Thursday, October 02, 2008

The So/un of God, part 2

Continuing on past the intro...

The major theme of the 1st part of the movie is that, since there exist all these similarities between Christianity and these other pagan religions, obviously Christianity is wrong.
-I would expect to see similarities exist in other religions, actually, b/c God is the true God and people are corrupt and want to twist the truth. God has put this info into history and people's hearts. God has put His existence and some of His characteristics, as well as a longing for the spiritual and eternal in people's hearts. That other religions stick close to the truth though add their own ingredients into the mix is a staple of demonic religion throughout time, all the way down to its modern counterparts in the LDS church and Jehovah's Witnesses, to name only 2.

Minute 17:35 Horus was crucified. Horus was executed in a way that the Roman Empire (which wouldn't come into existence for hundreds of years) would invent? Wow! Whoda thunk it?

Minute 18-19 all of these 'near-misses' - in my experience these similarities are very overstated.
Plus, these claims of "resurrections" are really far off the truth.
Here's just one example.

19:00 - "why these attributes" of these Saviors? Again, maybe b/c they were spinoffs of the truth? What is the argument for taking one view over the other? We are not given one.

19:15 - they call Jesus another one of these "sun" gods. Evidence? All we get are a few references to Jesus as the light of the world, etc. That's supposed to be impressive? Why not call Jesus one of the "food gods"? He talked about being bread, the Eucharist, all that stuff.

In between somewhere, the Magi go west to find the birthplace of 'the Sun'. Um, OK. Evidence? There isn't any in the biblical text. Maybe the Zeitguys found the until-now lost writings of the Magi who visited Jesus. But they didn't publish them. Or maybe they're just making stuff up.

21:10 - Wow - Virgo and Bethlehem are coincidental. THEREFORE, Bethlehem is Virgo. Please.

22:00 - These guys really believe that Christ was actually born on Dec 25? The best hypothesis I've heard is in the middle of September.

22:25 - At most this would mean early coincidences or even collusion with pagan symbolism by 4th century Christians when they set the Xmas date to 25 Dec, but Jesus probably wasn't born then. Besides, why should I assume that God wouldn't put out clues in the natural world that show forth His glory and coolness?
Like Louie Giglio's Laminin. This makes no case for either position, but it's a cool thing if you're a Christian. We give glory to God b/c it shows His creativity and reminds us of the Savior's grand sacrifice.


22:50 - Spring equinox, easter. The actual Resurrection, however, is not according to equinox. Christ's Passion and Death were according to OT Passover, and His resurrection according to the Feast of the Firstfruits. The Zeitguys are guilty of imposing their thesis upon the existing historical record and statements of Jesus and the NT.


23:10 - Naked assertion that the apostles are the 12 signs of the zodiac. This is one of the things that made me laugh out loud.
Then he goes on to score points against his own position - "the number 12 is found throughout the Bible". Exactly - God digs the #12. Why should I grant that it's the zodiac rather than the longstanding OT tradition that these 12 are continually appearing?

23:50 - Pagan adaptation of the cross of the zodiac.
Might be, but so what? Does this guy think Jesus didn't exist and didn't actually die on a CROSS? Against all scholarship, even the freaky-liberal Jesus Seminar?

24 and throughout - He keeps punning "Son" and "Sun" of God. As if the same homophone exists in any other language.

24:40 - crown of thorns, or sun rays. He never argues for this, just throws it in there as if it should mean sthg to anyone. More disingenuousness. It's impossible to take this kind of garbage seriously.

26:55 - Moses is mad at the bull worship b/c it's the age of Taurus. OK, I'm with you so far, fine.
Moses represents the Age of the Ram. This is why Jews blow the ram's horn, the shofar. Um, riiiiiigggghhhhht. Note that there's JUST NO WAY this could be an actual historical narrative. It's clearly allegory, and the Zeitguys have the correct interpretation! Somehow...

27:20 - Age of Pisces. "Fish symbolism is important in the NT". I knew it was coming.
Geez.

27:57 - Start of the age of Pisces - 1 AD
Zeitgeist (correctly) places Jesus' birth at 4 BC.
Wouldn't it be a little more above-board to say, "Well, they actually are off by 5 years, but it's dang close, right people?" The disingenousness continues.


