas are similar, it does not mean that the preceding point was the original, or ideal. Just because Christianity has themes that have been in other religions, does not discount the truth to Christianity being the fulfillment of them. Lewis gives the example of (and I may be getting these stories wrong, but I do not know my classical literature like he did) Aristotle writing about Socrates. Aristotle paints the picture of an innocent man (Socrates) charged wrongly and sentenced to death, which he bows his head to. Now, it takes on the appearance of Christianity mimicking this story, however, it may just be that written into history is the theme of an innocent having to die unjustly. Christianity is the fulfillment of those "good dreams" as Lewis called them, those dreams about a resurrection from the dead, of a God becoming man, etc., based on the fact that they are truths that could be drawn logically by most civilizations.

Does that makes sense? I’m really butchering the argument, but in his book Reflections on the Psalms he writes about it. Good book. Check it out if you like reading. You won’t be let down.

You kind of get a modern example with cubism in Europe in the last century. Both Picasso and Braque both developed it, but neither ever had any contact with the other. It was due to the direction that art was taking that those schools of thought reached the same conclusion. Make sense?

Not to mention, Christianity has its roots in history, not in myth like many other religions do. Ingersoll seems to neglect that point.

As for the cross, the Roman invented the cross and it is truly the most agonizing form of punishment probably ever invented. It in no way what so ever took on a note of peace or life or immortality for Christ or anyone of his contemporaries. It wasn’t until after the generation of those who last saw a crucifiction that you see it take on the romantic feel of some kind of icon. When Christ said, "Take up your cross and follow me," he was not being vague. Those who heard him knew he calling them to something hard, dying to self. It’d be like you lifting up the electric chair as a call to peace. Ingersoll seems to have lost that point through his lens of the 19th century.

randilover is offline   Reply With Quote