28:10 - Discourse on Lk 22:10
Note again the operating assumption that this is not a historical narrative. Where is the contextual evidence that this is allegorical? He never argues for this, just makes naked assertions.


29:05 - "the cartoonish depictions in Revelation aside..."
-Apparently he's unaware of and has no respect for the general genre of apocalyptic literature, and we should of course all share his lame, unnecessarily nasty and dismissive, willfully ignorant attitude about such things.
-It's as if he has no idea that metaphor and imagery are supposed in many cases to be hyperbolic and outlandish, in order to make points and speak in 'code' that is easily broken by insiders - the churches who would read the book
-And he never makes a case for WHY we should set aside Revelation.

29:06 - Says the main source of end times talk is Matt 28:20
Um no - Daniel, Ezekiel, Malachi, Matt 24-25 Olivet Discourse, 1 Thess, 2 Peter, all have more (sometimes much more) substantial end times talk than this.
And of course, why even bother exegeting Revelation? That's for loonies! Let's stick with an easy target, one sentence that we can more easily twist w/o any contextual clues to give away the fact that we're engaging in sophistry.

29:48 - "Tell that to the 100 million people in USA who believe the end of the world is coming."
Oh, that's unique to Christians? Nobody among Acharya S's friends thinks we're going to destroy the planet and thus end the "world"?

31:00 - "Story of the Great Flood is ubiquitous throughout the world"
-Yes, b/c it happened.
-And again, why wouldn't it bolster my position that it's being copied in other versions? My position is that my religion is based in real historical events.


Anyway, it should be clear that this movie is an empty shell. I have no specialised academic training, and the holes are already glaring.
Here are the other links I mentioned:
-Ben Witherington
-JP Holding
-JP Holding on the copycat theory
-JB_Fidei_Defensor
-Some guy with a great deal of relevant articles

8 comments:

Lucian said...

Hi! I thought You might be interested in these:

youtube.com/watch?v=czskQiDcNgk

youtube.com/watch?v=LLkrv4vDeOs

youtube.com/watch?v=wVCk_a61RhI

Rhology said...

Fairly irrelevant, since I'm not a 5-pt Calvinist. But the 2nd vid does speak against one of my convictions. I might watch it sometime. Thanks.

The Jolly Nihilist said...

I'm curious, Rhology...

You're highly dismissive of atheist intellectuals, such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris. Your objection to these individuals seems not simply to be their atheism, which you believe to be a wrongheaded position, but their arguments and style of argumentation. That is, you seem to believe them to be poor ambassadors of their viewpoint.

Who do you see as being a good, robust ambassador of atheism? Who makes the most convincing case (as convincing as a case can be when you personally are sitting on the other side, that is)?

Like, for example, though I am a supporter of the Democratic party, I admit the intellectual rigor and persuasiveness of George Will and Charles Krauthammer. They are formidable ambassadors of their (deeply flawed) position.

Rhology said...

Who do you see as being a good, robust ambassador of atheism?

Lisa Simpson.

Rhology said...

Hey now, let's play nice.

Although I *will* have to think about that one...

Rhology said...

I'm not quite dismissive of atheist intellectuals in my recollection, but I don't count Dawkins, Harris, or Hitchens as intellectuals at all. "Intellectual" should mean sthg meaningful.

I'd call Dawkins an intellectual when it comes to biology. I'm not sure about Harris. Hitchens - I'd call him a public intellectual on politics, I guess. But these 3 men's arguments against theism are so pitiful that I just can't use that term, lest it be emptied of its meaning.

I put your own arguments and reasoning abilities (and those of Dr Funkenstein, for example) way above those guys' any day, on this topic. Part of the problem is that these 3 men have stepped outside of their expertise to pontificate on matters about which they are manifestly unprepared to deal.

So... let's see... Dennett I'd put a cut above those 3. I've heard good things about Drange, and a few good things about Martin, though less.

I'm probably the wrong person to ask, though, if you're interested in someone who is well-read. I'm not particularly well-read - don't have time!

Rhology said...

Fun stuff - the Atheist Experience weighs in.

Rhology said...

A new article on it at TrueFreeThinker.